Microfilm as continuous tone

[david_lyga]

<p>Perhaps this will appeal to some out there. I recently answered an ad from the Pennsylvania Historical Society offering, for free, twelve 100 ft rolls of 35mm Kodak Imagelink HQ. I was lucky enough to get it. I tested it and was very pleased with the predictable results. First, for continuous tone results, I rate the film at an exposure index of 6. (Some will want to rate it at 12.) Admittedly the film has a rather poor latitude, meaning that taking continuous tone pictures of high contrast scenes (sunny day with shadows) will provide negatives having almost no shadow detail. That is a drawback. But for normal contrast, or, even better, for low contrast scenes, the film is superb. The resolution is astounding and the grain is non-existent. Figure on processing this film for about 60% of the time used to process Ilford's Pan F+. If the times are too short you can dilute the developer with an equal amount of water and do clip tests from that point.<br /> <br />Now for the bad part: the 35mm film is not perforated, meaning that the entire area (no printing is on the film) is available for image capture. But, also, that means that the film will not run in a 35mm camera normally because of the lack of sprocket holes. However, being curious and not wanting to NOT be able to use the film, I did the following. In the dark, I cut off a measured twenty inch length and gently wrapped it onto the take-up spool (attached to the film advance lever) in my Spotmatic. I did not use tape and started from the outer side of the spool (near the right edge of the camera). It took only a minute or two to do this. Then I drew the unspooled end of the film across, and over, the sprocket spool onto, and across, the film aperture area. To complete the process, with a bit of Scotch tape I taped the film onto the rewind spool; then I closed the camera back and turned on the lights. The fact that the film gently glides over the sprockets does not cause problems. The first exposure is already set up after you cock the shutter. To make each subsequent exposure you do two things: first you cock the shutter (which does not move the film a bit) then you 'rewind' one full revolution to get a nearly precise 38mm movement of the film (slightly more than the 36mm length of the negative). You get about twelve exposures this way. You can then load this standard width onto the reel of your choice for processing.<br /> <br />Alternatively, there might be even better possiblilties for the 2.25 square format. Again, remember that the entire 35mm width is available for image capture. I do not see why this film cannot be rolled (without paper backing) onto 120 spools (but, first build up the inner edges of the 120 spools with a flexible plastic or other material in order to allow a precise, central, 35mm width (to assure centering of the film onto the camera's larger film aperture). The film is very dimensionally stable as it is 5 mil thick. The format thus optained would be a very respectable 35mm X 56mm, yeilding a size appropriate to medium format capabilities.<br /> <br />I was so impressed with this capability that I decided to do some research into the purchase of additional rolls. I finally found someone who 1)does not think that microfilm is ridiculous in this digital age and 2) offers a combination of price and service that is above 'acceptable'. The firm is Inception Technologies, Inc (inceptiontech.com) and the salesman is Don Haddad: email is dhaddad@inceptiontech.com. The location is 1 Sundial Ave, Suite 214, Manchester, NH 03103. The phone is 603.222.2202 ext 212 or toll free: 877.475.2580. Yes, there is a drawback: although the Kodak Imagelink HQ film is only about $17 per 100 ft roll, it must be purchased in 20 roll quantities. BUT....there is another possiblilty here if you can buy quantity. He also sells a product called Kodak Professional Microfilm, Type One, which is simply repackaged Imagelink HQ (repackaged by Kodak, incidently) and is only $13.20 a roll (but a full fifty rolls must be purchased) for a total of $660, including UPS ground delivery within the continental US. I bought this fifty roll lot and I tested it against the Imagelink: It is the identical product and I am pleased with both the film and the service. Of course, all must be aware that film cannot be returned (as is the case everywhere) unless defective (as is everywhere).</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>Correction: Don's email is <a href="mailto:dhaddad@inceptiontech.com">dhaddad@inceptiontech.com</a><br>

There is nothing either before or after this email.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>David,<br>

When you say $13.20 a roll do you mean for a 100 foot roll or a 36 exp. roll? Is this the perforated stock? Do you have any of the unperforated stock left which you would be willing to sell?</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>These types of films have been used for years when "split" for subminiature cameras, like Minox. Exposure latitude and experimentation with various developers has been documented for subminiatures for those interested. If your intention is to sell some of your stock, you may want to post your notes in the Minox forum etc. Thanks for the supply info and good luck!</p>

 

[murray_kelly]

<p>IIRC Kodak had 35mm unperforated film in 126 format? Maybe some of the sub-min people would be interested in helping you out.<br>

Murray</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Unperforated film 35mm wide was used in old microfilm cameras that shot Aperture cards of Engineering/Architect drawings for many decades; and in microfilming of books; and microfilming of everybodys personal checks at the bank check clearing houses.</p>

<p>In the Aperture card case the microfilm piece is in a window on the Aperture/Holarith/IBM card/Punch card; you shoot the negative; trim it and it goes in the cards "aperture". Surplus old microfilm that was unperforated was hawked even 50 years ago at surplus film outfits; it is about as new as fixer and dirt.<br /> <br /> To shoot greyscale requires overexposure and a hell of alot of underdevelopment; to force/try to make the DlogE curve not so "straight up"; more like natual grey scale films. The first time I read about this was in pre WW2 Pop photo issues; where folks used Kodak Microfilm to shoot the moon's image with a telescope using an Exakta slr; or pieces afixed in a camera. Exposures were so slow one used a hat as the shutter. You open up the film slide or cameras shutter; let the telescopes vibrations stop; then quickly remove the hat from the telescope for a fraction of a second. The 1950's Kodak Microfile Microfilm was about an asa 3 to 6; so even 1/2 century ago the full moon would be 1/3 second at F16; say 1/3 at F11 with some more exposure.</p>

<p>Microfilm is going to "try" to still have a very steep DlogE curve; thus to get it to be more greyscale like requires a very very mild development scheme; ie way less. It is also subject to pinholing too.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Microfilms design goals for the DlogE curve are for a very sharp steep slope.</p>

<p>One *wants* alot of slope to make text; faint lines to "pop out" and show up. Since microfilm with normal development has a very steep DlogE curve; its exposure latitude *has* to be less.<br>

<br /> To get Microfilm to be not so quick/steep in slope/contrast; one has to develop it less. This often involves a dilute developer brew to keep the times not too short. With a dilute brew one should keep track of the film volume to film surface area; if too week one can have exhastion of the developer. Many times *exhaustion* is a goal too with some schemes.<br>

<br /> With a very dilute brew one can force microfilm to be very grey scale; here when I do this I add more exposure; not less. If your scheme gets the DlogE curve to be like more like Tri-x; then one grabs a wider response and one thus has more latiitude in exposure.<br>

<br /> Here I have gobs of left over microfilm and lith stuff. I still have a bulk roll of sprocketed Kodalith from the 1970's too</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>For Jeff Adler and others: the $13.20 is for 100 feet of 35mm width and to the best of my knowledge Kodak does NOT make it in perforated. That is both good and bad as the ENTIRE 35mm width (no printing on the film) is available for even medium format purposes. You MUST buy 50 rolls at this price and, sorry, I will not part with mine. But, for the forum there might be interested parties willing to share. As I said, previously, you will be disappointed if you use this for high contrast scenes and attempt to 'tame' the film to capture the hightlights and shadows. My speed recommendation (6 is preferred or 12) captures highlight detail but not shadows. For dull of even moderate contrast scenes it is great. The price was so low that I had to impart this information. - David Lyga.</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>And Kelly Flanagan: truncating development (via dilution or time restriction) will not achieve intended results as you specified. If it is overexposed it will just get grey and the tones will become a rather undifferentiated blob. You must respect the exposure restriction on this stuff but, within the bounds I have delineated, it is a worthy film and then some. To give more exposure than the '6' limit would achieve nothing positive. That seems to be the absolute exposure for great quality. To go '3' or less would be bad. But to go '12' or '25' could lead to possibilities if shadow detail is not so important. - David Lyga.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>David;<br /> <br /> Sorry you are confused about DlogE curves and development. Since here I have shot for 1/2 century; worked one a 35mm microfilm camera for checks; have run DlogE curves maybe I assumed wrongly that you understood how developement causes contrast to change. This was known in clvil war times; it is in about every photo book. One has the classical H&D curves of the 1890's.</p>

<p>Here at least I first used overexposure and underdevelopment on Kodak Microfile 35mm Microfilm for full moon shots in the late 1950's; using Sam Browns scheme; Sam Brown of Edmund Salvage fame who wrote the telescope optic books.</p>

<p>With these ancient techniques at least *I* have made higher contrast films be more greyscale. I firmly believe if your own mind is closed; your results will be worse; since you are developing too much; and not exposing as much.<br /> Using superfine microfilms in dinky cameras has been done for about forever; folks dabbled with this 70 years ago too.</p>

<p>Here my 35mm bulk roll of perforated Kodak Microfile from the 1950's was used for many of my lunar shots for several decades. Later I used Kodak High Contrast Copy film too. I do believe that folks whos mind is made up cannot be changed too. Here I actually ran DlogE curves with Kodak Microfile and High Contrast copy with different dilutions; thus there was no guessing or issues to get a more grey scale response; in fact using more exposure say about asa 3 or less gave the best results. ie classical over exposure and underdevelopment to force a materail to be more grayscale.</p>

<p>Some of us who like shadows; your statement of "My speed recommendation (6 is preferred or 12) captures highlight detail but not shadows." points directly to classical basic underexposure; ie photography 101.</p>

<p>I hate to be abit blunt but even in photographys beginnings having no shadows on a plate pointed to lack of exposure.</p>

<p>High contrast materials do not naturally tend themselves to grayscale mode; you are trying to drive a square peg in a round hole.<br /> <br /> Development changes the slope of the films response. If you want a brick wall develop it in a paint mixer for 1 hour. If you want a lessor slope; ie more grey scale try less development. A high contrast film does not lend itself as well to varying its development compared to grey scale materials. A mild underdeveloping drops the contrast; a natural result is the speed point that gages film speed shifts right; ie it is a slower film somewhat.<br>

<br /> High contrast materials are going to come out high contrast unless one develops less; it is a stubborn effect at best. I would not even recommend somebody shooting with these high contrast materials unless they are experimenters and have a home darkroom and are willing to run some controlled tests.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Buying 50 rolls of unperfed 100ft 35mm film is about a mile of film; an actual Roman mile of 5000 ft!</p>

<p>That is alot of film for still shooter.</p>

<p>Here bulk 100 or 150 foot perfed rolls of old Kodak Microfile, Microfilm; Kodaklith 6556 35mm aged little when kept frozen; with a low asa it doesn not get fogged much due to cosmic rays. The Microfile lasted a decade; a second roll got used in the 1970's. A third Dupont clone roll is still being worked off.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In service bureau copy work before flatbeds; we used Kodak professional copy films to copy greyscale prints; ie "photos".<br>

If we ran out; or had a great greyscale original we sometimes used old Kodak Kodalith 2556 overexposed and way underdeveloped to give a psuedo grey scale negative.<br>

Instead of using Kodagraph Lith developer at 1:7; we would used 1:20 or even 1:50; or even D-76 1:3 or 1:5 in a tray; and develop my inspection.<br>

The whole point being to get more of a grey scale response to a naturally high contrast film; it is a tough road</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>Kelly, H&W developer doesn't seem to me to be so dilute? Works pretty well with these films and the Agfa Copex Rapid it was designed for. Never had much luck with Rodinal at high dilution. Technidol appears to rely on low pH to get the shadow detail up. Wish I knew the formula.<br>

All too true about the 'over exposure'. That's a value judgement, however. What is slow film anyway? I cut my teeth on 10 ASA Kodachrome. You just accept it as a sine qua non. :-)<br>

Murray</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>Kelly Flanagan:<br>

As far as overexposure goes, I meant that giving a '6' or even a '12' is ALREADY 'overexposure', as the film is meant to be used for high contrast results at about '100'. You will get a tiny amount of shadow detail at '6' but I want to appropriately warn others that this is not the 'forgiveness of Tri-X' at work here. If you give yet more exposure to fully cover the shadows you will turn highlights into undifferentiated masses of grey EVEN IF YOU TRY TO COMPENSATE WITH UNDERDEVELOPMENT. With a film like Tri-X the highlight arena is very accommodating towards accepting yet more exposure. Not Imagelink HQ after a very limited point. An EI of 6 represents, at least to me, the best compromise for full continuous tonality. - David Lyga.</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>This is Imagelink HQ at an EI of 25 (or more, I can't recall exactly) developed in Technidol for the same time as the Massive Dev Chart recommends for TechPan (7.5 min IIRC).<br>

This is late afternoon shadow and I was surprised it came out as it did. Camera was a Kiev 30M and with that and an unsteady hand one can account for any unsharpness.<br>

I got similar results with a Phenidone/ascorbate/borax brew devised by Pat Gainer.<br>

I think one could call it a pictorial film.<br>

Murray</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>This is Imagelink HQ at an EI of 25 (or more, I can't recall exactly) developed in Technidol for the same time as the Massive Dev Chart recommends for TechPan (7.5 min IIRC).<br>

This is late afternoon shadow and I was surprised it came out as it did. Camera was a Kiev 30M and with that and an unsteady hand one can account for any unsharpness.<br>

I got similar results with a Phenidone/ascorbate/borax brew devised by Pat Gainer.<br>

I think one could call it a pictorial film.<br>

Murray</p><div></div>

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

<p>> I got similar results with a Phenidone/ascorbate/borax brew devised by Pat Gainer.<br>

Interesting. Did you dilute the developer ?</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>No, Ole. Used it straight. Was at least as good as H&W Control with Copex rapid IMO.<br>

I leave for the UK for 5 weeks in 6 hrs so won't be able to reply to much here.<br>

Murray<br>

Brisbane</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>BTW - the image above was about half the area of the negative. I cropped the best bit out.<br>

Murray</p>

[gregory_boland]

<p>Hi, I caught your discussion of microfilm photography and particularly using the 1950s Kodak Microfile film. I have aquired several Microfile film spools, black in color with just the words kodak Microfile on them. Does anyone have knowledge of the colors of the Kodak 35 m film canisters these spools came in? I am involved in a project to reconstruct this color coding. Kodak has no history records and only a few individuals have begun this mission nation-wide.<br>

Any infor you have would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>I will try to check back here, but anypone could also send notes to my email<br>

<a href="mailto:g_boland@hotmail.com">g_boland@hotmail.com</a></p>