2 sheets of film in the same holder?

[robertraymer]

So this may be a silly question, but has anyone shot 2 sheets of film in the same side of the holder? What were your results?

I had the idea to try and load some Delta 100 and Ektar 100 in the same side of the same holder, essentially trying to create a perfectly registered black and white and color negative of the exact same portrait, then developing them appropriately, scanning them, and combining them in photoshop after processing each one individually to see if it would allow me any more control over the color/sharpness/contrast of the final film images than I am currently able to get from my current processing techniques.

Absurdity of the idea aside, I was wondering if I could expect to actually be able to get 2 good negatives shooting this way. My assumption would be that the images closest to the film plane would probably be ok, but I am not sure about the image on the film behind it. I imagine that it would be, at the very least, a bit softer as it is not sitting on the same exact film plane, but I was curious if it would have any other issues with exposure, proper color (if it was the color stock), proper exposure, or anything else I may not be thinking of.

I don't mind if I try this and don't get good overall results, but I figured I would look into the feasibility of even shooting 2 sheets at the same time before wasting the film completely.

[Dugan]

The anti-halation layer of the front sheet would make that difficult.

[martiansea]

Yes, what Dugan said. Maybe if you used Litho film for the B&W, that might be transparent enough to shoot through? I've shot with it before and it can get good pictorial results with the right development. But shooting through it would filter the colors hitting the color film.
Also, the tiny little bit of thickness added might affect focusing.

[Paul Ron]

its happened to me when first time loading in many years. 2 sheets felt like one in the dark.

negative on top turned out fine with minor scratching, the one below was just blotched. but when i was putting the darkslide in after the shot, it felt like the top sheet may have been on the wrong side... i pulled it n slid it in again. it went in better the second time but jammed tight at the bottom.

when getting it out to develope it, i realized it was 2 sheets.

[otto.f]

I am very enthusiastic about ADOX CHS 100 film. Wonderful tonal scale and no surprises when I follow Adox’s development advises. They pack the film sheets with paper sheets between them so you can’t go wrong (if you’ve checked that the holder is empty when you load it).

[Two23]

I've stuffed two sheets of FP4 into the same slot by mistake. It's a complete waste of film and I'm lucky it didn't screw up both.


Kent in SD

[esearing]

Why not put them on opposite sides then just take a shot and flip it around and shoot again. Then you can stack them when scanning if you want that effect.

[Vaughn]

I believe you could wash the anti-halation layer off the film in the dark, dry in the dark, then use it in the camera (would only have to be top one of the two sheets).

[SergeyT]

>> I was wondering if I could expect to actually be able to get 2 good negatives shooting this way

Think of the first sheet as a light filter for the second one... Sharpness and plane of focus aside what amount of light do you think will be able to get through it , will it be close to a 100%?
A hint - try to look through a sheet of undeveloped film :)

[robertraymer]

Why not put them on opposite sides then just take a shot and flip it around and shoot again. Then you can stack them when scanning if you want that effect.

The idea was to have them be exactly the same is that I could overlay them and have them be perfectly registered. Even if I shot them from opposite sides of the holder in quick succession there would be enough subject movement that the registration would be off.

[robertraymer]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty much like I expected, that it does not seem like it would work. Good to know without wasting the film.

[Michael R]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty much like I expected, that it does not seem like it would work. Good to know without wasting the film.

If you search around the used market, at one time there were registration film holders. Might be hard to find though. Condit made one. This is sort of a different topic though.

What I would say about your specific thought experiment is that even if you had a way of making it work, it would not add any value. Among other issues, for film masks to be of any use you must be able to control the amount of exposure the mask film gets, independent of the exposure the primary film gets. Therefore making both a good negative/positive and a useful mask with one exposure and two sandwiched pieces of film is essentially impossible.

With digital image editing software you can do all of this better with just the negative or positive anyway.

[Bernice Loui]

Each film holder holds one sheet of film per film holder side. Two sheets of film in one side of the film holder... Not gonna work.
Sorta exposure on the bottom sheet with lots of light scatter caused by the top sheet and more.

Bad idea.
Bernice

[maltfalc]

I believe you could wash the anti-halation layer off the film in the dark, dry in the dark, then use it in the camera (would only have to be top one of the two sheets).

That's what I'd recommend too. Black and white film in front with the anti-halation layer stripped and inserted backwards so the two emulsions are in direct contact at the correct depth with a higher iso for the colour film .

[Vaughn]

That's what I'd recommend too. Black and white film in front with the anti-halation layer stripped and inserted backwards so the two emulsions are in direct contact at the correct depth with a higher iso for the colour film .

Neat improvement over what I was thinking...love both the emulsion-to-emulsion, and using a slow over fast film to balance the exposures! Will not be sharp, but a wonderful concept for someone else to play with.

[grat]

I would think between the refraction index of the film base and the extra distance to the second sheet of film, you'd get a very poorly focused image.

Easier to lock down the tripod and take two images in succession.

[tgtaylor]

I use Toyo View holders for 4x5 and Toyo View and Fidelity Elite's for 8x10 and neither holder's end flap will close with 2 sheets of typical film inserted. Maybe with ultra thin film like Rollei 400 IR but not with regular film like Kodak or Ilford.

Thomas

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't know about your holders, but mine (all of them, Riteway, Lisco, Fidelity, old wooden Graphic holders, etc.) won't accommodate two sheets of film on one side; they just don't fit under the hold-down rails.

I don't think my films are thicker than anyone else's...

OP, even if you could do that, the first sheet will block most of the light (even if you removed the anti-halation layer, the emulsion itself is fairly opaque). The bottom sheet would be tremendously underexposed.

Maybe if you used ISO 25 film for the top sheet and ISO 800 for the bottom one....?

Best,

Doremus

[esearing]

The idea was to have them be exactly the same is that I could overlay them and have them be perfectly registered. Even if I shot them from opposite sides of the holder in quick succession there would be enough subject movement that the registration would be off.

then shoot the color , scan, output as black and white on clear print film (OHP). Alt process people do this all the time and have registration tools to align everything.

[abruzzi]

another quick point that may make this less possible--I was loading sheets the other day (Bergger 400)and I was having an impossible time getting the film to slide in place. I was getting really frustrated, so I put the sheet back in the box and closed it up, then turned on the light--there was already a sheet loaded. That suggest to me that if you are using film with a thicker base (most of the more standard films) there isa good chance you won't be able to load two sheets. Now the Rollei IR I loaded was so thin, I'd hesitate to use it on 8x10 since I think it would just fall out. If ou put two sheets of Rollei or one super thin sheet and one normal sheet, they migh fit, but one sheet of Ektar and one sheet of Delta are pretty likely to not fit, or at least would be difficult to load.

[martiansea]

I think the two sheets together is an unworkable idea with no practical purpose. The same effect OP is looking for can be realized in Photoshop by other means.

[LabRat]

Xray is 1 film/2 sides emulsions???

Steve K

[Vaughn]

Xray is 1 film/2 sides emulsions???

Steve K

Some is coated with emulsion on two sides, some on one side. I found the sharpness (alt. process contact prints) of the two-sided to be not acceptable. The top emulsion is too far from the sensitized paper to be sharp.

[Ironage]

I only do this when I am twi sheets to the wind. My apologies in advance, I hear your groan.

[mschulz]

If you are already going into Photoshop, why not simply shoot a color negative, load the scan into Photoshop, create a layer copy of the color image and convert that to B&W? This gives you ultimate control including emulating filters and then
you can use either blend modes, opacity, or layer masks to get the effect you're after.

Cheers,
Michael

[Hugo Zhang]

Just developed a load of Fp4 8x10 with Jobo 3005. One of holders had two sheets of film loaded on one side. The result is that the top sheet is perfectly fine and the bottom sheet is about 2 stops underexposed.

[afotandolaciudad]

Some is coated with emulsion on two sides, some on one side. I found the sharpness (alt. process contact prints) of the two-sided to be not acceptable. The top emulsion is too far from the sensitized paper to be sharp.You can eliminate back side emulsion
Less density (more exposure needed) but more sharpness.