ortho, not pan film

seezee · Apr 21, 2016

Claudia Moroni said:
Sorry, it took me a while, but I've finally processed the Ilford Ortho sheets, so that I can update this thread and show you the results.

View attachment 56424

View attachment 56423

View attachment 56425

I did a 3 minutes pre wash and then I developed them in Rollei Low Contrast 1+4 (300ml of solution) using the Jobo CPE-2 and continuos agitation at 20 °C for 9 and a half minutes

The films were exposed at 50 iso.

I know this is an old thread, but, Claudia, did you wind up using a filter for these portraits, and, if so, which one?

Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned x-ray film, which is sold as either blue- or green-sensitive. See this lengthy discussion.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 21, 2016

George Collier said:
Michael suggested a blue filter, I'm thinking along the same lines, but Cyan, as the true complement to Red (Blue being the complement to Yellow). I don't know if the difference would matter, but the Blue filter should hold back some yellow, which the Cyan should pass.

The correct filter to use is Minus Red (Cyan). A blue filter would reproduce the effect of an unsensitized emulsion. Think of Matthew Brady's civil war photos.

removed account4 · Apr 21, 2016

seezee said:
I know this is an old thread, but, Claudia, did you wind up using a filter for these portraits, and, if so, which one?

Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned x-ray film, which is sold as either blue- or green-sensitive. See this lengthy discussion.

hi seezee
when i started this thread in 2011
not many people were using xray film.
most were using lith film and suffering through
the fog and restrainers to get a usable negative.
i had hundreds of sheets of xray film ( 15? years ago? )
that i chucked in the waste bin, it was sensitized and
textural on BOTH sides and even though it would have been like
shooting a paper negative, i didn't want to deal with a textured negative,
or stripping the emulsion off of the 2nd side.
i've never touched xray film ever since. thought about it, but never bothered.

john

pdeeh · Apr 21, 2016

You can get single sided xRay film.
Ektascan BR/A is mentione as being one at lfpf

removed account4 · Apr 21, 2016

yeah ... read the thread
i've got too much paper and emulsion lying around to start buying xray stuff

Gerald C Koch · Apr 21, 2016

I don't know if you would classify x-ray film as actually being orthochromatic. That is the entire portion of the spectrum designated for orthochromatic film. This film has been sensitized to fit the spectrum of the phosphors used in the intensifying screen. There is blue sensitized film and green sensitized film. The particular film I looked at had no sensitivity in the green region of the spectrum. Its sensitivity peaked at 440 nanometers and was gone by 480 nanometers. Certainly it was not orthochromatic. The film was not even fully sensitized for the blue region. It's always iffy to repurpose something from what it was originally intended.

Jim Noel · Apr 21, 2016

Michael R 1974 said:
You could always try a blue filter on the lens.

Nowhere near the same as orthochromatic film.

Jim Noel · Apr 21, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
I don't know if you would classify x-ray film as actually being orthochromatic. That is the entire portion of the spectrum designated for orthochromatic film. This film has been sensitized to fit the spectrum of the phosphors used in the intensifying screen. There is blue sensitized film and green sensitized film. The particular film I looked at had no sensitivity in the green region of the spectrum. Its sensitivity peaked at 440 nanometers and was gone by 480 nanometers. Certainly it was not orthochromatic. The film was not even fully sensitized for the blue region. It's always iffy to repurpose something from what it was originally intended.

Some x-ray film is truly orthochromatic, some is nearly so. I use Ektascan for several reasons, one of them being it is truly ortho.

Arklatexian · Apr 21, 2016

jnanian said:
i realized early on into this thread that i was saying "ortho" when i meant something different ..
i meant blue sensitive ( only!) orthochromatic ( not sensitized with dye ) film, like pre-1870s plates ... the baseline .
at present i am shooting paper negatives, a lot of them, and i was wondering if there was a
film equivalent to my paper negatives ... some of the papers i shoot are vc, and some are graded..
i also do some UV exposures, ... so in the end maybe just a bluish ( i will have to experiment, dark , light, greenish/cyanish )
and filter might works best.

as chemical photography marches forward, it seems that we are going backwards at the same time ..
i kind of hope that down the road there is a manufacturer of just plain old blue sensitive ortho film / plates
instead of pan film. i know it is inferior, and difficult to harness the contrast, and "deal with" because
of its slowness ( dyes increase the speed ) but it would be kind of nice to see a drastic change.
instead of chemical photography trying to keep up all the BS that the digi folks want us to worry about,
( we've already lost color image making to the computer ) i'd like to hunker down
and get back to the roots of photography. i know i am probably a minority,
but images from that early time period seem to be much more interesting than
things made in the last 100 years ...

thanks again for all your help, suggestions and information / education ..
john

I guess I'll explore a problem that I have with concepts about what makes a picture look "old timey" and that has certainly been done in these dicussions. Just what gives the prints made from "orthochromatic films" a 19th century look? These films are probably still the best films to use for men's portraits and have been for a long time and you can still buy them new and fresh. Karsh used orthochromatic on many of his men's portraits, probably not because the film was cheaper but because it was the best for the job at hand. But, of course he was "old fashioned". Is that it? If pan films are making BETTER men's portraits today, I have yet to see any......I thank you!!!!!

Gerald C Koch · Apr 21, 2016

oldtimermetoo said:
I guess I'll explore a problem that I have with concepts about what makes a picture look "old timey" and that has certainly been done in these dicussions. Just what gives the prints made from "orthochromatic films" a 19th century look? These films are probably still the best films to use for men's portraits and have been for a long time and you can still buy them new and fresh. Karsh used orthochromatic on many of his men's portraits, probably not because the film was cheaper but because it was the best for the job at hand. But, of course he was "old fashioned". Is that it? If pan films are making BETTER men's portraits today, I have yet to see any......I thank you!!!!!

Obtaining a "19th century look" has been discussed several times before. The choice of film actually plays only a small role. More important are choice of subject, setting, lighting, costumes, hairdo and makeup, etc. If choice of film were really important then period pieces like Downton Abby which depend heavily on verisimilitude would be filmed in B&W.

Back when Hollywood used orthochromatic films models had to wear green makeup, green lipstick, green fingernail polish, and costumes which avoided reds. This insured the correct tonalities in the print. So in reality everything was done to AVOID the print looking like it was taken with orthochromatic film.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 23, 2016

The following two articles describe what was done to avoid the limitations of early films. The effect caused by orthochromatic film was not considered desireable but quite the contrary. The second article details the colors that were typically used.

http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/cdc/early-movie.php
http://www.lelalondon.com/2013/04/throwback-thursday-vintage-film-makeup-tutorial/

As far as men's photographs are concerned, today's man seems to have more in common with Dorian Gray (to appear ageless) than the Marlboro man.

ortho, not pan film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency