New ortho 120 film from Foma

[Flighter]

I see Fotoimpex in Germany have it listed at €6.79 per roll, dropping to €6.50 per roll if 10 or more rolls ordered, although it is not in stock yet.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Surely it will be €10 a piece by Monday

This ortho grain structure makes sense from a physics standpoint: the halide grains must be very large to achieve anything close to 400 speed while being insensitive to longer wavelengths of light. The sensitizing dyes in panchromatic emulsions are able to soak up more light while still offering finer grain... as anyone who has processed a roll of TMax film can tell you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Must be a redhead, red sweater model in those side by side samples.

 

[pentaxuser]

Must be a redhead, red sweater model in those side by side samples.

Yes it clearly is "very ortho" if there is such a thing and as someone else has said it does appear more ortho than Ilford's version

It would appear to be the one to get if "red is the new black" is your desire

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

in the case of Ilford Ortho 80 this was a recently devised film.

Ortho Plus has been around a long time - it evolved from Ilford Commercial Ortho. There were a whole bunch of similar films for 'commercial'/ process use from all the major manufacturers, but many of the materials were never intended for amateur use - instead they were aimed at large scale industrial graphic arts processes, with some incidental usage in professional photography. Drum scanners, CTP in offset and laser engraving in rotogravure killed off many of the products.

 

[Don_ih]

Ortho Plus

Is not the same as Ilford Ortho 80. Ortho Plus is a slower graphic arts film. Ortho 80 is a continuous tone film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is not the same as Ilford Ortho 80. Ortho Plus is a slower graphic arts film. Ortho 80 is a continuous tone film.

I am talking about Ilford Ortho Plus, not Rollei Ortho 25 Plus, which is something else entirely & named to cause confusion. Continuous tone (of various inherent intended levels of contrast) and litho films can both be graphic arts films (and indeed that was where most of the market for blue sensitive and ortho sensitive films was for many decades).

Quoth Ilford:

"ILFORD ORTHO Plus black and white film was originally designed as a high-resolution copy film, however it is suitable for other in camera applications including high quality portrait and landscape photography."

 

[Don_ih]

not Rollei Ortho 25 Plus

Hmmm, I wasn't, either. I was talking about the Ilford Ortho Copy film that I thought was different from this "new" Ortho 80 - but seems to be the same emulsion. The data sheet from the large format ortho film says iso40T 80D.
I thought Ilford had formulated a new emulsion for the new Ortho 80. Much ado about nothing, then.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hmmm, I wasn't, either. I was talking about the Ilford Ortho Copy film that I thought was different from this "new" Ortho 80 - but seems to be the same emulsion. The data sheet from the large format ortho film says iso40T 80D.
I thought Ilford had formulated a new emulsion for the new Ortho 80. Much ado about nothing, then.

No new emulsion, just an altered coating package (which is potentially non-trivial) to run on triacetate rather than PET.

 

[pentaxuser]

No new emulsion, just an altered coating package (which is potentially non-trivial) to run on triacetate rather than PET.

Maybe Foma has genuinely gone one step further than Ilford in devising a film that is genuinely new at 400? If so then more credit to them

I haven't gone back to look at what we said on Photrio nor specifically what Ilford said about its Ortho 80 Plus but it was my impression that it was suggesting it was more of an event that simply an altered coating
I do recall that there had been an Ilford ortho film in sheet form before its "new" Ortho 80 Plus in 35mmand 120 but I thought that was a lower speed film

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Maybe Foma has genuinely gone one step further than Ilford in devising a film that is genuinely new at 400? If so then more credit to them

I haven't gone back to look at what we said on Photrio nor specifically what Ilford said about its Ortho 80 Plus but it was my impression that it was suggesting it was more of an event that simply an altered coating
I do recall that there had been an Ilford ortho film in sheet form before its "new" Ortho 80 Plus in 35mmand 120 but I thought that was a lower speed film

pentaxuser

I think you are failing to appreciate that altering a coating package to run on a different substrate (without producing anomalous results) is not a small undertaking.

 

[MattKing]

I think you are failing to appreciate that altering a coating package to run on a different substrate (without producing anomalous results) is not a small undertaking.

+++++++1!
And this applies almost as much to altering the coating package to go from 135 to 120, even when both are on acetate.

 

[markjwyatt]

I think you are failing to appreciate that altering a coating package to run on a different substrate (without producing anomalous results) is not a small undertaking.

That is usually a major process change, and if significant enough could mean machine modifications or changing to another line.

 

[pentaxuser]

If their respective data sheets are to the same scale, I expect this new Foma film to exhibit a 'more ortho' look than Ilford's Ortho Plus. Foma peaks in green sensitivity and tails off towards red while Ilford appears to have a more abrupt cutoff. Yellow and orange would appear darker on the Foma ortho, potentially producing more contrast, depending on the scene.

The Foma probably loses speed much more quickly under tungsten lights compared to Ortho Plus, but being a 400 vs 80 box speed it would be an interesting comparison.

I couldn't work out whether the sensitivity scales are the same The Foma one doesn't seem to have numbers on the vertical axis. Both seem to cease at close to the same wavelength but with Ilford's being more of a cliff edge and ceasing slightly before Foma's but Foma's fall looks more gradual. I can't work out from this if Foma's is less or more sensitive to red but certainly from the twin portraits and the colour rendition of the Foma packet red is pretty well black and yellow does look quite dark

Maybe we need two identical figures with all the conditions being the same except one taken with Foma Ortho and one with Ilford Ortho to see what the real differences are?

Can I ask what makes you think that Foma loses speed much more quickly under tungsten?

Here's what Foma says: "The nominal optical sensitivity of the film is ISO 400/27°, but its wide exposure latitude provides very good results even when overexposed by 1.5 EV (ISO 160/23°) and underexposed by 2 EV (ISO 1600/33°). In case of exposure by lower chromaticity temperature (2700-2400 K) than daylight is recommended moderate adjustment of the exposure by 0,1-1 EV, especially by underexposure of the film (El 800 ISO and higher) with an absence of modification of development time (push process)."

I couldn't work out how to relate this to Ilford's recommendation to increase exposure by one stop when under tungsten light

Now that we are living mainly under either cold or warm LED light and tungsten filaments are things of the past, what effect does this have on what we should do as far as exposure is concerned?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

Can I ask what makes you think that Foma loses speed much more quickly under tungsten?

UV light.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

More sensitivity to yellows and oranges in the Ilford stuff, similar to Acros's 'ortho-panchromatic' claims.

 

[pentaxuser]

UV light.

Can you expand on this. Don? I can't see the connection in the sense that I was assuming Bronson meant that Foma loses speed more quickly than Ilford does under tungsten light. I understand that both will lose speed, just not why Foma loses more speed? What is it that each of them, Foma and Illford respectively have said in their sheets that indicates that Foma loses more speed than Ilford

Frankly I cannot work out what Foma is actually saying in the part I have quoted from the Foma sheet

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

More sensitivity to yellows and oranges in the Ilford stuff, similar to Acros's 'ortho-panchromatic' claims.

Thanks. Is there something in the sheets from Ilford and Foma that reflect this? Yes the spectral sensitivity graphs are different but I was unsure how much different the two were in the yellow and orange wavelength

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Can you expand on this. Don? I can't see the connection in the sense that I was assuming Bronson meant that Foma loses speed more quickly than Ilford does under tungsten light. I understand that both will lose speed, just not why Foma loses more speed? What is it that each of them, Foma and Illford respectively have said in their sheets that indicates that Foma loses more speed than Ilford

Frankly I cannot work out what Foma is actually saying in the part I have quoted from the Foma sheet

Thanks

pentaxuser

"Losing speed" is an unfortunate term to use.
The light sensitivity of an emulsion is different for each part of the spectrum.
More sensitive at some frequencies, and less at others.
The two films - the Ilford and the Foma - both exhibit this sort of behavior, but their exact response differs between them.
Foma is just saying that if your light is predominantly in the 2700 - 4000K range, you need to take into account that the film is less sensitive to that light than if the light is predominantly nearer daylight of 5600K, so you should adjust your metering accordingly.
Not unlike the older films that had different daylight and tungsten ASA ratings.

 

[Don_ih]

Can you expand on this. Don?

Nah, ignore what I said. While photographic emulsions are all highly sensitive to uv light, and daylight is loaded with uv light, it's not an explanation for what you asked.

 

[pentaxuser]

OK Thanks Don

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

The two films - the Ilford and the Foma - both exhibit this sort of behavior, but their exact response differs between them.
Foma is just saying that if your light is predominantly in the 2700 - 4000K range, you need to take into account that the film is less sensitive to that light than if the light is predominantly nearer daylight of 5600K, so you should adjust your metering accordingly.

Thanks Matt. So it appears I did understand what both sheets were saying but what is it in the information sheets that tells you that Foma loses more speed than Ilford or can I draw no other conclusion than what you have said?

Is there a means of working out from what Foma has said how much I need to adjust my metering? I note that Ilford makes it simple for me by suggesting that I use 40 instead of 80 so is there any way of knowing how much I need to alter the Foma speed of 400 from what Foma has said in the part I quoted? From what you have said the answer appears to be "No" and it's a form of trial and error but if there is a way then let me know

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

Is there a means of working out from what Foma has said how much I need to adjust my metering?

Someone needs to get @aparat a roll or two of this and he can do some testing.

However, the datasheet suggests the film handles iso160 just fine. You could start at that. Also worth remembering that almost no one believes any Foma film is the speed they say it is.

 

[MattKing]

And speaking more generally, like many films, the speed varies with the light. It is just that the ortho characteristics mean that the variation may be more dramatic - we are more used to films that "shore up" their lower sensitivity because of their sensitivity in the yellow-red.
If your meter is designed for panchromatic sensitivity, its response won't match the film anyways. A bit of careful evaluation of light, a bit of guessing, and a bit of experimentation, and a bit of gained experience should help fine tune it for you .

 

[Don_ih]

If your meter is designed for panchromatic sensitivity

Where would you find a light meter that's either designed for or not designed for panchromatic sensitivity?