Kodak SO-370 Traffic Flow Film...???

[MartinP]

It might be better to look at the negatives, rather than look at processed (scanned?) digital files. Look for usable highlight detail and, most importantly, visible shadows on the negatives and make a decision about your preferred balance between the two. Remembering, of course, that highlight density is going to be dependent on development time and that you can change that separately to the exposure in order to keep it under control.

 

[removed account4]

So last night I ran my test. I chose a 'scene' rather than a gray card, thinking that a scene would give me a better idea of the range, and how it would perform in the future.

I did what trythis suggested, and used one of my Canon EOS 630's with a Canon EF 50mm 1.8, and started at ASA 6. I had my daughter hold up the number of the ASA in each respective photo. The ASA's used were; 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, etc., up to the max of 6400.

To figure out developing time, I also went with trythis's suggestion of 1/2" sections at a time in the developer. My chosen developer was Kodak HC-110 Dilution H (1:63). I used a single roll size stainless tank, and gerry rigged a film holder from clothespins to keep the film off the sides and bottom. I used the leader section, as it was (unusually) long (about 5"), and did it in the light. I decided I would go for as long as 14 minutes, with a stirring of the developer every minute, along with the lowering of the film into the developer. I looked at all Kodak film development times listed on the Mass Dev Chart, and decided that I wouldn't start the dip until the 5th minute. So I had developed gradations at 14 thru 5 minutes (first section in for 14 minutes, last section for 5 minutes). I compared the final leader to the leader of a properly developed roll, and initially decided on 12 minutes, but then went to 12:30 after some thinking during the developing stage.

I let the film dry overnight, and finally had a chance to scan them. I made a contact sheet in PS, which is below, as well as what I feel were the best. A link to the library of all the images is near the bottom.

If anyone was wondering, there is nothing on the rebate other than frame number and 'Kodak Safety Film'.

Can you guys/gals look at the images, and tell me which ASA you think gives the best results?

View attachment 92966View attachment 92967View attachment 92968View attachment 92969View attachment 92970View attachment 92971View attachment 92972View attachment 92973View attachment 92974View attachment 92975View attachment 92976View attachment 92977View attachment 92978View attachment 92979View attachment 92980


And this is a link to all the images (except for the last 2 or 3 that were just black)

Thanks for looking, and for all the guidance you guys gave me with this. And a big shout out to trythis!

good work !
sometimes it is hard to tell with "post processed scans" which negatives are the best ( sometimes it is easiest to just look at the film against something like newsprint as described in the ansel adams the negative book ),
that said, you know what range you like you can process a roll at one speed you like the best and see if the roll works for you, and adjust your
"personal iso" accordingly

have fun
john

 

[Peter de Groot]

My vote goes to 64 although the film can take 100 and 125 as well but not for all scenes.

 

[laser]

SO-370 is similar to VERICHROME PAN.

Bob

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[Maris]

So last night I ran my test. I chose a 'scene' rather than a gray card, thinking that a scene would give me a better idea of the range, and how it would perform in the future.

I did what trythis suggested, and used one of my Canon EOS 630's with a Canon EF 50mm 1.8, and started at ASA 6. I had my daughter hold up the number of the ASA in each respective photo. The ASA's used were; 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, etc., up to the max of 6400....

I do tests like this often but from a diametrically opposite approach which I reckon yields more informative results. I use exposure to calibrate the exposure meter rather than use the meter to discover the correct exposure.

After shooting a long series of stepped exposures of a reproducible scene while recording shutter speed and f-stop I develop film in a "standard" way and look for the first negative (not the scan) that has the shadow detail I want. That negative shows the correct exposure. Then I go and get my light-meter and address the (unchanged) scene using my regular metering strategy. Then I tweak the ISO dial until the meter gives me the reading I already know is correct. The scene, the meter, and the negative are now linked in a reliable way.

The development time is not critical at this first step. Shadow detail is determined by exposure, develops up in the first few seconds, and scarcely moves as development is extended. As a final step I do a series of development time trials to make the dense parts of the negative, the highlights, go where I want.

 

[Kirks518]

SO-370 is similar to VERICHROME PAN.

Bob

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Looks like you wrote the book on Kodak film!

Can you give me direction as to how you would use the film? Verichrome was 125 ASA, and developing in HC-110 would be 5 mins (68°F) ([H]=10mins). Is this how you would handle this film? At my developing time above (12:30), I thought 125 was a bit grainy, so I've currently got a roll going at 64 ASA.

I took the negatives to my local pro lab (luckily, there is one still locally), and had them looked at by the pro. In his opinion, he felt that 25 ASA was the best. Now, I am not well-versed in reading negatives, and I'm a novice at developing, so I'm now wondering if I were to shoot at 125, and reduce my developing time to 10 mins., would that improve the results that I'm currently seeing at 125? Or would 125 still look pretty much the same, just not as dense? Even though I have 35 more rolls of this stuff, I'd really like to zone in on the best way to use it.


Maris -

Your test method seems as though it would be more precise, and I would use it in the future if a similar situation came up. I may reshoot using that method if this loaded roll doesn't satisfy.

Thanks guys!