Arista Ortho Litho Help

[Pritcher]

Hello, I recently made the jump to large format, so most of the processes involved with development are pretty new to me. In my infinite drive to save cost wherever possible, I have purchased myself some Arista Ortho Litho and look to use it in my Press Graflex. I took the first couple test pictures today, and they could barely be considered images. They were both very faint, and had a distinct sepia tone, the first being far worse than the second in both categories. The development process was slightly different for each negative, but was comprised of the same processes. The first negative was 90 seconds in 2 g per 500 ml Dektol solution, stop bath, and 3 minutes 30 seconds in Ilford fix. The second negative was 2 minutes 15 seconds in the same Dektol solution, stop bath, and again 3 minutes and 30 seconds in the Ilford fix. Does anyone have any idea what I may have gotten wrong? Any input would be appreciated, I want to get this process figured out so I can take some proper pictures with that Press Graflex when I get its woes sorted.

Here is a picture of the first negative
216622

and here is a picture of the second.
216623

Cheers!

Pritcher

[Drew Wiley]

Badly underexposed as well as underdeveloped. The brown stain itself is an artifact of either underdevelopment or a too dilute developer. Dektol is a miserable developer for this film, despite all the artsy-crafsy advice on the web about it. But if you just gotta shoot that particular film, you might try HC-110 diluted 1:15 from stock (stock is 1:3 from concentrate). If sticking with Dektol, it needs to be a more concentrated solution.

[Pritcher]

I did indeed read about this process online, and that is all I really had to work with. I will try a more concentrated solution tomorrow, see if that makes a difference. As for the HC-110 stuff, what film speed do you figure it could get up to? My main thing is trying to bump that film speed as high as possible without flashing.

[jprofita]

I have shot this film at ASA 6 and developed it in Dektol stock 1:5 with water for 2.5 minutes with high contrast results suitable for some alt processes. I have limited but favorable experience with Jim Galli's Rodinal recipe that results in more balanced negatives. https://thefausap.wordpress.com/2020/10/02/low-contrast-rodinal-aka-galliol/

[Jim Noel]

ISO 6 is pretty commonly used with this film. On occasion, particularly early morning or late afternoon, I use a speed of 2. My normal development is in HC 110 - 1+63 from syrup. I develop by inspection so no record of time. I develop until highlight show detail on the reverse of the film.

[Pritcher]

Quick update, thanks for all the help thus far guys. I shot another couple sheets today, only one of which came out somewhat acceptably. My Press Graflex as of now is not exactly in ship shape, so for the first picture, the camera hangfired and I got an exposure of the thing pointed directly at the sun. The second exposure was better, I got everything set up fairly well, no complaints there. For development, I bumped my concentrations as per the suggestions, from 2 to 5 grams dektol per 500ml and the results were a great improvement. For the first negative I developed for 1 minute and 30 seconds, and for the second I developed for 2 minutes 30 seconds. Both were fixed for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Any further advice would be appreciated to help refine this process.

Here is negative 2 from today, still a bit brown and I recon still underdeveloped, but better than yesterdays stuff.
216687

[Jim Noel]

Yes, still under-exposed and under-developed.

[PRJ]

It sounds like you are taking two grams of powder Dektol and mixing that. Odds are the package is not homogenous and the developing agents have settled. You need to mix the whole thing up then dilute it. Good luck...

[Pritcher]

Strange, I would never have thought that could be the problem. I like to do things in mass as opposed to volume because of the rather crude impalements I have to measure the latter. I will bear this in mind as a potential source of failure going foreword.

[Drew Wiley]

I haven't tried the very latest version of Arista Otho Litho, but the immediately previous style was around ASA 6 to 12 for me. Frankly, I don't even use it in camera, but for lab purposes, where I do in fact have light sources capable of blue-green output. This film seems about 3 times as sensitive to blue as to green, and by design, not to red at all. But just keep inching your way upwards in terms of increasing exposure and development. It all depends on what you are after. Many of the practitioners of combined Ortho Litho and Dektol seem to be after a deliberately unpredictable funky look, and that is what they get, at least after a lot of effort. But if you want something predictable and cleaner, I would really consider an actual film developer option instead. I mentioned HC-110, and someone else mentioned Rodinal, but there are no doubt others potential developers too. It was really developed for high-strength, very high contrast A&B lith developers, and anything other than that, in a normal contrast category, is basically bending the rules, with varying levels of success. Dektol not only inherently stains this film, but tends to be quite uneven.

[Jim Noel]

to add to what Drew said, paper developers, of which Dektol is one, are inherently more active than film developers. I agree with Drew that you should switch to a film developer for your tests if you want nice printable negatives.

[richydicky]

I would love to use this but not available in the UK. Did note a while ago work done by Jordan Earls who posts on Photrio. You may interested in this from his Blog site.
https://grainy.vision/blog/ortho-litho-reference

[Pritcher]

I haven't tried the very latest version of Arista Otho Litho, but the immediately previous style was around ASA 6 to 12 for me. Frankly, I don't even use it in camera, but for lab purposes, where I do in fact have light sources capable of blue-green output. This film seems about 3 times as sensitive to blue as to green, and by design, not to red at all. But just keep inching your way upwards in terms of increasing exposure and development. It all depends on what you are after. Many of the practitioners of combined Ortho Litho and Dektol seem to be after a deliberately unpredictable funky look, and that is what they get, at least after a lot of effort. But if you want something predictable and cleaner, I would really consider an actual film developer option instead. I mentioned HC-110, and someone else mentioned Rodinal, but there are no doubt others potential developers too. It was really developed for high-strength, very high contrast A&B lith developers, and anything other than that, in a normal contrast category, is basically bending the rules, with varying levels of success. Dektol not only inherently stains this film, but tends to be quite uneven.

Alright, and from what I had read the Dektol was somewhat unpredictable. I went with that primarily because it was the one I could find the most info on. I am not really after the whacky results, I just am very short on cash, yet want to shoot my truly immense SLR. The ISO doesnt really bug me too much so long as I can shoot this camera on my budget. With HC-110, what was your process? You mentioned it being used in a lab setting as opposed to normal photography, but I figure it wouldn't make much a difference when it comes to processing it. I also fabricated temporary part for the tensioner mechanism of my camera, so I should be able to shoot some regular pictures this afternoon. I will post those when I get them developed.

[martiansea]

I just am very short on cash, yet want to shoot my truly immense SLR. The ISO doesnt really bug me too much so long as I can shoot this camera on my budget.
Then I would suggest green sensitive x-ray film as a better choice than the ortho litho film. Better choice still would be a box Arista EDU Ultra, 25 sheets for $32 from Freestyle. It's rebranded Foma film and good quality for the price. I've shot many sheets of Foma 100 and it's solid.

[abruzzi]

I have a box of Ortho Litho as well, and I did a bunch of tests, and never got any kind of consistency or reliability of outcomes. I know 25 cents a sheet sounds great, but you're trying to make a film not designed for pictorial images, take pictorial images. That why there are no standardized dev formulas and lots of vague, "i did this and it worked" kind of info out there. At a dollar a sheet Arista or Foma 100 looks more expensive, but you can get great output on your first sheet by just shooting at 100 and developing according to the data sheet. Nothing wrong with experimenting, and if thats your thing, go for it, but if you want to get a quicker path to usable images, Foma, Arista, Catlabs all have normal pictorial films that are easy to use.

[Drew Wiley]

I found everything Foma itself not exactly a bargain because I can't count on either the quality control or versatility I routinely get with seemingly more expensive Kodak and Ilford sheet films. If I have the insure a shot by doubling it, then I'm right back up to the same price in any practical sense, and might not have bagged it at all, at least in a fashion up to my expectations. Wasting film with excess shooting is never a good idea, whether there is a mandatory or an optional reason for that habit. It might in fact habit for sake of keeping up the incentive of manufacturers to produce it; but in terms of increasing pack weight with multiple holders in inverse proportion to diminishing wallet weight, I can't personally justify being a machine-gunner with sheet film.

[Pritcher]

I did not get out to shoot today, rains came in unfortunately, but hey, maybe tomorrow. As for the other films, might anyone have a link to where they can be purchased? I didn't realize there were even 5x7 pictorial film that wasn't 80$+ for 25 sheets. Even if I can get the Ortho Litho working, it might be nice to have some iso 100 film lying around for the less than optimal light conditions.

[Neil Purling]

Are you after normal pictorial contrast?
If yes then maybe you should try 3 ASA, yes that low and develope for 3 minutes.
How much of that Dektol do you have? As our friends have said it is not ideal.

The nearest stuff I used to that Arista film is some stuff re-sold by Hans Mahn of Germany (Maco).
Rodinal 1:50 5 min at 20 C with agitation for 30 seconds of every minute, 1st minute being continuous agitation. Stronger agitation is to reduce incidence of bubble holes (with 'Yankee' type tank). Meter reading 3ASA.
The attachment is what you are aiming for with this film.This is the colour sensitivity you will have. The building in the left foreground has orange roof tiles, but the chimney stack is red brick.
At least Rodinal is a very economical developer for your experiments.

BTW: How much of the Arista film do you have?
At least try a more conventional developer like Rodinal before you buy a more conventional film.

[paulbarden]

Pre-exposing this Ortho Lith film with white light helps a lot in crafting manageable "pictorial" negatives.
I made the following image on Arista Ortho Lith by pre-exposing the film to white light (using my enlarger, estimating the duration of exposure by test strip) and developing it for 4 minutes in D-23 diluted 1:2 I chose D-23 for its ability to produce fairly low contrast, soft-toned negatives. Film rated at 3ASA, using a Voigtlander Petzval lens, wide open.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50921188506_64592cfa23_h.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

This film, just like earlier ortho-litho films, was produced with all-or-none extreme contrast development in mind. Everyone understands that, and likewise recognizes how attempting to tame it for sake of general photography applications imposes certain issues. But one of those issues, not generally recognized, is that outcomes are nowhere near as predictable as with films having normal contrast in mind to begin with. I've run very well monitored tests on Arista Otho Litho which involved both precise lab step tablet exposures and very precise development afterwards, using actual film developers, and found out that getting analytically predictable density results sheet to sheet, even with the same batch, was a bit of a crap shoot. Some people might classify that unpredictability as part of this film's fun factor; but the same propensity might constitute another person's frustration factor.

[Jim Noel]

Good job, Paul.

[Pritcher]

Are you after normal pictorial contrast?
If yes then maybe you should try 3 ASA, yes that low and develope for 3 minutes.
How much of that Dektol do you have? As our friends have said it is not ideal.

The nearest stuff I used to that Arista film is some stuff re-sold by Hans Mahn of Germany (Maco).
Rodinal 1:50 5 min at 20 C with agitation for 30 seconds of every minute, 1st minute being continuous agitation. Stronger agitation is to reduce incidence of bubble holes (with 'Yankee' type tank). Meter reading 3ASA.
The attachment is what you are aiming for with this film.This is the colour sensitivity you will have. The building in the left foreground has orange roof tiles, but the chimney stack is red brick.
At least Rodinal is a very economical developer for your experiments.

BTW: How much of the Arista film do you have?
At least try a more conventional developer like Rodinal before you buy a more conventional film.

I am looking for normal contrast in this film, to be honest, that picture you posted is pretty much exactly what I am after. As for the amount of film I have, I think I have 16 some odd sheets left, I only bought a 25 pack to get started. I bought the smallest amount of Dektol as I could, but that was still enough to make a gallon of stock solution.

[Pritcher]

Pre-exposing this Ortho Lith film with white light helps a lot in crafting manageable "pictorial" negatives.
I made the following image on Arista Ortho Lith by pre-exposing the film to white light (using my enlarger, estimating the duration of exposure by test strip) and developing it for 4 minutes in D-23 diluted 1:2 I chose D-23 for its ability to produce fairly low contrast, soft-toned negatives. Film rated at 3ASA, using a Voigtlander Petzval lens, wide open.

I have heard of flashing the film before exposure, but I personally do not have an enlarger to do it with. But that is a fantastic photo there, what Fstop is wide open for that lens?

[paulbarden]

I have heard of flashing the film before exposure, but I personally do not have an enlarger to do it with. But that is a fantastic photo there, what Fstop is wide open for that lens?

I believe that Voigtlander Petzval is an f3.5 lens

You can always figure out pre-exposure in-camera. Put something semi-translucent and white (paper, or plastic maybe) over the lens and figure out how much time you need to give to barely register some density. Use the dark slide to make a kind of test strip. Should be pretty easy.

[Neil Purling]

Try the Rodinal and the development time in my post with a sheet of the Arista film for 3 ASA. Then let me know the results.
Try on a overcast day, if you can, so the overall contrast is less.
The Maco film I was using I believe to be the equivalent of printing paper coated on a clear base.
If yours behaves more violently then perhaps it might be better to get a pack of a conventional film & get to know that better before venturing into making your own developers.

I'm having some fun with (industrial) X-ray film which has been a bit of a trial.

If you are a beginner then it might be best to bite the bullet and buy a pack of Fomapan 4x5 or even the Chinese Shanghai. At least that is meant to be for making normal photographs.