Ortho Films?

[haryanto]

I've used FUJI Lith LO-N100 for my masking it's just great

 

[dancqu]

Thanks Dan, but I'm looking for plain old ortho,
not ortho lith.

The OP, I Quote; "Kodak Contrast (Process Ortho)".
My job years ago involved exposing a Process Ortho
film in a Process camera using a carbon arc light
source. The film was developed by inspection
using a Lith developer. No Lith without a Lith
developer. They may have 4x5. Dan

 

[maxbloom]

Kodak Contrast (Process Ortho) is not a lith film.

1) Kodak mentions nothing about it being a lith film in their technical data.
2) They do not even recommend the use of Kodalith developer for its development, whereas they do for Kodalith/Ektagraphic and Ultratec.
3) Lith films and papers have lith in the coating. Using a lith developer does not make the film lith.

Can it be developed using a lith developer? Sure, why not? Like I said, that doesn't make it a lith film.

 

[dancqu]

Lith films and papers have lith in the coating.
Using a lith developer does not make the film lith.

Can it be developed using a lith developer?
Sure, why not? Like I said, that doesn't
make it a lith film.

You are thinking of RA films, rapid access. Some can be
processed RA or A-B. RA films are developer incorporated.
Those that are not RA depend upon a lith developer. That
is my understanding. In recent years I've only produced
lith prints. Dan

 

[maxbloom]

All I'm saying is that Kodak specifically identifies only one other film as being identical to Kodalith, and that's Ektagraphic. Contrast and Kodalith are entirely different films. Recall all this talk about lith films having really thin bases? Contrast has a really thick base.

Given that they're two films of essentially the same speed, but 1) Contrast does not have the characteristic thin lith-style base, 2) They produce vastly different results in the same non-lith developers, and 3) Kodak does not recommend Kodalith as a developer for Contrast. I see no reason to conclude that it is a lith film.

 

[dancqu]

Contrast has a really thick base. Contrast does not
have the characteristic thin lith-style base, ... Kodak
does not recommend Kodalith as a developer for Contrast.
I see no reason to conclude that it is a lith film.

End usage likely an issue of base thickness. Save for
the RA line/half tone films there are no LITH films perse.
A lith developer is needed to produce lith results which
need not be high contrast results. Lith prints often
have a pictorial gradation.

I detect some confusion and it is due to terminology.
Lith, half-tone, graphic art, line, ortho, process. Any
of several films can qualify for all those descriptives.

For example I just went Google for, Soemarko LC-1
Developer. Specifically the article deals with APH and
APHS; Half Tone and Half Tone Supreme LITH films. His
developer; pictorial results from those, general category,
graphic art films. Worth a read. Dan

 

[PHOTOTONE]

It really is only in recent years that the "terminology" has become confusing, as back in the 1970's and 1980's, the only thing we used ortho/litho film for, was making high contrast images, such as line art for title slides, masks for background dropouts, and "high contrast conversions" of continuous tone originals for graphic design effects. I always used Kodalith A & B developer, which was a very active BLACK AND PURE WHITE DEVELOPER.

Now that "Lith" means a type of printing technique with specific developers and papers, the classic understanding of these thin emulsion ortho sensitive films is misunderstood, I think.

In general (with few exceptions) an "Ortho" film as available today is a thin emulsion (not necessarily thin base) orthochromatic sensitive film designed for high-contrast work, using specific developers designed to enhance this effect.

HOWEVER, you CAN get full toned results from these same films by developing them in soft-working (as compared to normal for these films) developers. Most b/w film developers for common films would be considered "soft working" in the context of using them for Ortho film.

 

[dancqu]

It really is only in recent years that the "terminology"
has become confusing, ...

HOWEVER, you CAN get full toned results from
these same films

Full toned results. Another article worth a read is
at Unblinking Eye. At Google enter, aphs less is more .

BTW, Thin vs thick. The process camera I worked
with had a Sticky Back. Some have vacuum backs.
That may be a reason for base variations. Dan