Fujifilm direct positive microfilm, anyone tried it?

[MCB18]

Hi all!

I was talking to some friends on discord about direct positive film, and one of them brought up that they knew where to get 105 mm rolls of Fuji direct positive microfilm. I have looked all over the Internet, but I cannot find a single example image of this film. The only thing I could find is this datasheet. It would be super interesting to get some, especially since I can make NF and 4x5 with it.

I know it’s a pretty long shot, but does anyone have experience with this? It has officially been discontinued as of last month. I’d absolutely buy it if I had the cash but I don’t.

 

[lt_col_gordon_tall]

I was actually just researching this too. I haven't tried but I know a microfilm supplier website where you can order it, but it's a minimum of two rolls.

I did find a guy who has shot Fuji Minipositive II: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rentavet/albums/72157718191144603/

Fuji has exited the microfilm business, so any Fuji microfilm is only going to get harder to source. I was hoping to get 105mm rolls of Super HR-24 or HR-26 but I think those are gone until one surfaces on the resale market

Curious if anyone has more information.

 

[MCB18]

I was actually just researching this too. I haven't tried but I know a microfilm supplier website where you can order it, but it's a minimum of two rolls.

I did find a guy who has shot Fuji Minipositive II: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rentavet/albums/72157718191144603/

Fuji has exited the microfilm business, so any Fuji microfilm is only going to get harder to source. I was hoping to get 105mm rolls of Super HR-24 or HR-26 but I think those are gone until one surfaces on the resale market

Curious if anyone has more information.

Yeah you and me are looking at the same website. I sent them an email asking if they knew how long remaining stock will last but they did not have an answer.

Minipositive II is a negative film, so I suspect that it won’t help much here.

I found a roll of 16mm direct positive film on eBay for relatively cheap, I’m considering it, but hesitant. Gonna be a pain to shoot and dev since I don’t have any 16mm equipment.

 

[lt_col_gordon_tall]

Yeah you are totally right they are different films, the main reason I mentioned it is that once I realized there wasn't any info on the DD film and saw the Minipositive film was available from the same retailer, I went down that rabbit hole. Fortunately there's at least a few Flickr images to use as a frame of reference with the Minipositive film.

What expectations do you have for the direct duplication film? I was very curious until I saw the 2 roll requirement. I might be willing to get one roll of you'd want to split it, but it does seem like a complete shot in the dark

I almost pulled the trigger on the Minipositive but decided to hold off for a bit

 

[MCB18]

What expectations do you have for the direct duplication film?

I have had mixed experiences with direct positive films. I’ve shot 3 now, although only just shot the 3rd so it hasn’t been developed yet. I shot Astrum Mikrat Ortho (FPP super positive), and was disappointed with how thin the negs are. Cool film, but doesn’t make very good slides unfortunately. Kodak 2422 is the other one I have experienced, and it has great potential for alt process work, but it is SOOOOO SLOW. You thought FPP super positive was slow? Yeah, 2422 is like 4 stops slower.

What I’m hoping for would be something like what 2468 (currently shooting that) seems to be. Good dmax, but not ridiculously slow.

I might be willing to get one roll of you'd want to split it, but it does seem like a complete shot in the dark

That would be very interesting, but I would still not be able to buy it on my own. I would have to make a group buy selling it in 120/220 and 4x5, and I just don’t know how comfortable I am doing that with this film considering there is zero information about it.

I can’t just give it away for free like I did with the 2465 stuff. Would have to sell at full price and i know that’s a hard sell. I did that with 2422, and I still have an almost completely full roll of it that I haven’t been able to sell, or find any use for myself, and that cost me around $200. I don’t want that to happen again.

 

[lt_col_gordon_tall]

That would be very interesting, but I would still not be able to buy it on my own. I would have to make a group buy selling it in 120/220 and 4x5, and I just don’t know how comfortable I am doing that with this film considering there is zero information about it.

I can’t just give it away for free like I did with the 2465 stuff. Would have to sell at full price and i know that’s a hard sell. I did that with 2422, and I still have an almost completely full roll of it that I haven’t been able to sell, or find any use for myself, and that cost me around $200. I don’t want that to happen again.

Yeah that's completely understandable. If I'm being reasonable, I don't need a full roll myself. That's a lot of film for a complete unknown... And I have a bunch of stuff in my fridge I need to work through. And I want to buy a 50mm for the rz67 lens this season. But if there's a group buy consider me interested though.

 

[lamerko]

EI 0.2, Tungsten... with normal (for microfilm) processing. We’re probably talking about monstrous contrast that you’ll want to tame at least a little - but hey… EI 0.2!!!

 

[koraks]

We’re probably talking about monstrous contrast

Well, according to the plot you posted, not necessarily monstrous - just very high. Squinting at it looks like a 6-stop latitude, which might make it suitable for something low-contrast like heavily overcast weather.

The main issue I see is that density appears to be limited to 1.5logD. For a negative that would be OK, but for a positive, I don't see how this could ever be useful for photographic purposes; you want at least 2.5logD or so to have reasonable blocking power in the shadows. 1.5logD basically looks like mild grey; these positives will look bland and bloodless to the naked eye. You might be able to intensify them of course with permanganate or dichromate. But that kind of removes the advantage of a direct positive material...

 

[MCB18]

Well, according to the plot you posted, not necessarily monstrous - just very high. Squinting at it looks like a 6-stop latitude, which might make it suitable for something low-contrast like heavily overcast weather.

The main issue I see is that density appears to be limited to 1.5logD. For a negative that would be OK, but for a positive, I don't see how this could ever be useful for photographic purposes; you want at least 2.5logD or so to have reasonable blocking power in the shadows. 1.5logD basically looks like mild grey; these positives will look bland and bloodless to the naked eye. You might be able to intensify them of course with permanganate or dichromate. But that kind of removes the advantage of a direct positive material...

So, I take it that this would mean that the dark areas wouldn’t be very dense at all?

I need to find my Mikrat Ortho slides but this makes me think that this stuff might be extremely similar in terms of DMax… which would be a bit disappointing.

 

[koraks]

So, I take it that this would mean that the dark areas wouldn’t be very dense at all?

Yes, indeed. If this material can't do much more than 1.5logD, you're stuck with a disappointingly flat grey instead of black.

 

[MCB18]

Yes, indeed. If this material can't do much more than 1.5logD, you're stuck with a disappointingly flat grey instead of black.

Looking at Inagelink HQ, that has a density just over 2, and that looks alright? How much of a difference would that make compared with that?

Sorry, having a hard time visualizing.

 

[koraks]

Just over 2 is still not all that dense, but might be OK-ish if you don't backlight it too strongly. 1.5 will be significantly lighter; keep in mind that 0.3logD is one stop, so the Fuji stuff will look 2 stops less dense on its blacks than the Imagelink you've got. It's a significant difference.

If budget allows at some point, get a Stouffer step tablet or some other density reference; then scan/print that along with some of your own negatives/positives. You'll develop a feeling for how the log scale works and what to expect/aim for. Well, if you care about the numbers; there's no real need of course. Just eyeballing results is fine, too. But when reading a curve like this one it can help to have something of a benchmark/reference.

 

[MCB18]

Just over 2 is still not all that dense, but might be OK-ish if you don't backlight it too strongly. 1.5 will be significantly lighter; keep in mind that 0.3logD is one stop, so the Fuji stuff will look 2 stops less dense on its blacks than the Imagelink you've got. It's a significant difference.

If budget allows at some point, get a Stouffer step tablet or some other density reference; then scan/print that along with some of your own negatives/positives. You'll develop a feeling for how the log scale works and what to expect/aim for. Well, if you care about the numbers; there's no real need of course. Just eyeballing results is fine, too. But when reading a curve like this one it can help to have something of a benchmark/reference.

Found my DP negatives. Here they are compared to Imagelink HQ.


Would this be close to how the Fuji stuff would turn out?

 

[koraks]

The one on the right looks like much less than >2.0 to me; I'd expect that to be 1.3-1.6 or so. So yes, I expect that would be how the Fuji stuff might turn out if you get it to behave according to spec.

 

[MCB18]

The one on the right looks like much less than >2.0 to me; I'd expect that to be 1.3-1.6 or so. So yes, I expect that would be how the Fuji stuff might turn out if you get it to behave according to spec.

Hearing this makes me wonder if the Astrum stuff IS this Fuji film… that would actually make some sense.

Idk, I’m not the biggest fan of this film, but it might still be a neat film to use in MF/LF. Maybe there would be interest. Something to think about

 

[koraks]

As I suggested earlier, I personally would explore the options of intensifying the image so the density becomes more convincing. There are several ways to do this; the ones I mentioned earlier are not an exhaustive list. E.g. dye toning also comes to mind, which could be a reasonably safe approach with good potential (although perhaps not necessarily very archival).