Rick,

Is it even worth trying to use an orange or red filter to try to correcr
some of the blue sensitivity?

Gene

Rick Dingus wrote:
> 
> Many years ago I built a 16" X 20 " field camera and experimented with using
> 16 " X 20" generic ortho film from Freestyle instead of regular panchromatic
> film because it was cheap and because it looked a lot like 19th Century film
> when processed for continuous tone.  (Blues are rendered lighter in tone,
> reds dark, and it is so slow that you end up with time exposures even in
> bright sunlight.)  The film manufacturers all refused to advise me, saying
> that high contrast film was not intended for continuous tone and they
> wouldn't guarantee the results.  But by trial and error, and months of
> experimentation, I found a method that worked well.
> 
> Testing the development and exposure by printing and not by eyeballing is
> essential because the drastic dilution changes the color of the film to a
> muddy brown--what looks to the eye like a very flat negative actually prints
> on photo paper with much more contrast because of the change in color, which
> is similar to the color of a safelight.  The film speed is also extremely
> slow, about ISO 1.5 instead of 6, because you need shadow detail if you're
> trying to avoid high contrast.
> 
> Even development was another problem with such large negatives.  I settled
> on using a Dev-Tec color print processing tube with constant rolling
> agitation, reversing direction every 30 sec.  Keep in mind "expose for the
> shadows, develop for the highlights" and print on photo paper to evaluate
> exposure and contrast (minimum exposure time for maximum black of the clear
> edges of the film).  Increased development increases contrast, decreased
> development softens contrast.  Development is affected by:
> 1. Time (the longer the time the more the development)
> 2. Dilution (the stronger the concentration the faster the development)
> 3. Agitation (the more agitation the faster the development)
> 4. Temperature (the warmer the developer, the faster the development)
> 
> I ended up with something like 1/4 oz HC110 concentrate (straight from the
> original bottle, not diluted into stock solution like Kodak recommends, in
> 32 to 40 oz water at 70 degrees F for a development time of about 5 1/2 to 6
> 1/2 minutes.  My students have  achieved similar results using 35mm Kodalith
> film, resulting in 35mm negatives that are so fine grain that they almost
> appear to be large format.
> 
> Try to keep your development time to 5 minutes or longer for even
> development.  Bracket your exposures and development to find the best kind
> of detail and contrast.  Its slow and unconventional, but it does work and
> can create a beautifully delicate tonal range that takes full advantage of
> all the blacks, whites and middle tones afforded by your paper if tested and
> handled carefully.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rick Dingus
> 
> > From: Gene Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organization: @Home Network
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:00:57 -0700
> > To: cameramakers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [Cameramakers] industrial films
> >
> > Hello Cameramakers,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has had experience with using any of the Kodak
> > or other large industrial films like precision line film or reproducing
> > film in their large format cameras.  I see this stuff as surplus from
> > time to time, and was curious about it.  I know these are generally
> > ortho films, and I have no experience with that.  Will I be able to
> > develop it with ordinary developers? Also, I just bought a huge roll of
> > Aerial reproducing film, Kodak SO-192 for just about nothing.  It's 5"
> > rollfilm and I've also just bought a 5" rollfilm back to use it with.
> > Since there are no available tanks to develop it in, I'm hoping I can
> > modify a multi-roll Jobo tank to allow me to develop 6 feet or so at a
> > time. I also hope I can "reverse engineer" the back to see how hard it
> > would be to make approximate copies.
> >
> >
> > Gene Johnson
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cameramakers mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cameramakers mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
_______________________________________________
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers

Reply via email to