Arista Ortho Litho ISO?

[themicahmachine]

I read (here I think) that this film is around ISO 6. I tried exposing a couple sheets of it metered for ISO 6. One sheet I shot at metered speed, and the other I fudged a factor onto it to guess at reciprocity failure. I figured between the two I would have at least some data to work with.

After processing in Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand, I got completely overexposed negatives. I mean, dmax from corner to corner, no image whatsoever. The edges of the film that are covered by the film holder rails were unexposed. Did I misread about the speed of this film? It's cheap enough I can just shoot a dozen frames at different apertures to establish what speed I'm getting but I thought if someone could help me out I could save some time and chemistry.

Also since the negs were completely black, it was easy to notice that there are spots on them that look like pinholes... little specks with no emulsion. Is this common for a litho film?

[Drew Wiley]

What developer were you using? And yes, lith film is engineered for well, uh, er, high contrast lith work. So don't expect it to perform for pictorial work like a far
more expensive sheet film of greater quality control intended for that purpose. Minor flaws are part of the territory in this case. But look at your pinholes carefully through a loupe to see if there are any little craters where the emulsion lifted due to too high a development temp, for example.

[themicahmachine]

dev was Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand @ about 16C. I know it's possible to get some mid tones (but still a high-contrast image) from this film using different devs, but this is the first time I've failed to get an image using rodinal at 1:100. I've had film anywhere from 10 stops over to about 6 under and still had images (with the appropriate consequences) using this dev procedure. Perhaps I should try a paper dev? I still think I'm rating it at the wrong speed though. Rodinal should have given me a very high-contrast image if the exposure was right.

[pdh]

Hmm

I've worked my way through half a box of this stuff and I've rated it as low as 0.75 and then very underdeveloped it in very dilute plain metol developer ... this gave me decent density at a decent contrast.

I did experiment with Rodinal, but I had to go down to 1:150 or even 1:250 to get normal-ish contrast

Other people report rating at 6, 12 or even 25 successfully, so it rather goes to prove it can be very important to do your own speed tests with your own equipment and exposure and development regimes. They also claim to get pretty good pictorial contrast out of it, but remember it's not designed to give that and there's only so far you can hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Remember also it is an ortho film, and just like shooting paper negatives, you will find that the lighting under which it is exposed will play a part in how "fast" it is.

Good luck though, I had fun with mine.

[themicahmachine]

Thanks for the advice - that's what I bought it for, just to have fun with it.

After I posted this I had the idea to do a "strip test" with it by sliding the dark slide out a little bit between subsequent exposures to get an idea of speed without wasting a lot of chemistry. If I come up with anything useful I'll post results here for posterity.

[pau3]

I use HC110 at 1+100 to develop any brand of ortho lith film. I do it by inspection, under safelight
conditions. If you give enough exposure, that should give you a good control of the film although iso 6
may be not enough.

Best,
Pau

[John Kasaian]

Is this the latest offering from Freestyle?
I rated the older version(APHS) at 3 ISO and souped it diluted paper developer (Dektol working solution cut 50% with water) and developed by inspection under a safe light for mid tones.
I haven't had the opportunity to play with the new stuff yet.

[themicahmachine]

Is this the latest offering from Freestyle?
I rated the older version(APHS) at 3 ISO and souped it diluted paper developer (Dektol working solution cut 50% with water) and developed by inspection under a safe light for mid tones.
I haven't had the opportunity to play with the new stuff yet.

Yeah I'm using the new stuff. I still wonder how I managed to get completely overexposed negs at ISO 6. Maybe I made a mistake and had it a stop or so over at exposure, and then managed to overdevelop with the rodinal. My understanding of the process of stand development in rodinal is that there is only enough developer in contact with the film to develop it, and then it's exhausted (causing enhanced edge effects etc). Maybe 1:100 is way too much dev for the very thin emulsion on the ortho-litho film? I pulled a sheet out of the box to determine which side was the emulsion side (they're not notched) and the undeveloped film is transparent enough to easily see through it under normal room light - no anti-halation layer and very thin emulsion. I'll experiment again with 1:200 and see what happens.

Isn't paper dev usually higher contrast than film dev? I've been thinking of also trying something like d-76 1:1 and very short dev times to see what happens. Shorter dev should reduce contrast, right?

[pdh]

The idea of using paper developer for this purpose is quite entrenched, but I've never seen anyone offer a proper rationale for doing so. As you say, they are mostly inherently high contrast .

Very short dev times can give very uneven development with this stuff, as I can vouch from experience. I'd say d76 at 1:1 is way too strong!

[themicahmachine]

The idea of using paper developer for this purpose is quite entrenched, but I've never seen anyone offer a proper rationale for doing so. As you say, they are mostly inherently high contrast .

Very short dev times can give very uneven development with this stuff, as I can vouch from experience. I'd say d76 at 1:1 is way too strong!

Good advice. I'll try the rodinal 1:200 first, and maybe pull one neg at 30 mins and leave one for an hour to see what happens.

Any idea of a ballpark for reciprocity failure on this stuff?