Unidentified orange bulk Film.?

[pentaxuser]

Well the first pic is certainly orange on my screen but the sprocket holes look to be more rectangular than the later pics of the film where the sprocket holes while not being square look less rectangular than those in the first pic where the backing is orange

No-one else notice this? Maybe my screen gets the colour correct but not the shape of the sprocket holes?

pentaxuser

 

[Dennis S]

Dennis, do more like 3-5min in print strength Dektol and start with 0iso. I did similar test for Kodak direct positive film many years ago, but I knew what it was. Maybe you can do Google search for instructions? To use this film you will need to carry tripod

Yes I have been searching Google for many days without good results, but it is amazing how many orange cameras there really is for sale as orange and film gives bad results when searching. The 10 min. was overboard with the paper developer as the results were the same as using ID-11. Next time it will be what you recommended

 

[Dennis S]

Well the first pic is certainly orange on my screen but the sprocket holes look to be more rectangular than the later pics of the film where the sprocket holes while not being square look less rectangular than those in the first pic where the backing is orange

No-one else notice this? Maybe my screen gets the colour correct but not the shape of the sprocket holes?

pentaxuser

The holes are the regular sprocket film holes. KS I think they are called as the BH are for movie film.

 

[pentaxuser]

The holes are the regular sprocket film holes. KS I think they are called as the BH are for movie film.

So is it just my imagination that the first set of holes look to be more rectangular in shape than the second set?
Not a disguised challenge on my part in asking this, it's just that I looked several times at the pics of the holes and they just looked different. Might be the angle at which the two sets of pics were taken?

pentaxuser

 

[gorbas]

Dennis, this is info about one Kodak direct positive sheet film:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f11-Duplicating_SO-132-200105.pdf

Unfortunately I totally forgot what type was similar 35mm film I used before. But, they recommend shorter, 2 min developing in Dektol and no mention of sensitivity. I could not find that info sheet in my files.

 

[Dennis S]

Dennis, this is info about one Kodak direct positive sheet film:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f11-Duplicating_SO-132-200105.pdf

Unfortunately I totally forgot what type was similar 35mm film I used before. But, they recommend shorter, 2 min developing in Dektol and no mention of sensitivity. I could not find that info sheet in my files.

OK thanks. 2 minutes sounds a lot better. I have a few frames shot ready to develop.

 

[Dennis S]

So is it just my imagination that the first set of holes look to be more rectangular in shape than the second set?
Not a disguised challenge on my part in asking this, it's just that I looked several times at the pics of the holes and they just looked different. Might be the angle at which the two sets of pics were taken?

pentaxuser

Yes that different angle will do that but they are the same. You know you can't believe in all what you see from a digital camera.

 

[mohmad khatab]

positive developer

Is there such a thing as a positive developer?
This is D72, which is a print developer.

 

[AgX]

No, there is no such as positive (acting) developer. (Leaving aside such thing as a whole reversal process.)

A direct positive film produces a positive image out of itself, in one developing step.

 

[AgX]

This is info about one Kodak direct positive sheet film:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f11-Duplicating_SO-132-200105.pdf

They recommend shorter, 2 min developing in Dektol .

Agfa too for their direct positive film recommend graphic-film or paper developer.

 

[Dennis S]

Success.? First sort of result from the strange orange film. I developed it in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. 2 minutes this time and it is definitely a positive film that will require a bit longer exposure time but at least I have something to start with no matter how bad it really is. I was careless with the film after developing it as I thought it was totally blank but after drying, I could see something there so I tried to save it but it is still noisy.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Success.? First sort of result from the strange orange film. I developed it in Ilford Multigrade paper developer. 2 minutes this time and it is definitely a positive film that will require a bit longer exposure time but at least I have something to start with no matter how bad it really is. I was careless with the film after developing it as I thought it was totally blank but after drying, I could see something there so I tried to save it but it is still noisy.

Congratulations to you
I hope you can find out the identity of that movie and then use it
It might be a microfilm