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.