non anti halation films

[Jack_5762]

Does anyone have any experience with films that do not have an anti halation backing? Or even is there anything like this available? I believe Freestyle has some infrared in 8x10 but the infrared aspect is not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is that slightly flared highlight ala Atget. I believe he used glass plates that had no anti halation backing. I've tried everything I could think of (diffusion, I've even put diffusion material in the film holders, about a thousand different printing methods) but it still isn"t what I want. I don't want to degrade the image. Is my info about Atget correct? Anyone have any suggestions?

[mark blackman]

Why not wash the anti-halation layer off before use? That way you will be using a film you know.

[Steve Hamley]

Try Maco Aura and shoot it without the dark red filter. you'll have little or no infrared effect. It takes a very dark red filter #29 or darker to see much of an infrared effect with this film, unlike HIE. And a #29 gives a minimal IR effect.

I suppose for experiment's sake, you could just wash the halation coating off in water then dry the film before exposing it.

Steve

[tim atherton]

the aerial pan-x ? film that is (was) sold on ebay is supposed to have no anti halation coating

the seller can be a bit of a pain to deal and the batch I had cut to 8x10 wasn't the right size...

yep - basicallly correct about Atget

[Jack_5762]

Mark and Steve,

Thanks. In 35 years I have never heard of washing the film to remove the AH back before exposing. Very intriguing. Tell me more. Has anybody ever done this?

[paulr]

a couple of other points about the atget's work ... his plates most likely weren't sensitive to the red end of the spectrum at all. i'm assuming they were blue and uv sensitive, which accounts for the sky having so much exposure.

he was also using uncoated lenses.

[Ole Tjugen]

Also glass plates are a lot thicker than films, so the halation will spread further. I have used Maco IR 820C in both "regular" and "Aura" versions, and found it a waste of time: I could see no usable difference.

[Bruce Watson]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - I think if you prewash the film to remove the anti-halation backing, you'll probably remove most if not all of the sensitizing dyes as well. This will modify the film's response curve, perhaps severely. IOW, you'll make a panchromatic film something less than orthochromatic. I doubt it'll be a look you like, but you won't know until you try.

Not to mention the time you'll have to sit around in total darkness waiting for the film to dry completely so you can load it into film holders ;-) You could always use a hairdryer, as long as you test it first to make sure it doesn't produce any light (sparking motors, etc.), and as long is you aren't blowing dust around to stick on your wet film.

[Struan Gray]

Why not try putting something highly reflective behind the sheet of film? Aluminised mylar or even Al foil would do for a test. If you have plate holders, a mirror or polished sheet of metal could be used instead of the usual black septum.

[Brian C. Miller]

Use Kodak HIE 135 with a blue filter. Overexpose per your taste to get good halos.

Modern films, even without an antihalation layer, really don't produce halos like a hand-coated glass plate will. Come to think of it, I remember old photographs of my mom and her sisters, and one of them was wearing a white blouse and it had a good halo on it, and that was from the late 1940s.

[julian_4860]

The guy who used to import FOMA into the US says that the foma films don't have this layer. He described it as the 'sudek effect'! FOMA is available from fotoimpex - not sure about sheet availability though