huehnerhose
Hello!
I’m currently planning to use Adox Printfilm as the film stock for an old 9x12 camera. Today I finally wanted to give it a go – unfortunately, I don’t have time for extensive testing; I need a quick shot with this thing.
First, I tried exposing the film at the recommended 50 ASA and developing it in D76 (stock) by eye – absolutely nothing. After about 6 minutes, there was still absolutely nothing – completely blank. Then I tried 25 ASA with Eukobrom – again, nothing. Finally, in total desperation, I turned the camera down and performed an exposure at 12 ASA, using a flash as well. (Exposed for 1 second, manual flash trigger) – developed in Eukobrom and a veeeery faint image actually appeared.
The subject is me (self-portrait); I lit it using old (1950s–1960s) 250W photo reflector lamps. I metered with a Lunasix, and finally used a flash with an SB28.
The flash-exposed image is absolutely sharp! Not a hint of motion blur – how realistic is it that I sat absolutely still for 1s?
My guess was that the lamps emit a spectrum to which the film is insensitive – however: these are effectively light bulbs – they should have a continuous spectrum.
Do you have any ideas as to where the problem might lie?
Regards, Sebastian
cfb_de
Hello Sebastian,
Am I right in assuming that the print film is orthochromatic?
Meinjanur.
Am I also correct in assuming that light bulbs emit almost no light, or at least significantly less, in the green/blue/UV range, and that the colour temperature is clearly (in the sense of approx. >2kK) shifted towards ‘red’ and ‘NIR’?
Meinjanur.
So: No wonder. More of a nice learning experience when working with orthochromatic material.
This stuff is traditionally suitable outdoors (or with a flash) for ‘classic’ orthochromatic red-blind reproduction (‘Does your film have tomatoes on its eyes? Then it only sees peppers.’ or something like that, loosely based on the Kodak colour film advert). That’s exactly what it’s designed for.
Under artificial light, it’s just like dear old Goethe on his deathbed: “More light!” (Even if Goethe’s quote isn’t documented with certainty, it is at least attributed to him. It’s just that we can’t very well ask him now :-)
Beutler describes this rather nicely for ortho materials. Eder does too, as do other contemporaries.
And you really can’t blame Mirko for these peculiarities of a material explicitly marketed as orthochromatic. You should bring some knowledge to the table yourself, even in photography.
Ha. We’ve caught you out again. No hard feelings. That’s exactly *how* I learnt it once, with similar lack of success. It just said ‘ORT’ on the Agfa film and I thought to myself:
Hurrah, I’ll take the liberty,
not give it a second thought,
perform exposure,
and let the light do the rest.
It was a washout. Despite the freedom from meter. Even twenty years ago, couples weren’t celebrating the carnival at home, which isn’t observed there anyway.
Best regards,
Franz
huehnerhose
Hi Franz,
I actually do understand what ‘orthochromatic’ means and what’s involved… Unfortunately, I equated a continuous incandescent spectrum with ‘white’ – clearly a mistake on my part (no lines simply means only in the area where there is light). So my hunch that lamps produce the wrong kind of light has been confirmed :D
That means I’ll have to crank the flash up to full power and hope that’s enough, or find another light source. My dad suggested quartz lamps or UV tubes for plants... so I suppose I’ll have to give them a go...
Best regards
Sebastian
P.S.
And you really can’t blame Mirko for these peculiarities of a material explicitly marketed as orthochromatic.
Is this now meant as a deterrent to using this thread for the petty squabbles here in the forum? (Couldn’t see any connection to my question)
Wolfgg
Yes, that’s an example in photography where there are several potential pitfalls waiting in the wings, which Franz describes so hilariously :D.
With films like this, it’s best to imagine there’s an invisible note on the packet saying: ‘Under incandescent light, use only about 6 DIN’. Then you’re automatically in the seconds range, meaning that dear old Mr Schwarzschild comes along and says succinctly: ‘Open the aperture by one stop, or multiply the measured time by three’.
Regards, Wolfgang
SamuliSchielke
My dad suggested quartz lamps or UV tubes for flowers... so I suppose I’ll have to give them a go...
Or an Alpensonne from the days when people didn’t really believe in skin cancer. I use it for POP paper exposure when the sun isn’t shining. It’s not always that pleasant for the people posing as models, though, because it’s extremely bright. But it’s a photo studio and tanning salon in one.
Neon tubes also have a bit more blue than incandescent bulbs; you can quickly see in colour photos that shots taken in neon light have colours that are a bit odd, but still a fair bit more realistic than those taken in incandescent light.
Samuli
dkwrt200
I can confirm that ADOX print film does not deliver the advertised 50 ASA. And not just under questionable artificial lighting, but also outdoors in full light (a sunny day with hardly any clouds). I can’t give any figures for the exposure times, as the shots were taken with a MIDG plate-repetition camera around 1910 and I can’t really put my finger on the exact settings for that era. However, the first usable images were obtained at 1–2 seconds at f/16 (T, ‘twenty-one’), which, when converted using the values from my Lunasix, yielded a speed of just under 12 ASA. The same exposure using glass plates with a self-made emulsion yielded the same speed. In both cases, however, the results were convincing. I’ll continue to use the print film as my recording material with my old cameras, not least because I can easily cut it myself in the darkroom to exotic formats like the MIDG quarter-plate and fiddle it into the holders. When developing, however, you have to be incredibly careful. All it takes is for two sheets to brush against each other briefly in the water and scratches appear; even Hüter can’t help there.
If there are any ‘lighting experts’ here: is there a way to equip enlargers with UV light sources so that cyanotypes can be produced? Background: I’m not entirely satisfied with creating negatives using an inkjet printer, and whilst print film negatives give lovely results, they get quite expensive for larger formats. Attempts using standard lamps, some of which emit in the UV range (black light, halogen, xenon), have so far been unsuccessful.
Best regards,
Rainer
cfb_de
Hi Rainer,
In theory, you should be able to convert an enlarger to use a UV lamp without too much trouble. It should be particularly straightforward with cold light sources.
But: there’s always a catch! And in this case, it’s the residue. You might need a condenser, and you’ll definitely need UV-transparent stage glass and a UV-transparent lens. Have fun hunting for them – and especially when it comes to paying for them :-)
Best regards,
Franz
SamuliSchielke
There was a discussion about UV enlargers on another forum a while back. If I remember correctly, a UV enlarger was actually manufactured in the GDR decades ago, but it’s doubtful whether any working models still exist, or whether suitable bulbs are available for them.
Does it actually have to be UV, or would blue suffice? If so, the problem with the lenses wouldn’t be quite so serious.
Samuli
dkwrt200
Thank you very much for the tips. I’ll have a look around some more. The problem is that I don’t know exactly which parts of the spectrum the iron(III)/(II) salts react to. It can’t really be UV-C, as hardly any of that gets through the atmosphere. 90% of UV-B is already filtered out by a simple window pane. But in the contact frame there is, after all, a glass pane through which it can pass. If it is UV-A, then the situation looks better with potential artificial light sources. But it still has to pass through a whole phalanx of glass surfaces. That’s probably where it will fall short. A 500 W halogen bulb, which emits approx. 3% of its output in the UVA range, did produce an image via the contact frame and a glass pane, but by the time it passed through the condenser and optics, only light remained – no more UV. The next attempt would probably be the UV tubes from the nail salon....
Best regards,
Rainer
Wolfgg
Rainer: Remove the bulb from a suitable Heimsonne lamp with a socket, or build an arc lamp; no condenser, an image stage without glass, and as for the optics: have a look at the spec sheets; perhaps the ‘low-lens’ models among the affordable ones are best for UV.
Regards, Wolfgang
huehnerhose
Hello everyone :)
After quite a bit of trial and error, the photo is finally ready. In the end, it was lit using a halogen lamp and a flash.
Another important point was the development process. When I asked in the shop, they recommended Eukobrom 1+4/20 for ~5 mins, which produced a negative that was OK for a start. In the end, I increased the developing temperature even further – and that produced a very good negative. I don’t know the exact temperature – at some point I was just working by feel :unsure:
Best regards
Sebastian
dkwrt200
Hello Sebastian,
Have you noticed? The latest edition of the catalogue now states, under ‘Print film’ (which is now called ‘Internegative film’), that the exposure should generally be set to 6–25 ASA. On Friday I’m heading to Bad Hersfeld to visit the archive and hopefully take a few shots of the abbey ruins. Before that, I’ll be loading some plates for an old Linhof II 10x15 with print film. The exposure will be at 6 ASA. I’m looking forward to it.
Best regards,
Rainer
dkwrt200
Brief report on the latest ADOX print film test: shots of the Bad Hersfeld Abbey ruins, diffused light under a cloudy sky, snow beginning to fall, Friday 3 March 2006, around 2.00 pm. Camera: Linhof II 10x15, Schneider Angulon 1:6.8 90 in SynchroCompur.
At 25 ASA: Not great, just outlines
At 12 ASA: You can actually make out what you were trying to photograph
At 6 ASA: That’s about right, well exposed with decent shadow detail
I didn’t have any more plates with me.
So the recommendation is 6 ASA; if in doubt, add another half-stop.
On the question of which side is the emulsion side, which has been mentioned elsewhere: in an earlier attempt, I had attributed the crystal-clear result on the film to the fact that I might have exposed the film from the back. It doesn’t have the usual notch, after all. But two exposures on each side revealed that the smooth side is the emulsion side. You can feel it clearly if you run your (dry!) fingertip very lightly over the film. With the smooth emulsion side, you feel and hear nothing; with the rougher reverse side, it feels and sounds (a slight rustling) quite different.
Best regards,
Rainer
(P.S.: As a ‘tester’, do you actually get a free sample pack?)
