Help me push Ilford Ortho 80 by 2 Stops

[spl]

I have exposed Ilford Ortho Plus (EI 80) in a vintage camera, which after some research seems to have a fixed ISO 320. (In summer ... this is from 1960 when you got a recommended film not a recommended ISO.)

Long story short I need to push process the Ilford 80 by +2 stops. I have read the datasheets and nothing officially claims to do this. There is nothing on Massive Dev. I have two developers (Ignoring the ID11) to choose from in stock, leading to some major choices you could help me choose between:

Microphen: Using the general Ilford pattern I could push by 30% twice, using a time increase of 69%, 15.2 minutes.

Rodinal 1+50: You seem to need to go up 80% per stop, resulting in an increase of 224%, tripling the time and a bit to 50 minutes.

Rodinal Stand 1+100: This fellow has developed at 1+100 for 1.5 hours https://timdobbsphoto.com/2021/01/0...ccident-but-i-think-it-worked-the-whole-roll/

I don't mind some grain.

 

[AZD]

Another vote for Microphen. Your time of 15 minutes is probably about as good a guess as anything. If the subject was high contrast or had important details in bright areas I might reduce agitation for the last half. One inversion every 2 or 3 minutes, something like that. You'll keep the highlights in check that way. That's the idea anyhow.

 

[MarkS]

Rule of thumb for a two-stop push is 2x normal development time. But you're way off the map here, so don't expect much no matter what you try.

 

[Nokton48]

I've tried Microphen and straight Acufine and I've not even come close to two stops under.

 

[Nikola Dulgiarov]

@spl, you could consider chemical or light latensification (latent image amplification/intensification) in addition to pushing the film. I think it's reasonable to achieve 1-1.5 stop increase by such treatments, especially for a slow, orthochromatic emulsion.

Claire Senft's posts here thoroughly describe how to latensify film using low-intensity light and a chemical perborate pre-treatment for increasing film speed. Perborate might be harder to obtain, but can be prepare in situ from Kodalk and drugstore hydrogen peroxide solution. Light latensification might be preferable.

Either treatment will give you a boost in shadow detail and increased fog, but will somewhat tame the contrast from pushing a medium-speed film in a PQ developer like Microphen. It's not a magic bullet, but still a valuable tool.

 

[Helge]

@spl, you could consider chemical or light latensification (latent image amplification/intensification) in addition to pushing the film. I think it's reasonable to achieve 1-1.5 stop increase by such treatments, especially for a slow, orthochromatic emulsion.

Claire Senft's posts here thoroughly describe how to latensify film using low-intensity light and a chemical perborate pre-treatment for increasing film speed. Perborate might be harder to obtain, but can be prepare in situ from Kodalk and drugstore hydrogen peroxide solution. Light latensification might be preferable.

Either treatment will give you a boost in shadow detail and increased fog, but will somewhat tame the contrast from pushing a medium-speed film in a PQ developer like Microphen. It's not a magic bullet, but still a valuable tool.

There is nothing thorough about Clairs post. It’s just a description of the equipment and setup and the expected end result.
What is really the main difficulty is how much light, what colour and for how long?
That is the major gotcha.
And also how to measure that light to make a repeatable transferable post exposure.

There is for example a theoretical possibility that light containing deep red and IR could have a negative effect on the latensified material.

It would be incredibly valuable to have a table for the most common, best result film.

Another, in some ways, more flexible way to do latensification and experiment is to do it in camera.
It does however include binding up your camera for fifteen to thirty minutes after each to be latensified exposure. Could be a long day.

 

[glbeas]

If the camera can easily do double exposures just shoot a grey card for zone I or II after each shot in the same light. Should be pretty consistent.

 

[spl]

Thanks for responses. I'm not quite up to latensification at my level of experience, but these are some great ideas. Based on the first few posts I developed the film in Microphen at 170% time (15 minutes), stock fresh solution.

Most of the frames are quite dark but it's difficult to tell whether that's overexposure or development. Some worked okay given that the camera is 60 years old. There is also minimal focus accuracy, so that's a problem on at least one print.

I only chose Ilford Ortho so that I could load the 35mm reel into the 120 format camera wrapped up in the old backing paper while using a red safelight. I may try again to do it with panchromatic film in the dark, but honestly, this experiment has been enough for me for now.

I am not experienced at development, but I like to think I either pushed two stops or did pretty well, it's hard to tell with this equipment.

Here are some low res scans, I have to borrow a medium format film scanner to scan the sprocket shots properly. I have level adjusted two of them, but included an original negative too.

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="spl, post: 2457539, member: 96368"
Most of the frames are quite dark but it's difficult to tell whether that's overexposure or development. Some worked okay /QUOTE]
At 320 you have underexposed by 2 stops so it's not over exposure, it's the opposite However the negs you have shown do not look bad at all

The plain fact, based on what I have seen of the responses is that no-one, as yet, has had any experience of using this film at other than box speed so could not give their actual experience to help you but it would indicate that while 2 stops under is probably not desirable it will work if needed.

The dev time might benefit from a reduction but if so, this would look to be a slight one only based on the neg you have shown

pentaxuser

 

[spl]

At 320 you have underexposed by 2 stops so it's not over exposure

Sorry, yes I phrased that badly, obviously it's not overexposed relative to the box speed of the film I meant after the adjustment ... perhaps I meant to say "Not fully two stops underexposed."

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Claire Senft's posts here thoroughly describe how to latensify film using low-intensity light and a chemical perborate pre-treatment for increasing film speed. Perborate might be harder to obtain, but can be prepare in situ from Kodalk and drugstore hydrogen peroxide solution.

Claire's thread on latensification is indeed very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Just curious to know if you or anyone other than Claire has used Perborate treatment extensively and found that it gives consistent results with contemporary films or paper.

 

[Nikola Dulgiarov]

@Raghu Kuvempunagar, I've used both light and perborate latensification individually, but haven't experimentally quantified the conditions and results. Qualitatively, both result in improvement of shadow density without affecting granularity, and a small increase of fog. I've tested fast (400 ASA) films only, where technically such treatments should have the least benefit, because the emulsions already employ advanced sensitization to eek out as much sensitivity as possible.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Raghu Kuvempunagar, I've used both light and perborate latensification individually, but haven't experimentally quantified the conditions and results. Qualitatively, both result in improvement of shadow density without affecting granularity, and a small increase of fog. I've tested fast (400 ASA) films only, where technically such treatments should have the least benefit, because the emulsions already employ advanced sensitization to eek out as much sensitivity as possible.

Nice! Do you also increase the development time when you uprate film and use light/perborate latensification?

 

[Nikola Dulgiarov]

@Raghu Kuvempunagar, for a single stop underexposure, I maintain the development time (this is in phenidone-ascorbate chemistry, similar to Xtol but with potassium salts). Pushing 1+ stops, I increase development time (uprate 400ASA emulsion to 1600, perborate treatment followed by development as 800ASA). I might add 10% more development time on top to reach identical CI, but since I don't perform densitometry on a regular basis, this is pure heuristics. YMMV.

 

[pentaxuser]

What is the misty white stuff at the bottom of the trees and criss-crossing the scene? The close white misty stuff may look this way because it is out of focus but the stuff further away must be in focus as the tree trunks at the same distance are in focus.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[spl]

What is the misty white stuff at the bottom of the trees and criss-crossing the scene? The close white misty stuff may look this way because it is out of focus but the stuff further away must be in focus as the tree trunks at the same distance are in focus.

Thanks

pentaxuser

hey Sorry I posted that to the wrong thread. I suspect they are weeds nearer the camera than they appear. I'm not saying it's a good shot.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply. So the shot was not from Ilford Ortho 80 Plus? If it was, then setting aside the out of focus mistiness in it, then the tree trunks indicate that a 2 stop under-exposure of Ilford Ortho does not result in a negative that cannot be rectified to some extent

pentaxuser