Enlarged negatives from Kodalith 2556 ortho type 3?

I've got an expired but unopened and continuously refrigerated box of

8x10 Kodak Graphic Arts Film. It's number 2556, ortho type 3. I

know that this is a high contrast film when processed in Kodalith or

a similar high contrast developer.

 

Does anyone know if this film can be used to produce enlarged,

continuous tone negatives of normal or slightly higher than normal

contrast for pt/pd printing? If so, what type of developer would you

suggest? For normal panchromatic film I typically tray develop by

inspection in ABC Pyro. Since this is orthochromatic film, I think

DBI with a red safelight instead of a green one should be possible.

Is it worth a try? Would Pyro be a good choice, or something else?

Use a red safelight; the film is blue sensitive. The emulsion is inherently contrasty. For graphic arts useage in Kodagraph developer; the development time is between 2 to 3 minutes; constant agitation in dev and stop reduces pinholes. It has been awhile since I have done greyscale stuff with Kodalith or Fujilith. I used a low dilution developer and a longer time; to get better control...I believe I use HC110 really diluted; this was 2 decades ago........Kodalith lasts ALOT LONGER than regular film. It is slow; ie ASA 6; thus the cosmic rays dont ruin it very fast. My Kodalith 6556 Type 3 in a 150ft roll expired when FORD was running for President; and is still very good; and is frozen....Bought it in Kansas City; when FORD had his convention there.

See my article <a href=http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html>Less is More, Negatives by Reversal</a>. I used Arista APH ortho/litho film, but I give a calibration procedure that should get you in the ballpark fairly quickly. For truly precision enlarged negatives, you will probably want to try the traditional interpositive method, which is detailed in Bob Herbst's article <a href=http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/EnlargeNeg/enlargeneg.html>Enlarged Negatives using APHS Ortho Film and Pyro Developer</a>.

I used quite a bit of Kodalith back in the 1970's. Dektol paper developer will give you much lower contrast than the normal litho developers. Diluting it 1:3 or 1:4 will lengthen the developing time in the tray and give you more control of contrast.

Unless my memory fails me, I got good results with Neutol WA at half strength about twenty years ago. Since this was the only paper developer I used then, it must have been that. I do remember I didn't use film developer, which reduces the choises to Neutol WA.

 

Red safelight, expose like paper, chemicals like paper - treat it just like paper.

Well, I tried it. I used the technique that Ed described in his Less is More article. (Thanks Ed!) My results were mixed. This Kodak 2556 ortho type 3 film has quite a thin support, and it seems like it has a thinner emulsion than any regular panchromatic film as well. No code notches, and the film looks shiny on both sides, so it's kind of hard to tell which side the emulsion is on. I decided the lighter side was the emulsion side, and the slightly darker side was the base side. I'm still pretty sure this is right, but even looking at the fully processed and dried film, it's hard to tell. It looks more like transparency film than negative film, although the final result is a negative image on the film and not a positive one.

 

I haven't printed from any of my finished enlarged negatives yet, and I don't have a densitometer, but just judging from the appearance of the enlarged negatives, I think the 8x10 enlargement that I made from a 35mm negative came out about like I hoped. It appears sharp, a little denser than my original 35mm negative, and with greater contrast. I suspect it will print well.

 

I also made 8x10 enlargements from three different 4x5 negatives. The 4x5 negs were just slightly to the thin side of normal. One has normal contrast, the other two were a bit flat. The one that was closest to normal contrast produced an enlarged negative that appears to have more contrast than the original, but looks a little thinner than the original. In other words, the contrast looks better, but there is less density. The other two were pretty flat in the original 4x5, and try as I might, I couldn't seem to improve their contrast on the enlargement. I got what looks like approximately equivalent density or maybe a little greater, but even less contrast than in the originals.

 

I know I'll have to print these to really evaluate them. I'll print on Azo first, then on Pt/Pd if I can get a good Azo print. But if anyone has any idea why two of my 4x5 to 8x10 enlargements have less contrast than the original, and what I might do to change it, I'd like to hear it. Maybe intensify the originals in selenium first? And then, I'm not sure I'm clear on the effect of shorter or longer flash exposure after the base exposure. Less is more in terms of density in the final enlarged negative? But does it affect contrast too in some way?

I too have been in the same process as you. From my tests so far, it does look

promising. Please keep me abreast of your findings.

OK, here's a brief followup on my initial printing results, and a comment... Ugh! Judging negative contrast and density just by looking at the negative is tougher than I thought. You really do have to print them to properly judge them if you don't have a densitometer. I had incorrectly concluded that some of my enlarged negs had less contrast and density than my originals, but in reality, they all had too much contrast and too much density, especially in the highlights, to print easily. I printed on Azo grade 2, and I would have had to burn in all day in some areas to print through the density.

 

So I'm going to try again with a more dilute Dektol mixture like Al suggested, to attempt to tame the contrast. And I'll also try increasing the initial exposure and the flash exposure to try to reduce the overall density.

 

Scott, what kind of results have you gotten? Have you managed to get a more useful contrast and density from your enlarged Kodalith negs?