jack_beatty

<p>If you want the best results, go with 5302. This is a very stable emulsion; I have used Fine Grain Release Positive that had expired 20 years earlier with very good results. It's one of the few "vintage' films available on eBay that I would consider buying. If Ultrafine is supplying 100 foot rolls of fresh film, invest in one. You will be astonished at how much more there is in a well produced B&W transparency than on a reflection print from the same negative. A contact print made with an Eldia will give sharper results than any lens system. Just make sure that you have clean and scratch-free glass on your Eldia.</p>

<p>I have been using a similar (or the same) emulsion for years; Direct Motion Picture Film 5260. This film used to provide cheap "slash prints' for the sound mixing studio to use. It's a very exotic emulsion; an actual solarizing emulsion. It is designed to give a direct duplicate of a negative or of a positive by giving it around 1000 times the exposure that a negative working emulsion with similar fine grain would require. It has extreme resolving power: 1000 line pairs / mm at 1000:1. I have been developing it in D-97, Kodak's standard developer for motion picture B&W positive. I find that I can control the gamma like no other film I've used. One of the things I find it very useful for is making duplicate negatives with dramatically altered curves. I have used it for capture, and I agree with John Shriver's estimate of the speed. by exposure series, I arrived at an ISO speed of 0.5 when developed in D-97. This translates to f1.4 at 1/60th of a second in bright sunlight, so it can be used hand held. I would recommend using a more active sodium carbonate developer like D-19 or even Dectol/D-72.</p>

<p>Just a few words of caution:<br> Another good source for substitute formulas is an old copy of the British Journal of Photography Annual. I have a 1977 edition containing E4 formulas. They list an alternate for ethylene diamine, and I strongly recommend using it if you do decide to mix some E4 chemicals. In 1977 and'78 I was mixing chemicals for a motion picture laboratory, and developed a severe allergy to ethylene diamine. I wore a respirator that used activated carbon filters. These were effective for acid fumes and most organic vapors, but did little to remove the amine. I developed a bronchial athsma and had to quit my job. Unless you take special precautions ,you would do well to avoid the free base form and use the sulphate or chloride salt. This is one of the more noxious chemicals that Kodak eliminated in the E6 colour developer. You will also need a respirator when working with CD3 and benzyl alcohol. Take precautions from the beginning.</p>