schorsch27
Hello everyone,
I’ve dug out the last bottle of Neofin doku from the depths of my freezer, and I’d like to use it to carry out the development of a roll of Agfa Ortho 25 35mm film that’s also about 35 years old and had its exposure at 25 ASA. I no longer have any of the original packaging, and I can’t find any detailed instructions for the development online either.
Can anyone tell me what dilution to use and for how long? I do have some slightly newer Rodinal lying around, but I’ve heard that’s supposed to be quite grainy with Agfa Ortho. Or would you recommend Rodinal? I’ve read that adding soda should work well, but I’ve no experience of mixing it myself.
Regards, Markus
KlausWehner
Hi Markus,
The Neofin developer was launched sometime in the 1980s as a developer for Kodak Technical Pan.
I’m not at all sure whether there were any ‘official’ specifications for the development of Agfa Ortho.
Even if there were, the times from back then won’t be much help to you, as both the film and the developer will behave differently now than they did 35 years ago.
So, either way, it remains an experiment.
You can’t predict the outcome unless you have a large quantity of film and chemicals at your disposal.
Then you could test the film.
Best regards,
Klaus
Restlicht
Hi Markus,
I’ve still got a leaflet from the Neofin documentary developer. I just need to dig it out.
If you’re still interested, do get in touch.
Regards, Wolfgang
KlausWehner
Hello Wolfgang,
Old documents are often worth their weight in gold!
Out of historical interest, I’d be curious to know which films are mentioned in the programme.
Do you know roughly what year your programme is from?
Thanks and best regards,
Klaus
schorsch27
@ Wolfgang:
Yes, I’d be very interested in seeing that note, if it’s not too much trouble. There seem to be more
questions than answers online. I actually developed a few AO films with ND in the 80s, but unfortunately I didn’t keep any of the boxes.
@ Klaus:
I’m actually afraid of that too. If Wolfgang doesn’t find anything, I’d pour half a litre of water into the bottle and shake it for 5 minutes.
Regards, Markus
KlausWehner
Hi Markus,
That’s exactly what I’d do:
prepare the recommended dilution and use a medium development time (5 to 10 minutes).
With a bit of luck, that might work.
If you’re keen to experiment and want to try a fresh developer, you can get in touch with me via private message.
I’ve got an idea. The advantage would be that you can be sure the developer is fresh and works.
The exact development time wouldn’t be certain, though.
However, the overall risk is somewhat lower.
It’s in the nature of things that there are more questions than answers on this subject.
Using specialised films always means asking something of a film that it wasn’t designed for.
Many myths have arisen that often don’t stand up to critical scrutiny.
But that’s another matter altogether.
Best regards,
Klaus
Wolf_XL
...I had a rummage in the back corners of my darkroom – and found what I was looking for...
KlausWehner
Thanks, Wolf!
I find it interesting that Tetenal only specifies the development time for a gamma of 0.55.
This contrast is suitable for condenser enlargers. However, these are less commonly used nowadays.
For standard enlargers with a colour mixing head, a significantly higher contrast is required.
In practical terms, this means that the development time (depending on the light path of the enlarger) should be extended further.
Best regards,
Klaus
Wolf_XL
...in this case, the thread starter may even have had a stroke of luck – since his film is underexposed anyway (exposed at 25 ASA instead of 12) and he therefore has to push it anyway, with a bit of luck this approach will give him the right gamma...
Restlicht
Hello Markus,
You’ve already received the original development chart. It matches mine.
@ Klaus
The chart posted here matches mine. I wrote the purchase date, January 1989, on the packet. I’d kept an older chart inside the packet.
That one was from 1979.
The chart listed other films as well.
Copex Pan
Recordak microfilm AHU
Kodak High Contrast Copy (the predecessor of Technical Pan)
Regards, Wolfgang
Wolf_XL
...well, my Neofin Doku leaflet dates from somewhere between 1984 and 1988... I used Technical Pan now and then back then. But I was a staunch opponent of tripods at the time – which is why I only used the film sporadically. Although I was quite happy with the results...
Be that as it may – I still have some Agfa Ortho 25 by the metre – so, just for fun, I’m going to set up the tripod and give the old stuff another go. I’ve got time now, as I’ve been retired since 1 May... :cool:
Restlicht
Wolf_XL wrote
...
Anyway – I’ve still got some Agfa Ortho 25 by the metre – so, just for fun, I’m going to set up the tripod and give the old film another go. I’ve got time now, as I’m retiring on 1 May... :cool:
All I can do is congratulate you on both :at: :at: :at:
schorsch27
First of all, many thanks for the rare instruction leaflet, Wolf.
I’m glad I waited – I was completely off the mark with the 5 minutes.
I’m unsure about the extension factor due to the beta-55 specification: I don’t have a condenser enlarger but a colour enlarger where I adjust the gradation using colour filters (Durst M 605).
On top of that, there would be a second extension factor due to the exposure at 25 ASA.
Do you think 35 minutes for the bottle dissolved in 500 ml of water would be OK? (1-min-Rh)? I have no experience with the 3-second rhythm; I’m worried about foam forming.
Don’t worry, I won’t pester you for definitive answers.
Regards, Markus
KlausWehner
Hello Markus,
There are a few uncertainties regarding your project.
It is not entirely straightforward to estimate the extent of the adjustments required for the development time.
For your enlarger, you will need negatives with a gamma of 0.8 to 0.9.
For my own developer, I have determined the extension factor for adjusting the contrast from 0.65 to 0.85 (roughly 1.5 to 1.6). However, you need a contrast increase from 0.55 to 0.85. For my developer, that would result in an extension factor of around 3.
Unfortunately, such correction factors cannot simply be applied 1:1 to other developers.
Unfortunately, the underexposure cannot be corrected retrospectively. In the shadow areas, information has been lost due to the underexposure, which you cannot conjure back onto the film afterwards.
Extending the development time merely serves to increase the densities of the mid-tones slightly.
For my developer, I have determined an extension factor of 1.3 for this purpose. But I cannot say whether that will work here.
It is also possible that your developer has lost some of its activity over the years. An extension factor of an unspecified magnitude could be considered for this as well.
One idea would be to carry out a ‘clip development’. You cut off a section of the film and develop it using the determined (corrected) development time. You can then decide whether the time is right, or whether further corrections are needed.
There is also a definite risk that the developer no longer develops at all (or not sufficiently). At least this way you’ll have saved the rest of the film.
Best regards
Klaus
schorsch27
Hello everyone,
First of all, thank you for all your helpful advice. However, with spring just around the corner, I’m not in any rush to head to the shop just yet.
But I’ll let you know here as soon as I’ve got an answer.
Stay well until then (and long after)!
Best wishes, Markus
schorsch27
Hello everyone,
I don’t want to keep you in the dark about what happened next, because things turned out quite differently:
Three new AO films from the 1980s, in plain packaging, turned up in my mother-in-law’s freezer. However, as the single bottle of Neofin doku mentioned above was only enough for two films and was nearly 40 years old, after a bit of searching online I decided to switch to Plan B:
Rodinaaaal! – the opened bottle was, by my reckoning, a good 10 years younger.
Together with an APX 100 (with an exposure at 100 ISO), I put the Agfa Ortho (25 ISO) mentioned at the start into the canister and gave both a Rodinal 1:100 dilution, in which I agitated them for 37 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius (3-second intervals continuously for the first minute, then 3 times per minute). I read somewhere that you should add a bit of bicarbonate of soda to soften the film, but that seemed too risky to me given my lack of experience.
The result is a revelation for the Agfa Ortho and the APX (which I’ve always developed at 200 ISO in Ilford ID 11 until now). Incredible sharpness, a palette of greys between blackest black and whitest white that you could almost describe as coloured. And yet still that crisp, yet very fine and thoroughly analogue grain.
I’m rather blown away.
Best regards,
Markus
schorsch27
Update following the first enlargements: the issue with the wide range of grey tones is not quite as significant as it first seemed. The negatives are actually quite dense; an average exposure time of 30 seconds at f/8 is required. Let’s see how it goes...
KlausWehner
Hello Markus,
Thank you for taking another, closer look at your negatives with a more critical eye.
You shouldn’t necessarily expect a wide tonal range from this combination of film and developer.
There are more affordable combinations available for that.
The film is, in fact, specifically designed to suppress as many tonal values as possible.
Rodinal has a very high pH value and contains an extremely potent alkali (potassium hydroxide) in its formulation.
It is not necessarily the developer that produces nuanced tonal ranges.
The high dilution means that there is simply not enough developing agent present to fully develop the film.
This further compromises the tonal range. The gradation curve develops into a pronounced S-shape.
For the best possible results, you need a developer capable of producing a high maximum density (within the range of reproducible densities).
This results in a long gradation curve, on which the tonal values can be better differentiated.
The gradation curve should be as linear as possible. This is achieved by a developer with high activity that develops all tonal values equally.
In my opinion, Neofin doku would have been more suitable.
It’s a balancing act in any case.
With more time and materials, one could better adapt a developer to the film.
Best regards
Klaus
