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?

[pdh]

Your guess is as good as mine ... :)

[John Kasaian]

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?
I develop the stuff under a safe light and in trays, I don't watch the clock but the film and pull it out when the mid tones appear. It doesn't take long even with diluted developer.

[adelorenzo]

Any time I've used paper developer with the stuff (no matter how diluted) I get super high contrast, like basically black or white only. I've also been using highly diluted HC-110, in trays under a safelight, which gives some midtones although still quite contrasty. I've tried shooting at ISO 3 and 6. I haven't gotten anything dialed in yet so I'll be following this thread with interest.

[Cor]

I have had good success with ARISTA's Lith film (old) at Iso 1-3 in Dave's Soemarko's LC1 developer..

A lead can be found here: http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=785308

Good luck,

Cor

[Pamelageewhizz]

I noticed the lack of notchs and figured out a solution, as long as I put the notch on the correct side. I used a hole punch to make a notch at the edge of the film. Works thus far.

[bvy]

I found dilute Centrabrom S to be the magic bullet for ortho litho film. This was done with strobes; scan of the contact print from the 4x5 negative is shown.
138119

[Jim Noel]

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!

I don't understand why people use diluted paper developer for lith, or any other film. Paper developers are inherently much more active than film developers. If you don't believe this, try developing paper in a film developer.

At times I use a lot of lith film in camera. My preferred developer is an adaption of D-23, but when I am not in a mood to mix it I use HC 110 1+225 from syrup,and always develop by inspection.

[AAP]

I purchased a couple packages of this to give it a go in my 5x7. I spent an amazing amount of time sifting through all the advice and guidance and debate across many many forums and websites and in the end was more confused than ever. Well, I determined last night to just take a photo. I've documented this on my blog https://allaspectsphotography.wordpress.com complete with photos, step by step process etc and the photo I made. It's way too much to put here. I hope it proves useful.

I will summarize the essentials though:

ISO 6 shot at f5 at 2 seconds.

Dektol @ 1+30, @ 68F. I think that giving the negative time in the developer is key. I also think that intermittent agitation is the way to go. A stand development approach might prove fruitful.

STOP: was water, tap water, and it comes out of the cold side mid 60s. Around 3 minutes here. I agitated constantly.

FIXER: was Kodak Rapid Fix. I fixed until the negative cleared. This ended up being for around 4 minutes. I agitated constantly.

[Stephen Thomason]

I use paper developer (LPD 1+4) for two minutes. I rate it at ISO 3.

Since the film doesn't have notches, I always "sacrifice" the top sheet and take a look. Then note on the box whether it is emulsion up or emulsion down. If you are shooting through the back, you can still get an image, but it is underexposed.

It took a few sheets and a lot of reading of forum posts to get it "right" (whatever that might mean!).

Keep experimenting - you'll get it figured out.

[Memyself]

Several years ago, from time to time, I used to shoot Kodak Technical Pan (35mm and 120), which is a litho film (not ortho). As I recall, it was rated at ISO 25. At that time Kodak made a developer called Technidol, that was specifically made to develop litho film with the total spectrum of the grey scale. Using this combination of film and developer yielded negatives with exceptionally fine grain ... so fine that a 35mm negative could be enlarged to a 20 x 24 print with virtually no grain visible, even with a loupe! While I don't know if Technidol would work the same with Arista, it likely would be almost impossible to find any. It seems to me,though, that I've seen a similar developer available from Photographers Formulary. Also, I don't remember where, but I recently saw film similar to Tech Pan being offered. Maybe made by FOMA? Good luck!

[Donald Qualls]

Efke made the ortho film that's packaged as CMS20 (though I'm not sure they make the CMS20 II). This stuff is reputed to be originally a microfilm emulsion, but microfilm bears a suspicious resemblance to ortho litho film: slow, very high contrast, very high resolution and sharpness, and fragile emulsion. I've processed CMS20 (the original) in Caffenol LC+C with very good results at the box rated speed of ISO 20. For reference, this developer will give EI 64 and good tonality with Copex Rapid, so might increase speed into the 20-32 range on Ortho Litho 3.0.

I'd expect any developer that works well with microfilms to give good results with Ortho Litho (2.0 or 3.0). As a bonus, many pictorial developers for microfilm give a speed boost (due to use of phenidone, which also helps control contrast, as well as high dilution and reduced agitation -- I used to agitate the first minute, then five inversions halfway through the development time, with 35 mm in a daylight tank).

[gudageo]

Look at this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/222009378342?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&rmvSB=true

This is not litho-film. It is orthochromatic