IR imagesetting film?

[jejes]

Do you have a RIP to go with it?

Yes, i have. Without a rip it doens't work the imagesetter itself.

 

[koraks]

That's why I asked. Without a RIP, it's basically just a piece of iron.

 

[MCB18]

So, my friend finally managed to test some of this film, and it does in fact work as IR film! It’s pretty old film, and it is slow as hell (around EI 0.1 with a 720nm filter), and contrast is off the charts because I’m pretty sure they just used a normal developer, but, it does still work! If I have some leftover cash, I might buy myself a roll and play around with it.

 

[koraks]

Interesting! Might yield some fascinating results.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Post images here if you do end up working with this stuff, please!

 

[MCB18]

Post images here if you do end up working with this stuff, please!

Will do! I think with some experimentation and patience (a lot of patience…) it could make some super neat images, though.

At some point next year, I’ll probably get a roll, and I’ll probably play around with it in a few ultra low contrast developers to see if I can get a more normal contrast. Maybe if enough people are interested in trying it after seeing my results, I’ll cut up some sheets and post it for sale. Definitely don’t expect anything handheld from this stuff tho lol.

 

[MCB18]

I found a roll of this stuff for fairly cheap on eBay, cheaper than Ultrafine, although the seller gives zero information about it and it appears unbranded. I’m very tempted to buy it to experiment though…

I’m not opposed to cutting it up and sending some to others who are interested as well, if I get it. Could help to offset the cost a bit. Just let me know in PM, maybe we can work something out..

 

[MCB18]

I did end up getting it, hopefully this works.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Looking forward to hearing/seeing results!

 

[MCB18]

Well I received the roll today, and… well it’s interesting.

It came just as a bare roll with black leader wrapped around it and foil at the edges. The one specification number that I could find was on ultrafine, which said that this was supposedly a daylight roll. But I’m not sure how that would’ve worked because when I took off the leader, the foil things at the edges got really torn up and basically destroyed. So if I had taken the leader off in daylight, the roll would’ve been fogged at the edges at minimum.


I had to make my own packaging from a large black film bag, and some of that Astrum backing paper in order to store it since it didn’t come with a can.


One more surprise, this stuff is apparently not from Agfa. AFAIK Agfa’s imagesetter film is blue, this stuff is brown.

I rolled up a roll of 120, very curious to see what happens.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Interesting...Fingers crossed you'll get something!

 

[MCB18]

Clip tests with lightstruck film. Left is just fixed, right is developer and fix. The film appears to have a pink base, I’ve washed the fixer snip for a good little while, and it has not disappeared.

 

[MCB18]

Took pics of a color checker, and developed in D-76 stock for 6 minutes. Exposed at EI 3, 1.5, 0.8, and 0.4. 3 looks correctly exposed, and from the color checker, it looks like this film does indeed have extended red sensitivity, and very little green sensitivity. Contrast is very high, as expected.

Very interesting!

 

[koraks]

3 looks correctly exposed

It looks a few stops under to me, but massively overdeveloped. Looks like around ISO0.6 should be OK, but you'll have to find a way to reel contrast back in. Also there's probably a lot of halation and light piping going on at that point.

 

[MCB18]

It looks a few stops under to me, but massively overdeveloped. Looks like around ISO0.6 should be OK, but you'll have to find a way to reel contrast back in. Also there's probably a lot of halation and light piping going on at that point.

Honestly, I’m not sure how to tell the difference. To me it just seems like a ridiculously high contrast film, which is what it’s supposed to be. But idk.

 

[revdoc]

For evaluating film speed, I look for detail in the darkest shadows. I can see some detail in the shadows at 0.8, so to me, that looks closer to correct than 3.

You need to cut development hy a lot. This will not be easy. Which developers do you have on hand? If it's just D76, try diluting 1+8.

You'll probably have to run a few cycles of exposure and development tests to get this right, but I don't see any issues with making it work.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would probably develop it in a soft working developer, like LC-1B... even perhaps diluted down to 1+3 or more.

 

[MCB18]

i’ll play around with different developers and exposures, see what happens. Honestly, I do like how EI 3 turned out, so for the moment I think I’ll stick with that for now.

 

[Dr. no]

My dad was a printer, and after a failed new purshase typesetter (Compugraphic) we were left with boxes and boxes of the paper it outputted to. Same issue--it was supposed to be strictly black or white, but I learned how to use an enlarger with it and the relative times for it v. kodak or agfa papers (much shorter, and much faster in Dektol). I still have some prints on it (pre-1985) and they are "not archival". They did, fairly easily, produce full range prints, though really contrasty.
I also learned to use a process camera and burn plates then. Forgotten arts...

 

[Bill Burk]

Took pics of a color checker, and developed in D-76 stock for 6 minutes. Exposed at EI 3, 1.5, 0.8, and 0.4. 3 looks correctly exposed, and from the color checker, it looks like this film does indeed have extended red sensitivity, and very little green sensitivity. Contrast is very high, as expected.

Very interesting!

These are tears of joy! I am so glad you got this film and got it “working”!

Do you have any infrared filters so you can try for the Wood effect?

 

[MCB18]

These are tears of joy! I am so glad you got this film and got it “working”!

Yes, I’m actually surprised that it worked this well on the first attempt! I was expecting a lot more trial and error. Mostly error.

Do you have any infrared filters so you can try for the Wood effect?

I do! 720nm. At some point I do plan to try that, although I imagine that it’s going to be extremely slow. Even with the extra sensitivity that it supposedly has, I would expect somewhere around EI 0.4-0.1

 

[MCB18]

Well, I just developed another test strip for eight minutes in HC110 F. The overall density has decreased slightly, but so has the contrast. I would still say that EI 3 to 1.5 is probably the best exposure you’re going to get, although I think 1.5 is a bit overexposed and 3 is a bit underexposed, so I might need to adjust the developing time slightly, or rate at EI 1.

 

[MCB18]

Just developed another roll of IR imagesetting film, and 9 minutes in HC-110 F looks to work great! I’ll be developing a roll I exposed behind an IR filter next with this time to see what happens.

 

[MCB18]

Guys… It works. It works as an IR film. And it works really well. Negatives shown here EI 0.8 and 0.4, developed in HC 110 F for 9 minutes.

 

[mshchem]

Cool!