Kodak ImageLink HQ 3461 16mm rating?

[DannL]

I recently started using Kodak Plux-X Negative film 7231 (16mm) in my camera, and I found the film to be quite sensitive, much more than I had expected. So, then I had this urge to experiment even further and I ordered a roll of Kodak ImageLink HQ 3461. I have run several rolls of ImageLink HQ thru a camera and only a couple frames have shown any detail after development. The question: When comparing the charts in the Kodak documentation for the two films mentioned, what is the actual difference in emulsion sensitivity?

ImageLink HQ
http://graphics.kodak.com/docimaging/uploadedFiles/d30.pdf

Plus-X 7231
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_products_bw_h15231.pdf

 

[AgX]

Emulsion speed to a certain degree depends on the developer. Even more in case of a low-contrast developer as this is what you most likely use with the Imagelink HQ.

Spur gives for the combo of the Imagelink HQ and his Imagespeed developer a speed of ISO25.

Have you thought about the perforations? I mean do you need such?

 

[DannL]

Emulsion speed to a certain degree depends on the developer. Even more in case of a low-contrast developer as this is what you most likely use with the Imagelink HQ.

Spur gives for the combo of the Imagelink HQ and his Imagespeed developer a speed of ISO25.

Have you thought about the perforations? I mean do you need such?

Thanks AgX, that would make sense. That "is" quite slow. And now that I think about it, I'll bet a yellow filter doesn't help. I should remove that filter from the camera for all of these tests. The cameras where I am using the ImageLink film are the Minolta-16 MG and the Minolta 16II for which perforations are not required.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta-16_MG
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta-16

 

[Murray Kelly]

Thanks AgX, that would make sense. That "is" quite slow. And now that I think about it, I'll bet a yellow filter doesn't help. I should remove that filter from the camera for all of these tests. The cameras where I am using the ImageLink film are the Minolta-16 MG and the Minolta 16II for which perforations are not required.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta-16_MG
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Minolta-16

I know what you mean - I went mad and bought several cams for my stable of Minoltas and a Kiev. My film isn't perforated. It's for microfilming like all ImagelinkHQ and has a different Kodak # but I'm having a lot of trouble finding a good developer.
At the moment I am looking at all the Tech Pan soups. There are so many you are left wondering if anything works!
Technidol is OK at EI25 which I don't mind, and I was hoping to try pyrocatMC but the stuff I cobbled together must be a 'little bit' wrong.
I had problems with Agfa Copex Rapid due I think to phenidone 'banding' in skies etc and want to stay away from phenidone. Runny Rodinal doesn't work for me so I will be interested to hear from anyone who has actually used the film successfully.
One kind person sent me a long screed but it involved latensification and low light flashing. The developer was pyrocat 1:250 or 1:350, I can't recall exactly at the moment.
I will follow the thread, in hope.
Murray

 

[DannL]

Hey Murray, I had no trouble getting this film to develop out in Dektol. I know it will produce densities from zilch to solid black. I developed for 1.5 minutes, washed, and fix for 2. Having learned that this film requires more exposure helps, and I hope to test this today.

 

[cmacd123]

having used kilometres of Microfilm when I was working, I can't help mentioning that it is VERY high contrast compared to normal pictorial film, (and wide range compared to Lith Film) and the speed rating is not really used in industry.

The "normal" way to use microfilm involves taking one picture of a blank document (form, letterhead etc.) at each setting of the camera, and picking the exposure that gives you the best detail. The exposure on many microfilm cameras is literally set by adjusting the voltage on the light bulbs. In such cases we would do the first test at intervals of 5 volts on the lamps, and then at 1 volt for the second test.

 

[DannL]

Thanks Charles. I can see that using this film in a normal camera might be challenging. But it sure spools up on the developing reel easily. Apparently it is not very sensitive to yellow. I removed the yellow filter from the camera and now all my test shots are over-exposed. I can work with that. I think we will be closer to ASA/ISO 50 or 80 now. I've included a couple "crappy frame scans" to demo this film.

Minolta 16II / UV filter
Metered @ EV 12.5
Shot @ 1/30th sec. and f/5.6 (assuming ISO 25)
Negative scan (adjusted)

 

[mattmoy_2000]

I have used Imagelink FS. Its speed is somewhere around 12-25. Looking at the characteristic curves of the FS and HQ, the HQ is a stop or so slower. You will get very, very harsh contrast unless you develop in Rodinal 1:100 (stand) or Technidol or something like that. Rodinal probably gives the easiest processing option, since it's more tolerant of under/over exposure.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Emulsion speed to a certain degree depends on the developer. Even more in case of a low-contrast developer as this is what you most likely use with the Imagelink HQ.
Spur gives for the combo of the Imagelink HQ and his Imagespeed developer a speed of ISO25.
Have you thought about the perforations? I mean do you need such?

Thank you for the PM re Spur products. I have been buying from one of his outlets (Maco) but his prices are way out of my budget.
Murray

 

[dynachrome]

A good starting point is an EI of 12 in Microphen 1:5 for 12 minutes at 68F.