Kodak Kodalith MP ortho film 2557, know anything?

[Ethan]

Hey everyone,

I was in a local used camera store today, and happened across two boxes of 8x10 Kodak Kodalith MP ortho film 2557. The owner of the store had no clue what to do with it, and since it expired in 1980, offered them to me free of charge. I didn't have my 8x10 camera with me at the time, but the previous owner of the film had cut some of it down to 4x5, so I decided to do some experimenting. I had never used this type of film, and was intrigued by being able to handle it with the safelight on. I did three test exposures, and got some very weird results, so I decided to ask on here if anyone knows anything about this film.

Here are the weird results I got, if you know anything about this film, or why this happens, it would be great to hear about it. I asked the great all knowing god- Google, about it, but couldn't find anything on this variant. It seems the 2556 variant was more common, but there wasn't a whole lot about that film either. Some sources indicated Kodak had a special developer for these films, but as I didn't have that, I used standard black and white chemicals, which could be the cause of some of these results.

When processed as I do normal film, things were the weirdest. On the back of the film, the edges turned a coppery color, and the whole thing acquired a metallic sheen. The back also got covered in marks where it was touched, when using tongs, and also when using gloves. The weirdest part though, is that when held up to a light it looks like a normal negative, but put it on a white background (no backlight), and suddenly the image is a positive (what?!?!?).

198808
(metallic sheen)

198807
(looks like negative with backlight)

198809
(backlight off and it becomes a positive)

I also discovered that when developed without a water pre-wash, it works more like normal film, looks like a negative both with and without backlight, but still gets covered in marks. This is cool, but also really confuses me. All the chemicals are mixed with the same water as the pre-wash, how can simply dunking it in the same H20 as the chemicals use for a few seconds have such a large impact on how the film develops?

198810
(looks more normal when not pre-washed)

Do any of you have experience with this film, or know anything more about it? I'll definitely be doing some more testing, as this stuff is very weird, and that makes me very intrigued.

[Tin Can]

dichroic fog


https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/dichroic-fog.109276/

[Ethan]

Interesting, briefly reading that indicates that dichroic fog is caused by spent chemicals. I had mixed the fixer that session, but I suppose it may have been exhausted by the time I got to those negatives. I usually mix new chemicals for each batch of negatives, but for these tests I didn't. So as long as I keep checking the chemicals, I should get better results, thank you! I wonder if that will help minimize the marks on the film too, since the fixer is what has the hardener in it (I think), if the fixer was spent, that might not have been working either. Does that sound possible?

[Tin Can]

Don't know, but I have a sealed 100 sheet box of 1973 4X5 Tri-X Ortho Film 4163 Estar thick base

Some day I try something....

Let us know what you find out!

[Ethan]

Tri-X ortho? I wonder how that compares to Tri-X normal, I'd guess the emulsion is very different

[Gary Beasley]

Made to be used with lith developer, for extreme high contrast copy work, ie line legs and halftones. It can be tamed a bit with a pota developer but its a lot more fun to use for graphic effects, posterization, masking, etc.

[Mark Sampson]

Mr. Beasley is correct... it was made for graphic arts use. Basically its H-D curve is vertical. Two tones: base+fog and D-max.
(note) All the Kodalith films (there were many types for specific applications) were replaced in the 1990s by "Rapid Access" (RA) films which did not require the obnoxious Kodalith developer, and could be processed quickly by machine.
(note 2) Tri-X Ortho 4163 was advertised by Kodak for portraits of men... I never used it so can't comment on its characteristics. It was probably the last truly continuous-tone ortho film (all the other ones I know of are high-contrast graphic-arts films). it was discontinued c.1992.

[Ethan]

Do you have any experience processing it without the Kodalith developer? I don't have any lith developers at the moment, but may try some to see if that yields better results than the standard developer I've been using.

[Gary Beasley]

Might try D23 or Technidol or equivalent, but as the film is inherently high contrast it will be difficult to use continuous tone. Stand processing in a tray might get you some interesting results.
Best bet is to play with it under the enlarger, especially if you can get some lith developer. Look up bas relief effects with litho film. It can also be used with very thin negs to get interesting results.

[Jim Noel]

Tri-X ortho? I wonder how that compares to Tri-X normal, I'd guess the emulsion is very different

Tri-X Ortho was the last Kodak film I liked. It had a typical ortho response to colors. A beautiful film. Sadly I used up the remainder of my large stash a couple of years ago and now use X-ray film in it's place.

[Ethan]

So, the plot thickens. I did some more experimenting with this film today, and though I'm closer to figuring it out, some aspects still illude me. The first negative I developed came out great, here's a bad photo of it.

198839

You will notice that like the ones with dichroic fog (if thats what it is) from yesterday, where the negative is higher in density, it becomes white, not black, making the image a positive if viewed with reflective lighting. This aspect of the film, whether intentional or not, is what really intrigues me about it, and I'd like to find a way to reliably develop these half-positive images.

As for the dichroic fog, if thats what it is, I'm still not sure what in my process is causing it. Yesterday I assumed it was probably spent fixer, since I didn't replace the fixer after my first few tests. However, today I made sure to periodically check the fixer, and hypo-check indicated that it was still fine. I then thought it might be the developer, but I replaced the developer and still got the fog. This would make me think it is just caused by having the wrong developer, if not for that the first negative/positive came out fine. Also, as this film is red light safe, I was able to watch the negatives as they developed and it almost looked as though the fog appeared while the film was in the stop bath. However, the stop bath has an indicator, which did not show any issues, and I can't be sure that it showed up during that step, due to the low light.

I think I can rule out the developer as causing the issues. It can't be that it's just the wrong developer, because the first time it worked fine, and it can't be that the developer went bad, because I replaced the developer. This leaves me with two things I can think of that might be causing the fog:

1). Something happened with the stop bath after the first print, that although not sensed by the indicator, messed with it enough to create the fog.

or

2). Something happened with the fixer that although not detected by Hypo-Check, messed with it enough to create the fog.

I'm going to do some controlled testing next week, in order to determine which of these (or something else) is causing my issues. Do any of you have used kodakalith films before know if the dense but white areas are just something these films do, or is it maybe caused by me using the wrong developer? Or do any of you have any more ideas on which step could be causing the fog? Either way I'm definitely going to experiment more with this film, it's too weird to not mess with.

[Gary Beasley]

Any chance the film is simply not fixing in the time you are leaving it in. Also have you tried a snip of it undeveloped in the fixer? Kodalith usually fixes out very clear. Fixing should be to completion, not according to any timetable.

[Ethan]

I don't think thats the issue, if I remember correctly, the fog can be seen on the negative in just the red light, which the film is not sensitive to. Fixing for longer is worth a shot though I suppose.