Kodak Imagelink HQ/Caffenol LC+C

[newcan1]

If all goes well, I should be receiving a fair quantity of Kodak Imagelink HQ film (35mm and 105mm) soon. I have been reading up on how it might be used/processed for pictorial use. There are a few threads here and elsewhere, but not too many images posted on the internet that would really allow me to guage results. maybe a handful that I have seen.

Some have indicated that Caffenol LC+C is a good developer to use when using microfilm for pictorial use. Is it the best choice, or are there better alternatives? My normal film dev of choice is D-76 which I assume would not produce good halftones.

I have absolutely no experience shooting with microfilm and so am hoping others might be able to chime in with their experiences to help me get up the ladder a bit quicker. From what I have read, I am inclined to start by shooting the film at ASA 25 and ASA 32, and develop in Caffenol LC+C for 12-15 minutes. I am particularly concerned to know if Caffenol is a sufficiently reliable developer to produce consistent results for darkroom printing, as opposed to scanning negatives. To my untrained eye, it seems a bit odd to see formulae expressed in teaspoons (I guess Zone V used to do that back in the 80's and it all worked OK). As if developing ina cup of coffee were not strange enough.

I am not sure if ASA 25 or 32 is a bit low using the Caffenol LC+C formula, I see that the ascorbic acid is supposed to give a bit of a speed boost, but I am a bit skeptical especially as many indicate that microfilm negatives can tend to be "thin."

I have seen a handful of images taken on this film that (at least per scans on the internet) look outstanding, so I thought it would be fun to give it a go. Also, it seemed to me that the 105mm stuff could conceivably be adapted for MF use (I'm working on a 70mm slitter, and a 105mm slitter could be a variation on the theme for 120 or to slit to 4in or even 70mm for 116, etc).

I know this subject has come up in earlier threads, but in most I saw, people were in various stages of experimentation and lazy me wondered if anyone has more to add that would save me some duplicative effort.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

H&W Control developer, sold in the early 70's, was used to get continuous tone negatives from microfilm. H&W sold respooled Agfa Copex microfilm for use with the developer.

H&W, or something like it from Gigabit or Bluefire, is at least a well researched developer for use with microfilm. OTOH, Cafenol LC may work better for your application.

See http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html#HWControl and other Google hits.

From the above web site:

100 ml Water
1.9 g Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous)
0.3 g Hydroquinone
8.7 g Sodium Carbonate
Water to make 200 ml
15 g Sodium Sulfite
Water to make 250 ml (I don't see any reason for the serial dilution - may as well start with 250ml and be done with it, ed.)

Mix ingredients in order listed, ensuring each is fully dissolved before adding the next. Make up your phenidone as a stock solution, 1 g/L strength in 91% or stronger isopropyl alcohol (available at pharmacies), in which that little phenidone will pretty readily dissolve and will keep for years, then add one part phenidone stock for each 12 parts of developer stock solution at time of dilution. Use one part stock to fifteen parts water; do not attempt to store or reuse the working strength developer, as once diluted it has a working life of only hours, at most.​

Bracket when first starting out - the ASA of this combination isn't well specified.

 

[newcan1]

Yes, I saw the reference to H&W Control developer, I may give it a try although mixing phenidone with alcohol seems a bit exotic. I am very interested in the Caffenol branch of experimentation, it seems like Caffenol LC+C could be a good choice, provided consistency could be had. I have seen various variations of the formulae, including those that use KBr and others that don't. Also a Caffenol version that uses sodium chloride. I would like to try a Caffenol derivative to start, but would like to minimize the need to experiment if doing so treads and already trodden path.

I am intrigued with the H&W Control formula and also various formulae under the "POTA" heading. The latter seem fairly conventional but would, per my reading, limit microfilm speed to about 25 ASA or even lower, maybe 12.

It is interesting to note, per the entry here and also similar ones elsewhere, that microfilm has basically a "zero" exposure latitude; I guess that is the foundation for good exposure discipline.