So I have some Tri-X (Arista Premium 400) loaded in a patterson tank I presoaked in water, then soaked in a pigment that has a certain amount of IR absorption.
Now the film is drying in the tank and will be re-loaded into a reloadable 35mm canister.
Hopefully there'll be some pigment adjacent to the silver halide, and hopefully the pigment will be able to transfer energy to it.
I'll be shooting it with an R72 filter, focussed visually on a ruler for test shots, looking for a focus shift on the ruler.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
C-41 Infrared Test #1
C-41 Infrared Test #1
I figured just like with digital cameras, in a consumer product you can't remove all susceptibility outside the visible spectrum, just have several stops of difference in sensitivity.
R72 Filter used, +14.5 stops of 'filter compensation' to get this effect, or EI 0.017 from a ISO 400 film (I should mention this included 2 stops of reciprocity correction, but its just guess work at this point).
Exposure was f/2.8, 15 seconds, correct unfiltered exposure was f/11, 1/400th.
I was considered lowering the pH level of the C-41 developer to effectively underdevelop the reds, but the reds dont seem that dense as I suspect they would be, they seem quite godo, but the green and blue channels have a thin density range.
Needs more exposure, with a green and blue filter, would probably help a bit.
Defniately seems to be an IR effect their to my eyes.
Film was ISO 400 35mm cheap unknown brand film, unknown age.
Scanned with levels set on each colour channel to not have any clipping at all, then auto-levelled to provide a 'balanced' image (regardless of false colour) to see the effect.
Test #2 will include the colour filters and increased exposure.
A high contrast film may be much better for this, less expansion of green and blue would be needed, hence less grain contrast, and less shitty scanner noise, perhaps Velvia etc.
I figured just like with digital cameras, in a consumer product you can't remove all susceptibility outside the visible spectrum, just have several stops of difference in sensitivity.
R72 Filter used, +14.5 stops of 'filter compensation' to get this effect, or EI 0.017 from a ISO 400 film (I should mention this included 2 stops of reciprocity correction, but its just guess work at this point).
Exposure was f/2.8, 15 seconds, correct unfiltered exposure was f/11, 1/400th.
I was considered lowering the pH level of the C-41 developer to effectively underdevelop the reds, but the reds dont seem that dense as I suspect they would be, they seem quite godo, but the green and blue channels have a thin density range.
Needs more exposure, with a green and blue filter, would probably help a bit.
Defniately seems to be an IR effect their to my eyes.
Film was ISO 400 35mm cheap unknown brand film, unknown age.
Scanned with levels set on each colour channel to not have any clipping at all, then auto-levelled to provide a 'balanced' image (regardless of false colour) to see the effect.
Test #2 will include the colour filters and increased exposure.
A high contrast film may be much better for this, less expansion of green and blue would be needed, hence less grain contrast, and less shitty scanner noise, perhaps Velvia etc.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
CuSO4 Bleach vs Flexicolor Bleach Test #1
Okay again... poor choice of shitty unbranded unknown 400 ISO old expired C-41 film leads to crappy results
Top is CuSO4, bottom is Flexicolor.
2min 45 sec in Flexicolor C-41 (38c), EI 50 (was intending +3 EI and N-2 dev.. not sure that worked out given the density)
This test though does prove Copper Sulphate Bleach WORKS, and the colour seems fine.
The density may seem similar overall, but each individual channel on the CuSO4 bleach is broader, though its a different image of course.
Anyway, density on both is so close to the end of the scanner range, that is normally clipped by 'max' levels, becomes hard to correct colour.
In any case, film is fogged, too much exposure also I guess for 2min 45sec.
But if the CuSO4 didn't work as a bleach, then there would also be a silver neg image on the film (which you could see by eye if there was), AND the density would be even greater, when max density is about the same as Flexicolor, differences due to exposure.
Other indications CuSO4 works: Back of film turns green/blue in bleach like its supposed, and you can see the image on the back of the film before fixing like it's supposed to as well.
Test needs to be re-done with fresh film, normal exposure and development.
But a big tick so far for CuSO4.
Bleach recipe used (I only mixed up 100mL in a beaker for a single frame):
100g/litre Copper Sulphate
100g/litre NaCl (I used table salt, whic his sea salt + anti caking agent since thats all I had - is fine).
You're supposed to filter or decant it as well, but I didn't.
According to literature I have, the shelf life is supposed to be 12 months or more (copper sulphate and salt aint going nowhere!), and the capacity is supposed to be 5 x 36exp 35mm rolls per litre (I'm sure it'd be more like other bleaches).
Bleaching time is alleged to be 6-7 min for film (C-41 and E-6) at 24 degrees celsius (I walked away and left both for 17 minutes as I forgot about them).
For paper (RA-4) its alleged 3-4 min at 24 celsius, and allegedly can do 30 8x10 prints a litre.
Top is CuSO4, bottom is Flexicolor.
2min 45 sec in Flexicolor C-41 (38c), EI 50 (was intending +3 EI and N-2 dev.. not sure that worked out given the density)
This test though does prove Copper Sulphate Bleach WORKS, and the colour seems fine.
The density may seem similar overall, but each individual channel on the CuSO4 bleach is broader, though its a different image of course.
Anyway, density on both is so close to the end of the scanner range, that is normally clipped by 'max' levels, becomes hard to correct colour.
In any case, film is fogged, too much exposure also I guess for 2min 45sec.
But if the CuSO4 didn't work as a bleach, then there would also be a silver neg image on the film (which you could see by eye if there was), AND the density would be even greater, when max density is about the same as Flexicolor, differences due to exposure.
Other indications CuSO4 works: Back of film turns green/blue in bleach like its supposed, and you can see the image on the back of the film before fixing like it's supposed to as well.
Test needs to be re-done with fresh film, normal exposure and development.
But a big tick so far for CuSO4.
Bleach recipe used (I only mixed up 100mL in a beaker for a single frame):
100g/litre Copper Sulphate
100g/litre NaCl (I used table salt, whic his sea salt + anti caking agent since thats all I had - is fine).
You're supposed to filter or decant it as well, but I didn't.
According to literature I have, the shelf life is supposed to be 12 months or more (copper sulphate and salt aint going nowhere!), and the capacity is supposed to be 5 x 36exp 35mm rolls per litre (I'm sure it'd be more like other bleaches).
Bleaching time is alleged to be 6-7 min for film (C-41 and E-6) at 24 degrees celsius (I walked away and left both for 17 minutes as I forgot about them).
For paper (RA-4) its alleged 3-4 min at 24 celsius, and allegedly can do 30 8x10 prints a litre.
C-41 1+9 Stand Test #1
Okay so basic test was, Flexicolor C-41, diluted in to 1+9, and about ~1.2mg/litre of potassium iodide added. A while back Daire Quinlan tried a C-41 1+9 stand development, I decided to expand the idea in the search for various ways for good quality processing of C-41 at 20 degrees celsius (harder than it sounds).
Processed at ~20 degrees celsius, for an hour, pure stand iirc.
I was going to adjust pH to put it around 10.2 or so, but then I thought stand development may have a compensating effect, which means the RGB densities shouldn't be too far off each other, and potassium iodide also is supposed to promote even layer development between layers.
I've included the original RGB histograms on top of the image so you can see the rough density for each channel, remember highlights to right on a histogram on negative films means denser, and to the left is thin.
The results are dense with a thin range, (dMax close to dMin for each channel), however, it's actually better than normal C-41 processing at 20 degrees celsius in this regard. Also some of the density may be attributed to the uneven developed areas which were denser as you can see (blown out or very bright as I corrected to the main part of the image).
But, with agitation it should prevent uneven development, but that density shall still... so the solution is shorter time... or more potassium iodide, I think I will try more potassium iodide.
Another word on the density... it was very old no-name (unknown) brand 400 ISO film I got for 50 cents a roll at a fair, also overexposed, so there is base fog to it, so I feel dMin would be lower (good) with fresh film
Also grain is actually normal ocompared to regular proces C-41 with this film, where as Daire Quinlan experienced increased (excessive?) grain, may be a result of the potassium iodide I added, but it should be confirmed with fresh and good fine grained film.
Test #2 will increase the potassium iodide and increased agitation (probably at 20 minute and 40 minute marks), I am not sure how much to increase it by, perhaps 4x.
The goals are to get even development, a little less density, and much lower dMin.
Processed at ~20 degrees celsius, for an hour, pure stand iirc.
I was going to adjust pH to put it around 10.2 or so, but then I thought stand development may have a compensating effect, which means the RGB densities shouldn't be too far off each other, and potassium iodide also is supposed to promote even layer development between layers.
I've included the original RGB histograms on top of the image so you can see the rough density for each channel, remember highlights to right on a histogram on negative films means denser, and to the left is thin.
The results are dense with a thin range, (dMax close to dMin for each channel), however, it's actually better than normal C-41 processing at 20 degrees celsius in this regard. Also some of the density may be attributed to the uneven developed areas which were denser as you can see (blown out or very bright as I corrected to the main part of the image).
But, with agitation it should prevent uneven development, but that density shall still... so the solution is shorter time... or more potassium iodide, I think I will try more potassium iodide.
Another word on the density... it was very old no-name (unknown) brand 400 ISO film I got for 50 cents a roll at a fair, also overexposed, so there is base fog to it, so I feel dMin would be lower (good) with fresh film
Also grain is actually normal ocompared to regular proces C-41 with this film, where as Daire Quinlan experienced increased (excessive?) grain, may be a result of the potassium iodide I added, but it should be confirmed with fresh and good fine grained film.
Test #2 will increase the potassium iodide and increased agitation (probably at 20 minute and 40 minute marks), I am not sure how much to increase it by, perhaps 4x.
The goals are to get even development, a little less density, and much lower dMin.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Trying Rodinal Reversal / "E-6" Again.
Attempting Rodinal Reversals for colour film again... trying with C-41 first off for cheap testing to start with.
Specifically right now I'm half-way through a 1+100, 1 hour stand on some Supra 400 I had shot (probably random stuff) a while back to see how it turns out.
This time I have made additions of Potassium Iodide and Ilford Rapid Fixer (Ammonium Thiosulphate), I do have some sodium thiocyanate, which is typical in E-6 first developers, but I hope this is enough, or I'll try again with an increased amount.
Update: Nothing on that roll, will have to shoot another roll tomorrow for testng.
Update: Some advice from Photo Engineer of APUG - "Well, Ammonium Thiosulfate is not good. The Ammonium ion is also a fixing agent and fogging agent to some extent and should not be used in developers as a general rule. You should only use Sodium Thiosulfate in this instance or Sodium Thiocyanate. The Thiocyanate is often used but you will again have to work out the amount needed."
Specifically right now I'm half-way through a 1+100, 1 hour stand on some Supra 400 I had shot (probably random stuff) a while back to see how it turns out.
This time I have made additions of Potassium Iodide and Ilford Rapid Fixer (Ammonium Thiosulphate), I do have some sodium thiocyanate, which is typical in E-6 first developers, but I hope this is enough, or I'll try again with an increased amount.
Update: Nothing on that roll, will have to shoot another roll tomorrow for testng.
Update: Some advice from Photo Engineer of APUG - "Well, Ammonium Thiosulfate is not good. The Ammonium ion is also a fixing agent and fogging agent to some extent and should not be used in developers as a general rule. You should only use Sodium Thiosulfate in this instance or Sodium Thiocyanate. The Thiocyanate is often used but you will again have to work out the amount needed."
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Things to try
Been in Melb for 6 weeks now...
Got a few things to try... pull-processing C-41 film, which I've already done in Rodinal and re-developed to colour before.. though that was 14 stop pull... good for daytime long exposure with no filters.
Got some old ISO 400 film that seems a bit crap and foggy at 400... though I did accidentally overdevelop it. Anyway, expose it at EI 50 and develop for 2 min 45 sec is the plan to see how it comes out.
Some bigger pulls with shorter times or C-41 with a 1+1 or 1+2 dilution and EI 12 and slower just to have a play.
Need to find some HCl from a pool shop to finish my concentrated 2 part colour negative developer.
Also got a roll of Rollei Pan 25 to test out.. not sure what to actually use it on though is the problem.
I want to try some Ektar 100 in 35mm lab-developed, and developed 'normally' (EI 100) in my concentrated developer (1+1+50), and pulled to EI 25 (1+1+100), with 8000 dpi Flextight 848 scans - just to ascertain differences.
The unbranded 400 ISO C-41 film shot @ EI 400, developed 3 min 45 sec accidentally and not agitated much (2 stop accidental push, was very dense and crappy), developed in Kodak Flexicolor at home, colour corrected (since it's C-41, posting orange negatives would be kinda odd).
Got a few things to try... pull-processing C-41 film, which I've already done in Rodinal and re-developed to colour before.. though that was 14 stop pull... good for daytime long exposure with no filters.
Got some old ISO 400 film that seems a bit crap and foggy at 400... though I did accidentally overdevelop it. Anyway, expose it at EI 50 and develop for 2 min 45 sec is the plan to see how it comes out.
Some bigger pulls with shorter times or C-41 with a 1+1 or 1+2 dilution and EI 12 and slower just to have a play.
Need to find some HCl from a pool shop to finish my concentrated 2 part colour negative developer.
Also got a roll of Rollei Pan 25 to test out.. not sure what to actually use it on though is the problem.
I want to try some Ektar 100 in 35mm lab-developed, and developed 'normally' (EI 100) in my concentrated developer (1+1+50), and pulled to EI 25 (1+1+100), with 8000 dpi Flextight 848 scans - just to ascertain differences.
The unbranded 400 ISO C-41 film shot @ EI 400, developed 3 min 45 sec accidentally and not agitated much (2 stop accidental push, was very dense and crappy), developed in Kodak Flexicolor at home, colour corrected (since it's C-41, posting orange negatives would be kinda odd).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
New Portra 400 film
New Portra 400 announced - http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400main.jhtml
Images - http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2010/08/film-is-not-dead-san-diego-v-20-day-3.html
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=213771&id=87452556121
Replaces both 400NC and 400VC, it has the contrast of NC, it uses improvements from the Vision ECN-2 motion picture film line with saturation between NC and VC, finer grain and greater resolution (sharper) apparently. It wil lbe avaiable in 35mm 36exp, 120 roll, 220 roll and 4x5 sheet film (no 8x10).
400NC and 400VC are expected to be available until December 2010.
Given it's finer and sharper characteristics and low contrast, I look forward to treating it like Tri-X (yes yes, completely different film, but still..), I would like to try Rodinal 1+100, 2 hour semi-stand first dev (EI 6400 for Tri-X), and colour rehal dev, and also a custom colour developer for pushing, just to see.
My thoughts is that this is a 400NC replacement with improvements, 400VC also appears more vivid than 400NC because of its greater contrast, the new 400 retains 400NC's contrast with greater saturation, but shouldn't appear so vivid.
If you cant do without 400VC, buy up, and an extra freezer to stick it in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)