I didn't try, so I don't know. I'd guess it would be more like using a safelight. If you could get it to expose, it would be really slow.
Best, Rick > From: Gene Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: @Home Network > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:27:31 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] industrial films > > 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 _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
