Can you recommend an ortho film for use in-camera?

[JG Motamedi]

I am looking for an 8x10 orthochromatic film to use for in-camera work. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I have used Freestyle's Arista Ortho in a variety of soups and have never been completely pleased with the results. After having finished box of Arista, I am ready to look for a new film. I see that Maco, Efke, and Ilford make Ortho films, has anybody used them in camera?

Suggestions are, as always, appreciated.

 

[Aggie]

The Arista stuff is hard to work with. The easiest but most expensive is Bergger. It is the rolls Royce of ortho films. Once you use it, you won't look back.

 

[Cliff]

How about X-ray film? I have gotten some interesting results developing it in regular film developer. I can send you a few sheets if you would like to try it.

 

[Jim Noel]

Ilford Ortho Plus is designed as an in camera film.
I always have a few holders of it when I am in the field.

 

[removed account4]

it stinks that tri - x ortho isn't made anymore.
that stuff was great.

 

[JG Motamedi]

It does suck that Tri-X ortho is gone. That is why I am leaning towards the Efke Ortho, because it is (according to John at J&C) pretty much identical to the Efke 25 Pan film.

The Bergger film (anybody know who makes it?), like the Ilford is very expensive. Is it worth it?

Doesn't X-Ray film have weird emulsions on both sides? That would make it pretty strange to use...

 

[Aggie]

JG If I have any left after my workshop, I will send you a couple of Bergger sheets. Bostick and Sullivan carry it. I agree Ilford is good stuff as well. I just absolutely love how easy Bergger handles and the toneal range you can get.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I am looking for an 8x10 orthochromatic film to use for in-camera work. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I have used Freestyle's Arista Ortho in a variety of soups and have never been completely pleased with the results. After having finished box of Arista, I am ready to look for a new film. I see that Maco, Efke, and Ilford make Ortho films, has anybody used them in camera?

Suggestions are, as always, appreciated.

I would check the spectral response curves of a couple of films before you make a choice. I have experimented with Ilford Ortho, its spectral reponse seems to stop in the middle of the green band. Partly because of this, it is very easy to handle in the darkroom, I have the correct dark red Ilford safelight screen but also find that a Paterson bright red safelight seems to be OK (at a distance of 1 meter or more).

Ilford Ortho is rated at ISO 80 in daylight, I have usually found EI 20 or so give me the negatives I like, the Ilford data sheet give development times only for high bar G indexes (0.62 and more), I found pictorial negatives need much less development. Because of the spectral response, only yellow or yellow/green filters are really feasible for camera exposures, filters that have a factor of 2x with pan film will probably need 4 to 5x with Ortho. Ultimately it's a matter of whether the film gives you a "look" that you like.

Regards,

David

PS: The PDF file on Ortho seems to have disappeared from the Ilford website. If you would like a copy, please PM me.

 

[George Papantoniou]

How about X-ray film? I have gotten some interesting results developing it in regular film developer. I can send you a few sheets if you would like to try it.

How do you rate it, and how do you develop it ? Can you find it in sizes that fit the film holders, or do you cut it ? It can be handled in red light, I guess, but can it also be handled in subdued white light (a low wattage bulb) ?

 

[JG Motamedi]

Thanks for the suggestions.

David, I have the Ilford PDF somewhere on my computer, thanks for the offer and suggestions.

Aggie, thanks for the kind offer. I currently out of "regular" mailing distance (Mexico), so I need to make a decision sight unseen (and untested). Not the best route...

best regards,

jason

 

[Gerald Koch]

By using a minus red filter (cyan) Wratten 44 or 44A on the camera any BW pan film delivers the same response as an ortho film. Of course this doesn't help if you want DBI convenience. But you do get the ortho look.

 

[Russ Young]

Hi Jason-

I've used the Ilford Ortho with great success. Like the previous poster, it seems to actually be ASA20 or so when developed in Rodinal 1:50, 12m, 68F. Can send you a scan. I find it behaves tonally like FP4. Good shootin' down there!

Russ

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for Ilford Ortho -- which can also stand extraordinary overexposure and is ideal for high contrast processing for alternative processes.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Chazzy]

In an email from J&C I was informed that the Efke 25 Ortho will be available in 11x14. If the price is reasonable, that will be very welcome news for those shooting 11x14 or making enlarged negatives, since the Bergger material is quite expensive, Ilford Ortho is non-existent in 11x14, and Agfa and Kodak no longer make their ortho copy films. I am crossing my fingers that the price will be good and that folks will not have to resort to special treatment of high contrast lith films (unless of course they prefer to do so).

 

[removed account4]

It does suck that Tri-X ortho is gone.

you're telling me!

i processed and printed many-a portrait on that with, and when my mentor passed away, the person who acquired her cameras, lenses, film paper &C &C, just dumped it all in the trash ( along with her other stuff he thought had no value ) ... olde tri-x and olde tri-x ortho, was the best ...

 

[Donald Miller]

By using a minus red filter (cyan) Wratten 44 or 44A on the camera any BW pan film delivers the same response as an ortho film. Of course this doesn't help if you want DBI convenience. But you do get the ortho look.

This is absolutely not correct. There is no way to filter a panchromatic film and duplicate the sensitometric characteristics of an orthochromatic material. One may diminish some of the red response...that reasoning makes the error that this will add orthochormatic response. That is simply not what occurs.

An example by illustration would be to take popcorn and suppose that by failing to add salt one adds sugar...we all know that does not happen.

 

[MichaelBriggs]

This is absolutely not correct. There is no way to filter a panchromatic film and duplicate the sensitometric characteristics of an orthochromatic material. One may diminish some of the red response...that reasoning makes the error that this will add orthochormatic response. That is simply not what occurs.

An example by illustration would be to take popcorn and suppose that by failing to add salt one adds sugar...we all know that does not happen.

Orthochromatic films typically have a spectral sensitivity extending from short wavelengths up to about 575 nm, panchromatic films up to 650 to 700 nm. In both cases the sensitivity curve isn't flat, with the response curve starting to fall before the long wavelength limit.

So a panchromatic film has a broader spectral response than then orthochromatic films. You could think of it as the manufacturer having added to the panchromatic film, compared to orthochromatic film, spectral response from approx. 575 to 650 nm. You could undo this "addition" by using a filter that absorbs light with wavelengths longer than 575 nm and create a system of pan film plus filter that has approximately the same spectral response as ortho film. Converting pan film to ortho is subtracting response, not adding response.

I can't make any sense out of the analogy to popcorn, salt and sugar.

 

[Donald Miller]

Orthochromatic films typically have a spectral sensitivity extending from short wavelengths up to about 575 nm, panchromatic films up to 650 to 700 nm. In both cases the sensitivity curve isn't flat, with the response curve starting to fall before the long wavelength limit.

So a panchromatic film has a broader spectral response than then orthochromatic films. You could think of it as the manufacturer having added to the panchromatic film, compared to orthochromatic film, spectral response from approx. 575 to 650 nm. You could undo this "addition" by using a filter that absorbs light with wavelengths longer than 575 nm and create a system of pan film plus filter that has approximately the same spectral response as ortho film. Converting pan film to ortho is subtracting response, not adding response.

I can't make any sense out of the analogy to popcorn, salt and sugar.

One can not duplicate an orthochromatic emulsion or in any way come close to it by filtering a panchromatic film. This has been discussed many, many times before and the reasoning is that you can not make something simply by removing somenthing else. That reasoning is not sound. Perhaps if you grasp the reasoning for this then you will grasp my earlier analogy.

 

[argus]

The Bergger film (anybody know who makes it?), like the Ilford is very expensive. Is it worth it?

Bergger:

http://www.bergger.fr

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Donald,

Looking at the spectral response curves for a couple of older Ilford films -- FP4 pre-Plus and Commercial Ortho, because they were what I had handy -- I can't see why it should be impossible to come close to an ortho effect by using a filter with a T50 of about 570nm.

Both start in the UV at around 360-370 with the residual halide sensitivity; climb slowly to the same peak at about 460; dip at around 500 (maybe 490 for Ortho); then climb again. Ortho climbs to a dye peak at around 560, then plummets, while FP4 has less pronounced peaks at around 600 and 640 before tapering off at about 660.

I'm not arguing with you -- I don't know enough -- but I'd be grateful for an explanation.

I should add that I've almost always found it easier to use the 'real thing' (e.g. ortho film unstead of filtered pan, or an 8x10 inch camera and uncoated lenses for Hollywood portraits) and that I've likewise found that 'coming close' is sometimes a long way from 're-creating'. My question is based on theoretical considerations only.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jimgalli]

Jason, curious if you ever mixed up my soup recipe for the APHS?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This was a later recipe than I may have sent you a year or so ago.

The cost difference is pretty drastic once you leave the Arista film.

 

[JG Motamedi]

Jim,

I tried your pyro-based soup and really wasn't too happy with the results, but I missed the Rodinal-based one. I will give it a try, as I am really looking to stay on the cheap right now. I don't have any Rodinal around, (can you believe I have never used it?) but will see if I can find some nearby.

Thanks,

jason

 

[MichaelBriggs]

One can not duplicate an orthochromatic emulsion or in any way come close to it by filtering a panchromatic film. This has been discussed many, many times before and the reasoning is that you can not make something simply by removing somenthing else. That reasoning is not sound. Perhaps if you grasp the reasoning for this then you will grasp my earlier analogy.

Several of us are reasoning based on the spectral response of the two film types. You haven't addressed this reasoning, except with the unconvincing sweeping generalization that "you can not make something simply by removing somenthing else".

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Interesting thread.

Someone just gave me a 25 sheet pack of Kodak 4125 - I was wondering if it could be used as...I think I just figured out what the 'in camera film' statement meant..I don't have any need to copy like it was originally intended for, but want to use it as 'ortho' film in film holders in a camera.

Does anyone have any idea what ISO to use outdoors with 4125? Let's ignore the out-of-date factor - I can deal with that later if necesssary - I just want to get in the ballpark.

I also got a box of 8x10 'high definition x-ray imaging film', which is apparently a single emulsion, ortho film. I don't know if it's true 8x10 or fits our kind of filmholders - I tossed it in the refrigerator as soon as it arrived.

It's private labeled. I found out who made it and have been bugging both companies for misuse and abuse info...they don't seem to know how to answer spectral and resolution questions. What constitutes 'high definition' in x-ray work doesn't seem to mean anything to anyone I've asked yet...other than the suggestion that single emulsion has higher definition than double emulsion.

BTW, someone told me household bleach can be used to remove emulsion from one side, but I think that exceeds even MY limits for impracticality.

I hope this next question fits with this thread...I'm thinking if I can find my Minor White et al Zone System book, there was a discussion of controlled exposure testing - but lacking it in-hand at the moment, I'll ask.

Is there a better 'plan' to figure out how to misuse mystery film, outdated film etc., than to just meter an 18% gray card and open a dark slide a fraction of a sheet at a time for increasingly longer exposures, say 1/8 sheet @ t seconds, 1/4 sheet at 2 x t seconds, 3/8 sheet at 3 x t seconds and so on?

Someone suggested to me defocussing the lens after 'composing' on the gray card to avoid distraction by the texture...I didn't understand the benefit of that.

Thanks

Murray

 

[MichaelBriggs]

Even though the Kodak 4125 is discontinued, the datasheet is still available: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f17/f17.jhtml


" KODAK Professional Copy Film is an orthochromatic film (sensitive to blue and green light and ultraviolet radiation) designed for copying continuous-tone originals. .....

This special-purpose film works differently than other black-and-white films. Generally, the contrast of negatives is controlled by development. However, with this film, contrast in the copy negative is controlled by both exposure and development. "

What the don't mention in words -- the characteristic curves show the film to be a direct reversal film -- more exposure gives less density.

The tungsten speed is listed as ISO 10. The daylight speed must be faster since daylight has much more blue light than tungsten, but exactly how much is tricky to say since exposure also controls contrast.