Ortho Film Availibility

[EASmithV]

Hello Everyone,

I've recently become even more infatuated with the tonality range of ortho films, so I was wondering what my options are for a real film.
So far, i've been enjoying X-Ray film, and in the past I liked lith film and paper. I realize that they won't be quite the same, but nevertheless, i want to try it.

What are my best options? Ideally i'd like to shoot something around asa 200-400 but i realize that i may have to shoot something as slow as asa 25 (way slower than x-ray film!)

Are there any relatively high speed ortho films out there? If not, what filmes ARE there at all? Has anyone tried the ilford copy film for pictorial use?

I'm interested in all formats.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

There aren't many ortho films left to purchase as fresh stock. Rollei ortho, and microfilms come to mind. Kodalith pops up in bulk rolls from time to time as old expired stock, but its low sensitivity helps with storage times, and is still quite usable. Your other option is to use a normal panchromatic fast speed film, and stack on strong minus red filter to get the look.

 

[brucemuir]

What sizes are you thinking?

 

[Jim Noel]

I use Ilford Ortho. I have not bought any in a while because I have a large stock, but I believe it is still available in 4x5 and 8x10.

 

[Aurelien]

Rollei Ortho is actually out of stock, but is going back in the market in all formats in about end of March.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Ilford Ortho + sheet film is superb, it's similar in many ways to FP4+ in terms of image quality, except a slight speed difference, I used it extensively a few years ago for work.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

I have a can of 70mm kodalith I THINK in my freezer, I have to check to be sure.

It's very old...

Want it? Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gandolfi]

http://www.lumiere-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=624

Wephota orthochromatic films...

Adox

http://www.lumiere-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=272

 

[sepiareverb]

I will also praise the Ilford Ortho sheet films and the Rollei Ortho25 in 35 & 120 sizes. The Ilford responds very well to changes in development- so should be well able to get you where you want. The Rollei is contrasty, but is really lovely with careful working. I've found the 120 more difficult to tame than the 35mm.

 

[Rudeofus]

Wouldn't a panchromatic film and a blue or cyan filter accomplish more or less the same thing?

 

[Jim Noel]

Wouldn't a panchromatic film and a blue or cyan filter accomplish more or less the same thing?

Not in my experience.

 

[dwross]

Not in my experience.

Agreed.

 

[Rudeofus]

Care to explain? There shouldn't be much difference whether a film is insensitive to red light or a filter absorbs it, yes?

Up until now I saw the main motivation for orthochromatic film in the fact that it can be manipulated while dark room safe lights are on, but I'm ready to learn ....

 

[kintatsu]

Using a 44 or 44A filter will give the same look as traditional ortho film. Traditional ortho stops recording at approximately 580nm, and at that wavelength the 44 transmits o% and the 44a transmits .1% of the light hitting the filter. That's from the Transmission of Wratten Filters pub by Kodak. It means you'll need to increase your exposure by 1-2 stops, depending on the wavelengths being photographed.

That will give you a more traditional look when developed for your style than if you try a new film and have to relearn its properties, wasting several shots in the process.

 

[viridari]

The silver structure is different for ortho films because it does not need to be sensitized to red spectrum light. The contrast filter may simulate some of the tonality (which, even then, is up for debate) but will do nothing to change the grain structure.

 

[MattKing]

And the results you obtain when you try to develop the film under a red safe-light would most likely also disappoint.

 

[cliveh]

Wouldn't a panchromatic film and a blue or cyan filter accomplish more or less the same thing?

Matt beat me to it, but I was going to say do you like processing in total darkness.

 

[kintatsu]

Safelights other than a very very dim green, and then for short times are still not good for pan films.

As far as the filter for the effect, if I recall correctly, Ansel Adams recommended the 44A to simulate the old ortho film look and feel with most pan films and the 47 for blue only in his book The Negative. It would seem, at least to me, that his recommendation would be valid. Even though the sensitivity to red exists, if the light doesn't, then nothing would be recorded where it was red. As the red sensitizing is accomplished by adding an agent to the emulsion, the grains remain unchanged either way. At least, that's my understanding.

I apologize if I'm misleading anyone, and if I'm wrong, I hope that someone can set me straight.

 

[Rudeofus]

The silver structure is different for ortho films because it does not need to be sensitized to red spectrum light.

Whether a film is orthochromatic or panchromatic has nothing to do with Silver Halide crystals and everything to do with sensitizing dyes. The only time you see these sensitizing dyes in your negatives is if you don't fix&wash certain Kodak films well.

And the results you obtain when you try to develop the film under a red safe-light would most likely also disappoint.

If I remember correctly, orthochromatic film is used to these days for masking where it helps tremendously if you can see what you do without IR goggles.

Next!

Matt beat me to it, but I was going to say do you like processing in total darkness.

I normally do but there are situations where I don't.

Next!

Safelights other than a very very dim green, and then for short times are still not good for pan films.

Did you mean orthochromatic films? And why would you use green safelights for orthochromatic film? (there was a url link here which no longer exists) apparently uses a dim red safelight with success.


Jesus, what a thread ...

 

[kintatsu]

Did you mean orthochromatic films? And why would you use green safelights for orthochromatic film?

I thought I said for pan films, but it turns out I only mentioned it not being good for them. Sorry for not being clear, I often have that habit.

Actually, using an incredibly dim green light allows for short adjustment times for the eye, which allows for rapid inspection of pan films to check development. Green light for ortho would be bad indeed.

For ortho, red is good, and for the old blue only films, a green light was used as the eye adapts quicker to green. Of course, for pan films, the distance, time, and brightness are all factors. Developing by inspection is definitely not worth the effort except for the most difficult of negatives, at least for me. Accurately judging densities in the dark is too tricky for me.

Plus, the heightened sense of anticipation in the dark is quite rewarding when you finish without peeking!

 

[dwross]

Mr. Adams said this:

"Within practical limitations, the use of filters permits manipulation of panchromatic film to produce effects approximating (his italics) the response of ordinary and orthochromatic emulsions." 'The Negative', 1948, p.7.

To my eye, it's not even a particularly good approximation, but whether or not the difference is worth having both ortho and pan films around is certainly a personal choice. If one is really curious, it might be worth the effort to play around with the materials and make a personal determination. (By "ordinary", Adams meant colorblind film.)

 

[kintatsu]

I don't have the 1948 edition, sadly. In the 1981 edition, on page 112, he says "Panchromatic films can be made to simulate orthochromatic response by using a #44A (minus-red) filter, which passes only blue and green light."

I agree with you that the determination has to be made by the individual. By offering more choices we can give someone tools to weigh for themselves, rather than just poking about blindly. Given the advances in filter technology, there may be some merit in attempting the use of one, and possibly having another tool to use.

Just my two cents. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. If I have, I offer my sincerest apologies.

 

[Rudeofus]

Developing by inspection is definitely not worth the effort except for the most difficult of negatives, at least for me. Accurately judging densities in the dark is too tricky for me.

Plus, the heightened sense of anticipation in the dark is quite rewarding when you finish without peeking!

I didn't advocate development by inspection, but when thinking about slides to be enlarged in Ilfochrome process, I would be much more willing to try contrast masks if I was able to see the setup while I create the mask. See my reference to Michel R.'s posting.

And to those claiming that orthochromatic film has other tonal characteristics than pan film: the orthochromatic emulsions you get today are very special in their characteristics since they don't seem to have been formulated for general purpose photography. This doesn't mean that orthochromatic films necessarily have certain tonal characteristics which can't be reproduced in a panchromatic emulsion.

 

[dwross]

kintatsu,

Very interesting differences between the 1948 and 1981 editions. Thanks for posting the latter. It would be fascinating to know the reason for the change. That's a lot of years in a man's life. Did he change -- becoming less dogmatic? Did the materials change so that there was less difference between ortho and pan in 1981 than in 1948? Were filters different? I don't suppose it makes much difference to us today, but still, fascinating. Photography has such an intricate history.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

wow; i did not know, he was a member too