FUJI SUPER HR Microfilm for pictorial photography

[ludwighagelstein]

Hey folks,
I just wanted to share with you my experiences using FUJI Super HR Microfilm.

Shot at ISO 20, developed for 40mins stand in FX-39 at 20°C.

Do you have any experience with microfilm ?

 

[cramej]

Looks nice - high contrast! At $47 per 100' roll it could be an interesting alternative B&W film. It would be a good group buy since it seems to be only available in a case of 10.

 

[ludwighagelstein]

Looks nice - high contrast! At $47 per 100' roll it could be an interesting alternative B&W film. It would be a good group buy since it seems to be only available in a case of 10.

45$ are you insane ? A fresh 100ft roll dated 10/2022 cost me 16€ from genusit.com

 

[Ian Grant]

It's quite a long time since I played around with Microfilm back around 1972-4, ideally you need to use a softer working developer. POTA might work or dilute Ilford ID-3 which is the same as Kodak's long gone Selectol Soft or Agfa Adaptol.

Ian

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I use Kodak Imagelink with good success as a great alternative for reloading 110 cameras to give me fine grain shots with shallow depth of field in a way that belies the format.

I find the following things work great to get pictorial contrast...

Overexpose: try exposures at EI 10-12 if you can. But be careful in bright sun to avoid blown highlights.

Use color filters: A yellow is a great starting point. A green is even better, and in some settings, blue and orange filters can be magic. The fence shot attached used an orange filter.

Dilute develop: 1:100 HC-110 is my preferred soup with a time of about 20 minutes with one mid term agitation. Finding the sweet spot between the exposure and the developing is a challenge but a fun one to win.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If you happen to have any Rodinal developer on hand you can try that. I have developed Kodak TechPan in Rodinal 1+300 and it worked very well as a "soft-working" developer. I don't have my times since it was many years ago, but I do know that if you are developing one roll of 35mm you should use a tank that holds two or better yet, three reels so as to have enough Rodinal to do it's job. Also, agitation should be very minimal. Some folks might scoff at Rodinal in this use since we always think of it as a bold, strong developer that does nothing but make grain stand out and give the illusion of sharpness. Remember, the film you are working with has no grain to speak of so the developer doesn't have to be a "fine grain" type.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I use Rodinal/HC-110/water at 1/1/250ml as semi stand for document films. Vigorous agitation first minute then stir every 15 min for a total of 45min. All at 20C. It's taken me years to get something workable for these films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use Rodinal/HC-110/water at 1/1/250ml as semi stand for document films. Vigorous agitation first minute then stir every 15 min for a total of 45min. All at 20C. It's taken me years to get something workable for these films.

Hi Murray,
When it works it's darn good, but it doesn't always work. Get a workable EI for enough shadow detail and then play hell keeping the highlights even close to where you want them. Now take it into the deep, darken forest with a tripod and it's a whole different ball game. Throw a few silver Birch trees or some light barked Poplar trees in the scene and it comes alive. If I were still shooting 35mm I might play with some copy film, but with medium and large format ISO 100 speed films are plenty fine grained enough for me. That's just me of course.
Murray I'm still using those wine bladders and they are still going strong. Keep emptying them and enjoy doing it. Thanks again! JohnW

 

[AgX]

Ten years ago we had a lot of discussion on high-resolution films (which all employ emulsion technology similar to high-contrast microfilm) and processing with propriatory developers and makeshift solutions.
Most of the offered film/developer combos are no longer available.

 

[Murray Kelly]

John and AgX, I well remember those long discussions. Mainly because I have a lot of those films for 16mm and Minox as well as 35mm. John is probably correct, and I should ditch them altogether. I am stubborn.
I went to a lot of expense and bought some SPUR products but at my rate of usage they go 'off' too quickly.
Good to hear the bags are holding up, John. Plenty more where they came from. I rarely get to mix a gallon (or 1 litre) of developer so they all go in the trash. Cheers.

 

[AgX]

Most of the offered film/developer combos are no longer available.

Likely not for not working, but for lack of interest. Many were in the very low of speeds, there was no good enough marketing, they were more costly. Seemingly many considered stepping up in format more benefitial.
One of the two competing engineers retracted, one film is no longer manufactured.

Still easily available as 35mm film is the Adox CMS 20 II with Adotech IV rated at ISO 12.

 

[AgX]

But good to see that discussion to be revived, and Fuji microfilms were not really a topic here as far as I remember.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Probably true, AgX, but document / microfilms are pretty well all in the same class and respond similarly to a certain kind of developer. I have done Imagelink HQ in technidol and Bluefire in H&W but decided I could better use ideas put forward here, Fuji or not. My previous post about Rodinal / HC-110 went nicely with RO80s.Then there was the experiment with MQ with the pH adjusted to a bit over 7. I didn't realise it at the time but it was one of the better combinations.

 

[AgX]

Keep in mind that Imagelink films no longer are Kodak films but Agfa films, in case that matters.

 

[ic-racer]

I had a bunch of microfilm. Looks like it was over ten years ago.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...m-find-copex-gigabit-other.29232/#post-410544

 

[AgX]

Availabilty (hinted at in that other thread) turned out not to be that issue, two of the several film/developer combos long time were available at dealers as Fotoimpex and Macodirekt.

 

[dokko]

I just came across this info when researching Fuji microfilms (dated Feb 17 2025):

Fujifilm discontinues microfilm production – Our solution for the future – Genus

We have received the unexpected yet not entirely unforeseen news that our long-standing supplier, Fujifilm, will discontinue microfilm production starting in 2026. We deeply regret this decision, as we look back on a highly successful 15-year collaboration and would like to express our sincere...

www.genusit.com

"We have received the unexpected yet not entirely unforeseen news that our long-standing supplier, Fujifilm, will discontinue microfilm production starting in 2026. We deeply regret this decision, as we look back on a highly successful 15-year collaboration and would like to express our sincere gratitude for the consistently pleasant and trusting partnership.
Since 2009, we have been proactively preparing for this scenario, taking strategic measures to ensure a reliable and high-quality solution for the future.

Today, we are pleased to announce that the development of our own complete, high-quality silver film program is nearing completion.
Our new films have already been successfully tested by various renowned institutes and major users – with outstanding results. To ensure a smooth transition, we will stock up on Fujifilm products until the end of 2025.

Starting in 2026, we will offer a new, European-made silver film product line (outstanding resolution and 500 years of durability are guaranteed).

Of course, we will keep you informed about the next steps in a timely manner. This development represents a significant investment and reinforces our position as the world’s leading provider of micrographic products."

 

[John Wiegerink]

Where have I been??? I have never heard of this company Genus. Their ability to make a brand new microfilm seems hard to believe, but anything is possible nowadays. Sounds like Fujifilm users had better start stocking up. Is Fuji Acros II next? Already lost Acros in sheets.

 

[xkaes]

Getting back to the topic -- micro films being very high in contrast. There are several common approaches that can reduce contrast slightly, but these will only work with regular films. We need a much more radical technique. These fall into several categories, such as, special compensating developers, divided development and water bath development.

• 1. There are several developers that are formulated to be very low in contrast. They are commonly referred to as compensating developers. These normally are formulations that leave out the hydroquinone, which is a higher contrast developer. A couple of these are listed in the DARKROOM. There are many others that are available at your local library or book store. A few books to check out are: The Negative (Ansel Adams), Photographic Developing in Practice (Geoffrey Attridge), and The Darkroom Cookbook (Stephen Anchell).
  If you don't mix your own developers, you can purchase compensating developers from the various companies that make developers. There is a list of some of these companies in the LIBRARY To obtain lower contrast, a compensating developer is the easiest approach and will work fine under most conditions.
  
  
• 2. Another common approach is to use a super-diluted devloper. This approach will work with just about any developer and has the added advantage of simplicity. Whether or not you mix your own developers, all you need to do is add more water. The more dilute, the lower the contrast. You will have to increase the development time substantially, which may have unwanted or undesireable side-effects, however. If the instruction sheet does not list development times for your diluted concoction, you can run tests of your own. As with compensating developers, diluted developers will only decrease contrast to a limited extent.
  
  
• 3. Divided development is an approach that lowers contrast by slowing down the developer. To appreciate this approach, you must first understand that what we call a developer is actually several different chemicals mixed together. Only one (or two) of these ingredients is actually the developer. Normally, all the chemical ingredients are put into the developer mix all at once. With divided development, the film is first dipped into one part of the developer and then another part, in an attempt to slow down development. Most developers have an ingredient known as an accelerator. This is typically borax, but can sometimes be other compounds. In divided development, the film is first immersed in the normal developer MINUS THE ACCELERATOR. In this step, the film basically just absorbs the chemicals, since very little development can take place without the accelerator. Then the film is immersed in a bath containing only the accelerator. Here the development starts, but under very controlled conditions. Since the film has very little developer in it -- just what it could absorb in step one -- the development progresses differentially. In the highlight areas, where exposure was intense, the film quickly uses up the developer and the density increase slows down as the available developer is used up. But in the shadow areas, where little exposure occurred, developemnt can continue unabated since there is more developer than is actually needed. A very low contrast negative is the result. The shadow areas are developed normally, but the highlights are kept from becoming too dense.
  Any developer can be used as a split developer. This technique will even lower the contrast of compensating developers . All you need to do is remove the accelerator and set it up as a separate, second bath. The time in the first bath is at least three minutes. Extra time is irrelevant since the film can only absorb so much developer. The time is the second bath is critical since this is where the development actually takes place.
  
  
• 4. Water bath development is similar to divided development in many ways. First, the film is immersed in the normal developer, but for a shortened peiod of time. The purpose is for the film to absorb developer as opposed to development. Then the film is placed in a bath of water. The purpose of this step is to slow the development, but the development is slowed differentially. In the highlight areas, where exposure was intense, the film quickly runs out of developer and the density increase slows. But in the shadow areas, where little exposure occurred, development continues unabated since there is more developer than is actually needed. A very low contrast negative is the result. The shadow areas are normally developed, but the highlights are kept from becoming too dense. Check out the 1-4-1-4-1-4-1 article in the August 1982 issue of Peterson'e Photographic or Ansel Adam's book The Negative.. The numbers stand for minutes in the developer and water bath -- 1 minute in the developer, 4 minutes in the water bath, one minute in the developer, four minutes in the water bath, etc. The process can be extended as long as necessary to get the desired contrast..
  
  
• 5. For super-low contrast, you can try using these techniques in combination, such as water-bath development with a dilute, compensating developer. Keep in mind that all of these techniques will normally reduce the speed of the film that you are using, and tests will need to be run to determine the correct exposure of the film.

 

[dokko]

Getting back to the topic [...]

well, the original topic literally was:

"FUJI SUPER HR Microfilm for pictorial photography"

So I thought it might be interesting that Fuji will discontinue micro films and with Agfa having stopped as well, it's good to know that there is a replacement planned.

 

[koraks]

Their ability to make a brand new microfilm seems hard to believe

They'll likely have someone else produce it. Think of e.g. Foma.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I just came across this info when researching Fuji microfilms (dated Feb 17 2025):

Fujifilm discontinues microfilm production – Our solution for the future – Genus

We have received the unexpected yet not entirely unforeseen news that our long-standing supplier, Fujifilm, will discontinue microfilm production starting in 2026. We deeply regret this decision, as we look back on a highly successful 15-year collaboration and would like to express our sincere...

www.genusit.com

"We have received the unexpected yet not entirely unforeseen news that our long-standing supplier, Fujifilm, will discontinue microfilm production starting in 2026. We deeply regret this decision, as we look back on a highly successful 15-year collaboration and would like to express our sincere gratitude for the consistently pleasant and trusting partnership.
Since 2009, we have been proactively preparing for this scenario, taking strategic measures to ensure a reliable and high-quality solution for the future.

Today, we are pleased to announce that the development of our own complete, high-quality silver film program is nearing completion.
Our new films have already been successfully tested by various renowned institutes and major users – with outstanding results. To ensure a smooth transition, we will stock up on Fujifilm products until the end of 2025.

Starting in 2026, we will offer a new, European-made silver film product line (outstanding resolution and 500 years of durability are guaranteed).

Of course, we will keep you informed about the next steps in a timely manner. This development represents a significant investment and reinforces our position as the world’s leading provider of micrographic products."

I believe the Fuji Microfilm is unperforated and await any news regarding the proposed new film.

 

[dokko]

I believe the Fuji Microfilm is unperforated and await any news regarding the proposed new film.

yes, that's what I've heard as well.
but Agfa Copex and the other microfilm films were probably unperforated too and somebody confectioned it for photographic use. We can hope that somebody does it as well for the new emulsion if it is suitable for our use.

 

[Graham06]

I believe the Fuji Microfilm is unperforated and await any news regarding the proposed new film.

I (accidentally) bought some unperforated 35mm film and I rolled some onto a 120 spool and shot it in a 645 120 back on my RZ67. Worked quite well.