Ortho film revisited

[kevin_v._blasi]

I recently purchased 2 35mm rolls of Kodak Ektagraphic HC Slide Film. This is a high contrast black and white orthochromatic film primarily used for copying black and white line originals. I have never shot orthochromatic film and decided a couple of test rolls was in order after reading that this film has been used by some for male portraiture (Ansel Adams - The Negative). I understand (to a certain point) that the effective film speed of ortho film varies with the lighting conditions and the developer utilized. I have called Portland Photographics (Maine) and they will process ortho film with the developer I specify. Of course, I will bracket the initial test roll under various lighting to get a feel for how the film responds. Unfortunately, in reading the film data sheet, I have become thoroughly confused. Quite simply, the point of this question is to receive some starting point (film speed) at which I may begin bracketing. The data sheet supplied reads as follows: "COPYING LINE ORIGINALS; Exposure index: Film speed depends upon the developer being used. Trial exposure times given below apply to a same-size (1:1) reproduction exposed with two 500-watt reflector-type photolamps at about 4.5 feet from the center of the copy." Four developers are listed with corresponding exposure index and trial exposure time. For example, "Developer: Kodak D-11; Exposure Index: 25; Trial exposure time: 9 sec at f/22 or 9 sec at f/11 with a 0.60 neutral-density filter." I have reviewed the post regarding ortho film submitted last year and much of the responses refer to Ilford ortho film. Although I have found a couple of ortho films on the Kodak website, there is no film labeled as "Ektagraphic HC slide film" from which I may gather more information. Given that I will shoot a landscape and a portrait (tungsten and flash) with the initial test roll, I'm having a difficult time translating the above info into a starting point for bracketing. I'm sure the test rolls will answer many of my questions but I would like to begin with a bit more knowledge on what I'm doing in order to secure some useful results. Much thanks to anyone who read all the way to this point. Further thanks to anyone who can shed some properly exposed light on this subject.

[tito sobrinho]

Hi, Kevin: Have you tried using an orthochromatic effect with regular

panchromatic film? Use a Wratten #44A (minus red) filter. It allows

you to create an orthochromatic image without changing your

development time. (View Camera Magazine-March/April 1991, p33. by

Steve Simmons). (The Negative 1991 - A.Adams p. 104, p. 108, p.112).

Best wishes, Tito.

[charles_kleesattel]

I have some of this film in 8x10 format. I called Kodak with many of the same questions that you have. Basically it is NOT the same kind of film that Adams talked about in his books. The film speed of this stuff is 8. Some people have directed me to develop in a 'soft' developer. I've tried several and have not yet gotten anything usable. The Wratten 44a filter idea is a good one. I've used that to good effect. Good Luck.

[david_clark]

Hi Kevin, it seems to me you might be making way too much work out of

this. Is your goal to photograph landscapes or people, daylight or

tungsten? And, why is it necessary to have a special lab develop the

film for you? I've had pretty good luck with Rodinal 1:25 for 7 or 8

min. It's easy to work with ortho in a darkroom, don't expose direct

to red light. I mean one of the benifits of using ortho is you can

develop by inspection. Just use indirect safety light. Well, you can

test it for fogging like you do paper, but I've had no problems with

indirect safety light. If it's rated 25 under lights, then it ought

to be 50 in daylight. That of course depends on your shutter light

meter combination. My experience with ortho is, it's very easy to

work with. If you can be more specific with what you want to acheive

maybe I can give you more specific answers. Just use film developer,

paper developer will push the contrast way high, or maybe you want

high contrast, then use paper developer. Good luck, David

[mark_taylor3]

I HYOPE MIGHT BE OF EVEN A GRAIN OF HELP. I HAVE A BOX OF DISNEY

STUDIOS REFERENCE PHOTOS FROM SEVERAL ANIMATED FEATURES. IN THE 60'S

OR SO, THEY USED KODAK CONTRAST PROCESS ORTHO SAFETY FILM.

THE BOX LABEL CALLS IT AN "ORTHOCHROMATIC ANTIHALATION FILM OF VERY

HIGH CONTRAST."

APPARENTLY, DISNEY LIKED IT FOR JUST THESE PROPERTIES.

IT SAYS TO USE A KODAK SAFELIGHT FILTER, WRATTEN,SERIES 1, AND USE

KODAK D-8 OR D-11 AS A DEVELOP

[angus_bromide]

Here I am, stepping into a years old, dead thread, that probably no one will ever see, but whut tha hay, ay? :)

 

People are mishmashing two terms here and it's the source of the confusion.

 

The simplest way I can put this is that "ortho" and "lithography" are two completely different factors.

 

"Ortho" refers to color rendition (which is why Ste. Ansel liked it for masculine portraits).

 

"Lithography" -- or "lithographic" or "lith" or "Kodalith" or "Ektagraphic HC" are high contrast (line copy/halftone/black-and-white-and-no-gray) films. (Ektagraphic HC was Kodak's term for their late cassette-spooled version of their late lith film which when sold in sheets or bulk rolls was called "Kodalith Ortho"... gee, are we feeling moot yet?)

 

The fact that the uber-high-contrast Lith films have orthochromatic spectral sensitivity has NO bearing whatsoever on their utility for use as general purpose camera films. The reason they were "ortho" instead of "pan" is the same reason that B&W printing papers (apart from Panalure) are not panchromatic -- it's a concession to convenience, to allow development by inspection under safelight.

 

Now, that said, you CAN indeed use these super-hard high contrast films as continuous tone camera films, but you need to use very soft compensating developers.

 

The highly touted "Giga Film" is a microfilm (a high contrast close cousin to lith films) that is processed with a developer that is suited to continuous tone applications.

 

Think of high contrast films as VERY slow continuous tone films, which for "normal" purposes (i.e., "intended use") are EXTREMELY underexposed and overdeveloped.

 

What happens if you take ANY B&W film and subject it to monumental underexposure and monumental overdevelopment? The ONLY areas that will develop will the the brightest of the highlights, and, they will block up like nobody's business.

 

That's the mystique of lith films. They are given dramatic underexposure, then rocketed through caustic developers (think "hydroquinone and lye"), which bring the highlights up to solid black, and leave the shadows completely clear.

 

You could accomplish similar results with normal camera films. Expose Plus-X at maybe 64,000 or so and then process it in rocket fuel (literally -- that's what hydroquinone is), and you'll have some REALLY high contrast results.

 

Reverse that idea -- give a lith film some severe OVERexposure (in reality, give it "normal" exposure for continuous tone results), and then develop it in a soft developer, and you'll have something like 700 LPM resolution and the kind of gradation that folks kill for.

 

Well there's the end of my lecture. I doubt anyone will read it, but who knows, maybe fifty years from now someone will find a brick of lith in his grampaw's freezer and start hitting the archives for answers.

[angus_bromide]

One postscrip to clarify something. So what WAS Ansel using?

 

Back in the olden days, there were a variety of "normal" (continuous tone camera films) that were "Ortho" emulsions. "Panchromatic" was not very common for a some time after it was introduced. "Orthochromatic" film was designed to have "correct" (hence "ortho") color rendition. Prior to the creation of ortho films, most emulsions were blue-sensitive. Blue hues came out light, and everything else came out dark. Ortho extended the sensitivity towards green, and pan film extended it to red, which precluded the ability to use safelights for development.

 

When Ansel wanted to use an Ortho film, he just ordered up a batch of whichever of the many popular ortho films he wanted, and then he went to work.

 

NONE of those films were "lith" films. (Sure, they were available too, but we're talking about normal continuous tone camera films.)

 

You can see the vestiges of the Great Pan Revolution in some film names. Example (even though this has itself passed to the great beyond): Verichrome Pan. Ever wonder why they didn't just call it "Verichrome"? The answer is simple -- they DID just call it "Verichome" -- while it was an ortho emulsion! When they changed it to a panchromatic emulsion, they changed the name by adding "Pan" to the end.

 

Now I'm really gonna end this lesson and go to sleep!

[robert_garrett2]

Hi, Angus. You'll probably never read this, but you might, since old threads never die....and this one hasn't quite faded away.

My kid the Radiologist gave me much slightly overage X-ray film (both single and double emulsion types) and I've been finding for myself much of what you have just preached. Cut up to 4x5, considerably over-exposed (seconds at f32 in the sun) I've come out fine with dilute D76/D11. Fun making big positives, too. Thanks for your sharp discussion. Bob Garrett, West Chester, PA

[chuck_ulm]

<p>I realize this is a very old post, but while digging through the internet I found what may be a starting point for others with this film.</p>

<p>Rate it at ISO 6, and develop as follows: HC-110, 1:200, 14 minutes at 25 degrees Celcius, agitations for the first minute and then every 2 minutes.</p>

<p>I got the above from this link: http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/pictorial_use_of_kodak_lithographi_film</p>

<p>Good Light!<br>

Speedy</p>