A Metol-Sulfite Developer for Ortho Litho Film

[desertrat]

I recently resumed experimenting with homebrew developers after a long period of not doing anything in photography. I've read about Jim Galli's diluted Rodinal with added restrainer developer and viewed some of the linked images, and they're impressive.

But I wanted to see what I could come up with from my stock of dry raw chems, and I don't have any Rodinal on hand. Metol and sodium sulfite were picked because D-23 has a reputation for not blowing out highlights and not producing contrasty negatives. Instead of mixing a batch of D-23 and diluting it, the ingredients were mixed at tray dilution and different concentrations of ingredients and development times were tried.

I figured, if D-23 has fairly low activity with a high concentration of sodium sulfite, it might have somewhat lower activity if just enough sulfite was added to prevent oxidation of the metol during the processing session. A low concentration of metol might help with the very contrasty litho films.

What I'm using now is:

1000 ml water
A pinch of sodium sulfite to prevent oxidation of the metol
2 grams metol
10 grams sodium sulfite

Development time is about two and a half minutes at 70 deg F.

I started shooting the Arista Ortho Litho film at about ISO 2, but wasn't getting any shadow detail. So exposures were gradually increased and development shortened a bit. What's that old saying, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights"?

I ended up with an exposure of 6 seconds at f32 in slightly hazy sun, resulting in an ISO of about 0.7 or so. Some of the negs have decent shadow detail.

Uneven development of negatives with edges darker than the center was a problem when the negatives were being developed in 8X10 trays. I tried different agitation methods including sliding the film out and back into the developer, but the dark edges persisted. Then tried larger trays, food storage containers from the big box store. This helped, but not completely.

Finally, I went for total overkill and bought a 16X20 tray for development. I had to mix two liters of developer to cover the tray bottom.

Upside - Uneven development all gone! A gentle agitation is all that's needed to get the 8X10 negative sliding around in the tray, from end to end and side to side. Easy as pie.

Downside - Uses lots of chemistry. But this isn't really so bad, because when litho films are developed for continuous tones, the developers are usually very dilute.

Equipment: Seneca Improved View, 8X10. The first image was shot with a beater 12" Dagor in an Ilex #4 shutter. Exposure was 6 seconds at f32 in slightly hazy sun. Film was an old batch of Arista Ortho Litho film bought in 2001. Contact printed on Ilford MG IV FB paper, scan of print.

The second image was shot with the same camera and a recently acquired Turner-Reich triple in 12"/19.7"/25" f7.0. Exposure was 8 seconds at f32. Film was a more recent batch of Arista APHS only about 2 years old. Little shadow detail, as the shadows were darker than in the first scene. Negative scan on a flatbed scanner. The scanned image is contrastier than I think a print will be.

This will be a lot of fun, but I don't think I'll ever get the same tonality as a film designed for continuous tone in-camera negatives. The litho film is just designed for completely different work.

[Donald Miller]

Jim Galli has some images made with this film that seemed to be fairly decent results. Not sure if he is still using it or not. He probably will have some guidance on developers.

I used this film at one time for use in masking negatives. In my use I used highly dilute Dektol. I was able to get continuous tone in my masking when I used Dektol at 1-30 for some of the masks (unsharp) and 1-10 with other masks (sharp).

On the basis of your scans you are still lacking shadow detail.

[Andrew O'Neill]

You can tame the contrast and open up the shadows of this film by the pre-exposure technique. I like to metre the scene through a piece of translucent white acrylic and place this reading on zone I or II, place same piece of translucent acrylic in front of the lens and make the zone I or II exposure. Then make another exposure without the white acrylic of the scene. Of course you will have to experiement a bit.
I prefer to use LC-1B developer, which can be mixed from scratch. This developer was formulated with this type of film in mind.

[desertrat]

Thanks for the advice and info. Thanks to Andrew O'Neill for suggesting pre-exposure to help improve shadow detail, but I couldn't wrap my head around the zone system calculations.

Another user on a different thread pre-exposes in the darkroom with his safelight. This concept was easier to understand. I used my 6X6 color enlarger for a light source. Yellow + Magenta = Red, which Ortho film is blind to. I figured if I used less than max filtration with these colors, a little white light would get through, just enough to give manageable exposure times. After some experimentation, I arrived at 100Y + 100M with the 80mm lens aperture set at f16 for 10 seconds. This produced just a little density in test clips of film, just enough to get past the exposure threshold.

Then I tried longer exposures in the camera to see if a little more shadow density could be obtained. After pre-exposing the first sheet of film under the enlarger, I took the film holder outside to the camera waiting just inside the garage door, only to discover the sky had become overcast. Determined to make an exposure anyway, I shot the driveway scene for 45 seconds at f32, equivalent to about 11 seconds under sunny 16 conditions.

The first image has a sudden change in density in the foreground in the lower right hand corner. This was a developing oops on my part. The negative didn't get submerged completely in the developer, and I just kept agitating, figuring the developer would wash over it pretty quickly. That didn't happen, so I pushed the negative down into the developer but the damage had already been done. Development was for 3 minutes, and the negative was almost too contrasty to print. Contact printed on Ilford MGIV FB under max yellow filtration, using the enlarger as a light source. 2-1/2 minutes would have yielded better negative. But I got some detail in the deep shadows, dagnabbit!

The second image was shot in sunny 16 conditions, 10 seconds at f32. This would correspond to a film ISO of about 0.4. The lens for this shot was a brass 8X10 Rapid Rectilinear in a brass Wollensak shutter. The center of the image is fairly sharp, but the edges are quite soft. Developed for 2-1/2 minutes being careful not to repeat the mistake from the previous negative. Split grade print on the same paper. Most of the exposure under full yellow filtration, with just a tad of exposure under full magenta. Using the iris in an 80mm lens to help control the exposure, it was 10 seconds at 150Y at f11, followed by 10 seconds at 150M at f32.

This is as close to normal image tones as I've yet been able to get. The truck is painted white, and the tailgate was reflecting a lot of light, it was very bright. Yet the lettering embossed on the tailgate is faintly visible, and wasn't strongly visible in the original scene. There is some highlight detail, even with such a long exposure. The shaded portions of the workshop building are plainly visible, and a little detail is visible in the woodpile underneath and behind the stairs. The darker shaded areas, including under the vehicles, have little or no detail, but this is probably the best compromise I can get with this APHS film and homebrew developer.

This is a work in progress. I plan to try some of the other developers suggested, after I start getting more consistent results with what I have now.

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's simple. metre through the plastic and give 4 stops less exposure. That's zone I. Three stops less is zone II.

[Jay DeFehr]

I pre-expose in my DR. I just make a test strip at 1/3 stop intervals and choose the exposure time just before the one that develops visible density with normal development. I pre-expose as I load my film into the holders. I expose APHS at EI 6-12, depending on the light.

[desertrat]

I'm using much longer exposures than most others who are working with this film. I guess my developer must cause considerable loss of emulsion speed. But I've made a couple of negs with near normal contrast, if not tonality.

Jay, what developer are you using?

[Jay DeFehr]

I've used all of my favorite developers (510-Pyro, Hypercat, and GSD-10).

[D. Bryant]

I recently resumed experimenting with homebrew developers after a long period of not doing anything in photography. I've read about Jim Galli's diluted Rodinal with added restrainer developer and viewed some of the linked images, and they're impressive.


You may wish to consider Dave Soemarko’s LC-1 and LC-1B low contrast developer created for use with lith films.

Google Dave's name and you can find his formula's and basic instructions for use.

Don Bryant

[desertrat]

I've used all of my favorite developers (510-Pyro, Hypercat, and GSD-10).
Jay, do you use standard dilutions with APSH, or do you dilute more?

BTW, thanks for the invite to discuss photography over coffee, from the introduction thread. I didn't respond then because I felt a bit embarrassed about my current situation, but there's no reason to.

I don't get out much these days. I retired from the work force three years ago and moved up here from So. Cal. to take care of my elderly parents. My two grown sons followed not long after. Dad's now 90 and Mom's 85, and they need care periodically throughout the day and night. My sons and I have split into three shifts to make sure they get 'round the clock care if needed.

Dad has been recuperating from a mild stroke the last few months, and my sons now run most of my errands such as buying groceries and picking up prescriptions. I do get some free time to enjoy photography and other hobbies, but I'll be doing all my photography here at the premises for the time being. And I'll be doing all my socializing via the internet.

The folks are providing us very nice accomodations in their old two story farmhouse, and we're glad to be here to give them the care they need so they don't have to live in a nursing home.

[Jay DeFehr]

Yes, I use dilute solutions. I use 1:500 dilution of 510-Pyro, and 1:20 dilution of GSD-10. I've had good luck with Hypercat 1:5:300, and as a 2 bath developer.

One definition of success is having raised a child well enough that we're taken care of when we're old. This is nothing to be embarrassed about, but something to be proud of.

[desertrat]

I followed dancqu's (at APUG) advice on dilute metol developers and diluted my orginial formula about 1:3

2 liters water
pinch sodium sulfite
1 gram metol
5 grams sodium sulfite

This was used to develop an APHS negative that was pre-exposed under the enlarger and then exposed in the camera for 10 seconds at f22, for an E.I. of roughly 0.2. I went with a longer exposure because a lot of the scene was in the shade.

Development was by inspection, and went a lot slower. After 6 minutes, it looked like I had roughly what I had been getting in just over 2 minutes with the first formula.

The negative was a little too contrasty to print with grade 2 filtration, so the filtration was adjusted to an even split between 1 and 1-1/2, or 58Y + 16M. I have no doubt that 4-1/2 minutes development for the negative would have resulted in a negative that might have been a little flat for grade 2 filtration. Still using Ilford MGIV FB glossy paper and the color enlarger for a contact printing light source.

Equipment: 8X10 Seneca Improved View and 12" uncoated Dagor in Betax #4.

[Jay DeFehr]

Looks great!

[desertrat]

Looks great!
Thanks, Jay! Attachment size is limited here, but you can see a larger file of the same image at the APUG thread with the same title in the BW film, paper and chemistry subforum, if you haven't seen it already.

[Jay DeFehr]

I can't see anything at APUG; I've been permanently banned from that site. Your results look really good! Maybe even a little soft! I think I need a little more speed for portraits. It's nice to know we can make 8x10 negatives for a few pennies, despite the challenges! I'm attaching a photo I made of my son, a few years ago, on APHS, developed in 510-Pyro, 1:500, 20minutes, 70F, semi-stand. Not a very good scan, and not a very good image, but it was a test, and my son was available. Incidentally, I used a metol-only developer to develop Tech Pan, and it worked very well. It was just 10% metol in TEA. If I remember correctly, I used a 1:50 dilution. It worked very well with Tech Pan, but, in my experience, APHS is more difficult than TP to tame. Latent image bleaching might be worth a try, if it doesn't cost too much in terms of film speed. Thanks for posting your excellent results!

[desertrat]

Hi Jay, thanks for the compliments! I was aware you hadn't been to APUG for a long while, but I didn't know you had been banned! :(

The tonality in the portrait of your son is great! A bit contrasty, but ortho litho film is probably the contrastiest film around, and understandably, because it was designed for half tone work.

I think there is a mindset about the range of exposures to use for this film when exposing for continuous tone work in camera of a scene. I believe the exposures recommended are too short to get any shadow detail, and the amount of development required to get a decent density results in a very high contrast negative. And this film develops very fast in most developers. I believe the smaller the individual grain size, the faster a film develops, and I believe ortho litho film has micro grain size. If my information is correct, the smaller the grain size, the slower the film, unless modern high tech sensitizing techniques are used.

I think it's possible one of your staining developers might give good results if the exposures are longer, and development is shorter. If the developer is highly diluted, you might want to use a larger quantity of solution to ensure enough developing agent is present to do the job.

FWIW, the first developer I used with ortho litho film was Clayton Extend Plus. During some fairly random experiments, I obtained a couple of flat, low contrast negatives. Imagine my surprise when I later looked at the MSDS for this stuff. It contains hydroquinone, potassium sulfite, and potassium hydroxide. Those are the only ingredients listed.

This is a very highly alkaline, active, contrasty developer. I have some very old formulas containing these three ingredients, and they were recommended for high contrast line copy work. How would it be possible to obtain a flat, low contrast negative with this stuff? I guess high dilution and fairly short development times were the answer.

[Jay DeFehr]

Clayton Extend Plus is described as a low contrast developer for film and paper. Don't let the listed ingredients fool you. There are highly compensating film developers based on catechol (a close cousin to hydroquinone), sodium sulfite, and sodium hydroxide, and my own Hypercat formula includes only catechol, ascorbic acid, and sodium carbonate, and I've used sodium hydroxide in place of sodium carbonate, with great results. It's all in the proportions of the ingredients.

APHS is designed to give maximum contrast, so we're swimming against the tide by trying to use it as a pictorial film. That we can do it to any degree is a testament to the flexibility of the materials. The simplest way to reduce contrast is to increase exposure and decrease development, but film speed is sacrificed by this approach. The challenge is to achieve normal contrast at the highest possible EI. Pre-exposure is one way to cheat, and pre-bleaching might be another, or some combination of the two techniques. Certainly, a low contrast developer is indicated. It should be kept in mind that the control of excessive contrast without sacrificing film speed is the oldest and most persistent challenge in developer formulation, ahead of even the control of graininess, so our obstacle is a formidable one.

Staining developers represent a double edged sword in this capacity. When used with VC papers, the stain can help to flatten out the highlight contrast, but at the expense of increasing shadow contrast. This might be a good case for pre-bleaching the print. On graded papers, stained negs are a disaster, increasing the contrast wholesale. For self-masking printing processes, like POP, these negatives are ideal, as they are both thin, and high contrast, making for short printing times, and very sharp prints.

Keep up the good work, and above all, enjoy yourself!

[Brian Bullen]

I've been experimenting with APHS for in camera negatives a little recently, developing in a dilute coffee and ascorbic acid mix.
5x7 camera
Film speed was rated at 5
Lens Cooke 8" Series IV at f22
exposed for 8 seconds

Darkest tree bark metered at f11
Grass next to tree metered at f22
Shady parts of the street at f32.5
Sunny parts of the street at f90
Siding on the house at left f181

Quite a range!
http://brianbullen.com/bbwebfoto/aphs2.jpg

Developed 5x7 sheet in a 5x7 tray so edges are overdeveloped.
1 rounded tablespoon foldgers instant coffee
a pinch ascorbic acid( could be left out)
1 level tablespoon sodium carbonate
16 oz water
7 minutes with normal agitation
5 minutes Kodak fixer

The negative was contact printed on variable contrast RC paper with no filtration on the enlarger. 9 secs at f 2.8 ( i was in a hurry) normal dev and fix.

The only corrections to the scan are cropping the over-developed edges a bit and trying to match what I see in the print.

[desertrat]

Very Cool! Great image! Ortho Litho film may not be really suitable for most pictorial photography, but I think it's a great inexpensive learning tool, and can work well for certain subjects.

[premortho]

Remember that this is an ortho film, un- affected by red. Shadows under trees is mostly red light. The film is mostly sensetive to blue light..shading off to green sensitive. So perhaps a Metol-Sodium Sulfite type developer would work well as it doesn't go ape in the highlights like a developer with hydro-kinon does. That said, I had good luck with Arista edu ortho at ASA 16, developed in 1-24 D-72 (Dectol)

[Cor]

Now I get a bit confused..I more or less assumed that shadows under a tree (clear blue sky) are mostly on the blue side: when using a yellow or red filter to darken a blue sky a bit (or more) I noticed a distinct darkening in the shadows beneath the trees, I assumed because the yellow or red filter holds back blue light. (this was observed with Fomapan 100 film, maybe other film brands behave differently in this respect)

If the shadows underneath trees is mostly red, wouldn't they get "lighter"..?

Best,

Cor


Remember that this is an ortho film, un- affected by red. Shadows under trees is mostly red light. The film is mostly sensetive to blue light..shading off to green sensitive. So perhaps a Metol-Sodium Sulfite type developer would work well as it doesn't go ape in the highlights like a developer with hydro-kinon does. That said, I had good luck with Arista edu ortho at ASA 16, developed in 1-24 D-72 (Dectol)

[premortho]

A yellow filter holds back the blue light, and allows you to get some cloud effect in the negative. A darker yellow filter gives you even more cloud detail...at a cost of 4-5 stops. Ortho sees red as black. So, especially evergreen shadows come out black. If you look at photographs made a hundred years ago thru the forties, they tried to get hardwood trees in the picture as they let in more blue and green light. Ortho film is sensitive to green light, so by using a yellow filter, which lightens greens, they got sometimes beautiful shadow detail. A light yellow filter is about a 2X filter. Now modern pan film (except Fuji Acros) is too red sensitive and prints red too bright. Fuji Acros is like the old Type A panchro emulsion in that it doesn't have as much red sensitivity. A lot of people like Acros for this very reason.
Now I get a bit confused..I more or less assumed that shadows under a tree (clear blue sky) are mostly on the blue side: when using a yellow or red filter to darken a blue sky a bit (or more) I noticed a distinct darkening in the shadows beneath the trees, I assumed because the yellow or red filter holds back blue light. (this was observed with Fomapan 100 film, maybe other film brands behave differently in this respect)

If the shadows underneath trees is mostly red, wouldn't they get "lighter"..?

Best,

Cor