Ilford Ortho Plus in No.2 Brownie

Ilford announced last month that they would be releasing their Ortho Plus film in 35MM and 120 sizes. Ortho Plus was previously only available in sheet film sizes, and its release in roll film sizes makes it one of the few pictorial contrast orthochromatic films in production. I was pleasantly surprised to find Ilford releasing such a product, as I am someone who has a number of early box and folding cameras from the early 1900s that I enjoy shooting. I believe that having an orthochromatic film with a speed quite similar to films that would have been in use when these cameras were new is advantageous for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly, if their were any concern that light leakage from the red window would fog the film, the use of orthochromatic film would eliminate such fear assuming the red window was present and undamaged.

 

Secondly, lenses made prior to the widespread adoption of panchromatic negative material may not have been perfectly corrected for chromatic aberration in the red spectrum, as this was unnecessary. The use of orthochromatic film would negate this disadvantage.

 

Third, the higher contrast nature of orthochromatic film (Ortho Plus was originally designed for copy work) compensates for the low contrast of early lenses.

 

Fourth, having a film with a similar speed to those in use means that you can use the original exposure directions for simple cameras which lack clearly defined aperture or shutter speed indications.

 

Finally, orthochromatic films can be processed under a red safelight, which may be easier for newcomers to film development as it means the film reels can be loaded in lit conditions, or even tray development can be done resulting in a lower initial cost to entry. Processing by inspection is also possible if so desired.

 

Basically, I think that using Ilford Ortho Plus gives one the best representation of what it would have been to use a camera from about 1900-1950 as originally intended. Thus, if someone approached you and said "I found Grandma's old Box Brownie in the attic, what film do you recommend if I wanted to shoot it?" this would be what I would recommend.

 

Now, the No.2 Brownie has to be one of the most prolific cameras ever made. If you're reading this you have probably owned one or came across one at a garage sale, antique shop, Goodwill, etc. I have owned a No.2 model D for a number of years, but the cardboard case of that camera was so warped that I had no inclination that it would be light tight, and yet I wanted to shoot with this camera. Fortunately, I was able to pick up two more at the recent MIPHS swap meet, for $5 each. I recently shot with the No.2 Model E, and found that it too had some light leak problems, but posted one of the good images I got off the roll in this week's Film Camera Week thread. When Ortho Plus 120 came onto retailers' shelves, I grabbed a couple of rolls and decided to shoot one of them in this No.2 Brownie model F.

 

Since this film can be processed under a red safelight, I decided to develop it by the see-saw tray method rather than use a tank. I developed it in HC-110 Dil. B (1:31) at 68F for 6 minutes. I was quite pleased with the results I got with this method, I did not notice any of the scratches on the emulsion that I feared might occur. I can see why tray development was popular as an entry into film development, although it is a bit more physical experience than tank development and demands your attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first image was a snapshot using the largest stop on the Brownie. The viewfinders on the Brownie are small and dim, and I did not consider the change in perspective from holding the camera at waist level, as I had intended to include the hill trailing down towards the frozen lake. This is not the first time the finders would impact a photo on this roll.

 

Image #2, the Frozen Lake, Again a snapshot using the largest stop.

 

Image #3, Students and Clocktower, Again, a snapshot with the largest stop. Interestingly, this image was shot in better light than the rest yet I seem to notice more grain in the sky.

 

Image #4, House on Frozen Lake, Probably my favorite image from the roll, I thought it would be too underexposed when shooting, but i took a snapshot using the longest stop and hoped for the best. I was not disappointed.

 

Image #5, This image was basically a failure in my mind, as seen from atop the bridge this log looked really cool frozen in ice. But being in the shadow of the bridge, the light was poor. So I braced the camera against one of the bridge supports, used the second largest aperture and tried for about a 1/2 second exposure. The result was not great, some camera shake is visible and the reflected light on the ice mostly obscured the subject.

 

Image #6, Railroad Bridge, This was a time exposure using the smallest aperture, the camera was perched on a log and the shutter was opened for about 2 seconds. I am quite pleased with how well the film recorded detail in the shadows under the bridge, as I thought it would appear as mostly black.

 

Image #7, Stadium, Snapshot, largest stop. Again, the viewfinder bit me here.

 

 

Image #8, Trail, Snapshot, largest stop. Camera braced against bench.

 

Overall, I am quite pleased with this film. I reiterate my earlier statements, and I am also pleased by the contrasty nature of this film as well as its representation of open shadows. My No.2 Brownie Model F also performed well, no light leaks this time around. My largest criticism of the film is that I found it had a strong desire to curl in on itself after drying, best I can find this film is on an acetate base as most films are, but this is on a 5 mil base where other films are on 3.9 to 4 mil bases, such as Tri-X. I do not know if this factor is affecting the tendency of the film to curl.

 

I am also happy that film makers like Ilford continue to bring new products to market, particularly like in this case when that new product actually mimics something old. I have a few continued plans for this film. I am going to roll some to make some 117 film for a 1900 Brownie, and if I can get my hands on an unused roll of Eastman Autographic film, I may experiment with recreating the Autographic feature on old Kodaks.

And the difference in rendering between an ortho film and a panchro film plus a wratten 80A or Cyan CC filter over the lens would be?

The ability to handle under a red safelight before and after exposure.

Yes, I saw the release announcement and was hoping a review of the film would pop up, and you've filled the slot admirably, Hunter. I'm impressed by your fine examples, particularly by the excellent shadow detail maintained in quite contrasty images. 80 ISO is manageable, but I'm guessing effective film speed would be nearer 50 ISO in my Pyro development. Still, I think I'll try a couple of rolls, probably in the 120 format. As you say, it's so encouraging to see an increase in the variety of film stock available; I wonder if Kodak could be persuaded to re-introduce Verichrome Pan... Many thanks for the post.

I had a Brownie 2F out last summer, with TMax 100, TMax 400, and VPL, all some years old.

 

The 2F has a metal box, I am not sure about other model 2s.

 

I believe Kodak thinks that TMax 100 is a fair replacement for VP.

 

I mostly miss VP in all the other formats, and not in 120.

 

With TMax 400, I could do what the manual says not to do, which is to use the smallest

aperture and instantaneous shutter speed.

The No.2 Brownie model F is the only version that has an aluminum body. The previous model E introduced a metal film carrier, but the body was still card and all previous models had card bodies with wooden film carriers.

 

I would tend to occur that Tmax 100 is not a suitable replacement for Verichrome Pan. I am not a fan of Tmax 100 or 400 in general, but find that it lacks that exceptional dynamic range that made Verichrome Pan such a suitable film for simple cameras.

The No.2 Brownie model F is the only version that has an aluminum body. The previous model E introduced a metal film carrier, but the body was still card and all previous models had card bodies with wooden film carriers.

 

I would tend to occur that Tmax 100 is not a suitable replacement for Verichrome Pan. I am not a fan of Tmax 100 or 400 in general, but find that it lacks that exceptional dynamic range that made Verichrome Pan such a suitable film for simple cameras.

 

Yes VP is pretty special, though if Kodak really believed in it, they would have made it in 35mm.

 

It isn't because of the negative size, as they did make VP in 126 and 110.

 

This one is with the Brownie 2F on VPL through a type F correction filter: