The Wratten #44 is a "minus-red" filter. When used with pan film in daylight, it will give you a tonal rendition like an ortho film. A blue filter, like a #47, will give more extreme effects.
The Wratten #44 is a "minus-red" filter. When used with pan film in daylight, it will give you a tonal rendition like an ortho film. A blue filter, like a #47, will give more extreme effects.
i have no idea what brand the fpp stuff actually is and would never recommend it to anyone. the FUJIFILM is $49 USD for 600 sheets once you cut it down to 4x5. one box saves you literally thousands of dollars compared to the ilford.Originally Posted by letchhausen
Helps to be specific, Steve. Ortho would be useless for masking color film. As far as sensitivity for other purposes, it's product specific, so you need to study the tech sheet. For example, Arista ortho litho is about 3 times more sensitive to blue than to green, but without red sensitivity. Classic Ortho sheet films for shooting purposes, a niche the current Ilford product allegedly fills, can be vaguely simulated using a medium-deep green filter over the lens; but that will block some blue too, along with red. It's hard to find good glass deep cyan filters; and it's a filter hue category that tends to fade. But since pan films themselves differ somewhat in specific spectral sensitivity, there can be no solid generic answer. Experiment.
a cyan dichroic filter would give the best result. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...rch=yes&sts=ma
no
I have been using orthochromatic film since 1938.
Some of my answers to various questions here are:
1. It is naturally more contrasty than panchromatic film.
2. There is NO filter which will give you the same film sensitivity and color response as orthochromatic film ,or vice versa. There are many suggestions from workers with little or no experience with ortho film.
3. Ilford is probably the best ortho film available today for most people. The primary reason for this is that it is single sided and all current x-ray films that I can find are 2-sided. That is, there is an emulsion on both sides. I use probably 10 times as many sheets of x-ray as any other film because I am used to handling the delicate emulsion without scratching either side.
4. I normally use D-23 or Pyrocat HD developers because they give me the highest speed, and are not in themselves so active as to increase contrast. The produce beautiful mid-tone contrast. Such is not true of HC110, or other "modern" developers.
5. I grew up developing by inspection, and continue to prefer that method, although I no longer attempt to teach it because most people today are unable to learn to see the correct contrast. It takes lots of time and lots of practice. My estimate is development 100-150 sheets of ortho is necessary to get efficient.
6. There is no better emulsion for portraits of older men, images made in Utah of red cliffs, Autumn leaves, etc.
I could go on, but that is enough. I do not and will not argue with newcomers, those with under 75 years experience. BUT - if you consider what I have said, your appreciation of ortho film will improve.
Actually, the effect of a blue filter all depends of just how deep a blue is involved. Sometimes I carry an ordinary medium-light blue tungsten conversion filter, which still lets some red and green through, but not as much as ordinarily. On the other hand, a deep blue separation filter like a 47 or especially 47B will block not only all the red, but all the green too. So that gives a very different look than ortho film. But foliage itself is rather complex, because certain wavelengths are reflected which we might not ordinarily associate with natural "greens".
As far as controlling reddish Southwestern rock or clay goes, I prefer to use a medium green Hoya X1 filter for pan films. I'm not going to carry a completely different film for that purpose alone.
You all can carry on, but I think I'm good at this point. If I try it, I'll use the Ilford ortho film and D-23, which is my current developer anyway. Thanks to everyone, and in particular to Jim.
I started using Rollei's Ortho 25 few time ago. At the moment I was able just to make few shots to test a suitable speed/developing time with HC110. The expiration date was at 2016, so not too old.
I'm currently using it at iso 16.
I have two reasons for choosing ortho film: higher contrast and shorter tonal range for the images I have in mind and the easier developing procedure in open tray allowed by working under red safety light.
Unfortunately, it is quite expensive, both Rollei and Ilford.
Pressing the shutter is the only easy thing
I would go with what Jim said, after all 83 years of experience kind of counts a lot in my book.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks