Film for learning

[ben_hutcherson]

Thanks for the information on Ektapan. Like I said, I have probably 100 sheets to play with(spread across 3 boxes) so I have a lot to try.

I'll take your developing suggestions as a starting point. D76 is my developer of choice-your dilution explanation does make sense to me

BTW, I was looking at filters on the spectrophotometer the other day. I was using a Varian Cary 50-a research grade UV-Vis spectrophotometer. In any case, while looking at filters I threw two separate lenses in it also-one an AF Nikkor 50mm 1.8 that I bought when I bought my F4, and the other an Auto-Nikkor 50mm 1.4 that I suspect was original to the c. 1965 F Photomic it was mounted on. Both had sharp cut-offs(going to 10Au, or 0%T) at 360nm. This is in line with most good quality optical glass.

[loonatic45414]

Ektapan was developed as a slide copy film, if my information is correct. It was to provide good copies of Ektachrome 64.

Shadow detail is lacking on purpose, to provide definite blacks instead of risking showing grays in the lower regions.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[ben_hutcherson]

Ektapan was developed as a slide copy film, if my information is correct. It was to provide good copies of Ektachrome 64.

Shadow detail is lacking on purpose, to provide definite blacks instead of risking showing grays in the lower regions.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Interesting.

I'm 29 and have only been interested in photography since sometime in 2005, so I missed a lot of the good days of film(although it's all I've ever used seriously).

I'd never heard of Ektapan before I saw the boxes piled up in the camera store. Initially the "Ekta" name made me think it was a color reversal film, but of course Kodak only usually appends "pan" to the end of B&W films. I grabbed it anyway since I can't pass up free or nearly free 4x5. Some research showed it had been discontinued in ~2000 I think, and that it was definitely a B&W film, but I couldn't find a lot on it. I found suggested EIs as high as 100, but what you've posted seems more realistic. Of course, nothing is marked on the box.

The same shop has some "Graphic Arts Film" in both 4x5 and 8x10. I'm guessing that this is probably a high contrast ortho litho film, but I'm thinking I should grab it. I know this general class of film is VERY high contrast, but that it can be "tamed" with low contrast developers used at high dilutions.

[koraks]

I think I know what he's hitting upon. Not all lenses transmit UV light from the source equally. Nikon, for example, makes UV lenses costing well up into the thousands.

Their cheap little 50mm enlarger lenses seem to transmit very well, and more than 1 website says to adapt it for camera use if you want a cheap way of playing with UV photography.

I believe, however, the answer is this... film base transmission of UV light is essential for the printing process but does little, if nothing, at the exposure stage.

Would that be accurate?

Yes sir, that's it. UV exposure plays no significant role during exposure (preferably not, as it would be out of focus comoared to visible light anyway and will cause halatians and flare in some films). It's really only about the printing process and when using a UV contact printer. Think of processes such as carbon transfer, salted paper and cyanotype. For as beginner this may be relevant due to the popularity of alternative printing processes these days; quite a few people step into LF with the desire to make alternative contact prints. While most films van be made to work, TMX is a pain in the behind even though it does work, but with excessive exposure times (over one hour for salt prints on a typical UV exposure box where a film like fp4+ would require 10-15 minutes.).

[loonatic45414]

I don't bother with Graphic Arts only because there's a lot of great old films out there. As you can see from my chart, those 3 films were in a box & all were from an old camera shop "in the back" in Dallas, Texas. I don't know how climate controlled these were but it's dubious at best. All expired 1972-1974 yet they amazingly show signs of their design.

Royal pan, for example, was a good studio film. The plot shows a slightly subdued highlight area for taming the harsh effects of flash.

Super-X was an outdoor film, supposedly, for artistic landscapes. The long, flat curve was designed for excellent tonal representation.

I am also too young to know this stuff firsthand, but the densitometer doesn't lie. I no longer have to ask what this film is for, what a good development suggestion would be, etc. You get so many conflicting reports from people who are either guessing or who've looked up times on the internet. I know exactly what I get from stand development, dilutions, agitation schemes, temperature differences, effects of filters, exposure accuracy, and for me, I can gauge the effects of aging on expired films.

I bought two 1000 foot reels of Eastman 5222 Double-X film, probably 30 years old. With this much film, I spent lots of time dialing in exposure & development. 35mm may not have the advantage of choosing the development of individual frames like sheet film, but I can shoot lengths of film for a certain lighting range & develop accordingly.

The biggest advice I can pass on regarding exposing roll film is to place your highlights and shoot to place your zone 8 just below the shoulder. I know the mantra is expose for shadows, develop for highlights, but you can't develop every frame individually in rollfilm. Placing your highlight avoids blowing out detail in the highlight or placing the highlight too low & not utilizing the full dynamic range which is especially important in old film which may have a limited dynamic range.

I became a mad scientist the day I got my densitometer. I love knowing exactly what I'll get from the film while I'm at the camera composing. I think it's great you love film. For me, digital almost doesn't exist.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[plaubel]

I figure start with a high quality film. You will make nice images during your learning curve too, and maybe you'll be happy to have it recorded on a decent sheet of film

High quality is not a problem with Ortho 25.
Made for camera tasks ( not for technical tasks ), except missing some red sensity you get a sharp film with great grey separation, in other words - you will get good to great results for a nice price.

Developing othochromatic film under safe light is a big advantage for learning around the negative - this gave me good ideas what happens with my film.

But I have been a beginner, so the OP may not need this experiences.

Ritchie