Controlling Weird Film

Sometimes I buy 'weird' film on a whim. I was recently noticing that my supply of 8x10 Kodak Clinic Select Green x-ray film was running low. I bought 100 sheets of it a few years ago and for the most part I cut it down to 4x5 sheets and shot it in my Graflex Speed Graphic. I had good luck developing it in various developers using the Mod-54 device. The emulsion is very thin and on both sides of the film, so it tends to get scratches where the Mod-54 holder grips it. But other than that I was happy with the results. So I went looking for some more. I found it, but not before I noticed a box of Kodak Camera 2000 film in 10x12 for sale. That's 6 sheets of 4x5 per sheet of 10x12, so that made it very cheap to shoot, but I knew nothing about this film. So the research began. Turns out that it is copy film for line art and half-tone images (like newspapers print with the grid of little black dots of varying size to create the illusion of grey scale). So it is a 'black-or-white' kind of film... very high contrast. The only example I could find of true pictorial use was from Mike Rasso on Flickr. Even then he had only posted a couple of shots. They were contrasty, but not terribly so. The catch was the iso. He had shot it at iso 0.8! Now that's some slow film. But if you have read many of my other posts, you will know that I'm not afraid of low speeds. You might say I'm a low speed junky. So that was it. I bought the box and set about reading the Kodak spec sheet in anticipation of taming this beast. It is ortho-chromatic. That is to say it has no sensitivity to red light. That's a bonus when it comes to cutting 10x12 sheets down to 4x5 since I can work under a safe light and don't have to operate the guillotine cutter in total darkness. The base is 'thin'. I read this, but didn't really realize what they meant by that. I have used thin base films in 35mm and it can be a bit of a hassle, but this was large sheet film. Certainly it wouldn't be THAT thin. But it is. It's really thin. That makes tank developing a little more tricky. You can't slosh it around or it will come out of the Mod-54 tracks and stick to other sheets and hilarity will ensue. The one thing I didn't anticipate was that it is not notched. So it's difficult to tell which side is the emulsion side. I took a sheet out into the light and looked at it. One side is shiny brown and the other side is shiny purple. Neither one gave an indication by visual inspection that it was emulsion. So I put a drop of developer on either side. Sure enough, the purple side turned deep brown and the brown side stayed brown, no change to speak of.
The next question was "Which developer will make the best negatives?" My go-to is Parodinal (DIY Rodinal), then My-tol (DIY X-Tol), but for this I thought I would try an off-the-shelf developer. So I bought my first bottle of HC110. This is a legendary developer for those who wade into the miry waters of long-expired film. It does a good job developing the exposed silver without bringing up the base fog. I thought I would give it a try on this odd-ball film to see if I could coax some length into the tonal range. So I tried a high dilution (Dil. J) which is 1:150. For the first go-round I thought I would do tray development under safe light since I had no idea how long I would need to develop this stuff. As it turns out it's still hard to see how far the development has progressed, so it's still largely a guess. My first try I shot at iso 6 (by accident) I pulled at 6 minutes. That seemed really short, but I could see an image and didn't want to over-develop (I'm scanning, not wet printing). Here's the result:

That looks pretty good off the scanner. If I zoom waaayyy in, there is no detail in the darkest shadows. In fact, you can see the weird 'plaid' pattern of the substrate. That means there is really no exposed silver there and it happens with thin negatives, but at 'sharable' resolutions, it looks fine. It is too thin to ever use for either contact printing or wet enlargement. IT's okay. I got an image with a full range of greys and little to no grain at all. I'll count that as a success.

The next shot was at iso 3 and developed for 8 minutes. The negative was still pretty thin. Here it is. You can see that the handle of the knife and the bowl of the pipe are a bit lighter and the highlights on the blade are a bit whiter. Overall there is more contrast, but it is still manageable. The negative is still too thin for printing, so maybe a little stronger developer is called for.

I have in the past added a little bit of Parodinal to dilute developers to give them a 'boost' and put some meat on otherwise bony negatives. So next I added the same amount of Parodinal as HC100 (1:150 of each, bringing the 'developer' dilution down to 1:75). I also bumped the iso down to 1.5. This negative is definitely lower in contrast, but not really more dense. You can also see the fog rolling in around the edges. This is heading in the wrong direction.

Finally, I shot one at iso 0.8 like Mike Rasso. It just exaggerated all of the problems with the previous one. There is definitely a LOT more experimenting to do with this film to get it where I want it. Good thing I have 600 sheets of it!!

To 85B, Or Not to 85B...

I have a box of 4x5 Kodak 4325 Commercial Internegative Film that expired in 2004. I got it cheap, as I do most of the film I shoot. Internegative film was used to make a negative from a color corrected positive that would then be used to make positive copies for distribution. Normally you see this in the motion picture industry using 35mm stocks, but I suppose magazines and such could use the same process with sheet film. As you might imagine, this was not intended to be used 'in-camera'. It is copy film that would be used in a very controlled environment in a copy machine of some sort. It is tungsten balanced (again not for daylight use) and very fine grained. After all, if you went to all the trouble of making a good positive, you don't want to lose information by copying onto grainy internegative film. With very fine grain comes a very low ISO rating. I rate this film at about ISO 1. That is really slow. I could go as high as 5, but 1 is easier for me to remember. Why is 1 easier to remember than 5?? The human mind continues to be a mystery.

Being tungsten balanced means that colors look 'normal' when this is shot under tungsten (incandescent) light which is a warm yellow color. Out in the daylight which is a bright slightly blue/white, things look quite blue. The 'analog' solution to this is to use color correction filters. These are filters you put on the front of your lens to change the color of the light entering the camera from something like daylight to something like tungsten (orange filters), or vice versa (blue filters). Since I have tungsten balanced film that 'expects' yellowish light and I want to shoot out in the blueish sunlight, I need the orange filter known as 85B. There is an 85C also that is less intense for use later in the day when the light is already turning orange outside.

I took a couple shots of the same thing out in the garden, one without a filter and one with the 85B. Then I developed them normally in C-41 chemistry and scanned them, only adjusting for contrast. Then I took them into Photoshop and corrected each of the RGB histograms, adjusting them each to full scale. Then I masked off the left half to see what the image looked like out of the camera compared to what it looked like corrected in PS.

First the unfiltered shot:

And the one with the 85B:

Looking at the left half of each shot, you can see a clear difference made by the filter. On the right side that has been further corrected in PS, the shadows are still sort of blue/green on the uncorrected shot. I could probably work that out with some more time and effort on the computer, but the point of being careful and intentional with analog photography is so that I don't have to spend my life on the computer. I want to make nice photos in my camera and on the negative. Sometimes that means putting a filter on the front of my lens to get the colors looking the way I want them.

Finally, here is a shot out in the broad daylight, also shot through the 85B. This one is a little more colorful and interesting. It is your reward for reading through my article, so enjoy!

To Bleach Or Not To Bleach

Bleach bypass is a process that has intrigued me for a while. Recently, while listening to Matt Melcher's podcast Box of Cameras, he mentioned using this process in an upcoming project. I had tried this before and not really liked the results, but this prompted me to try again since he specifically mentioned Fujicolor film and I happen to have some of that in the fridge. It is Expired (2010) Fujicolor 100, and he is using Fujicolor 200, but I figured "How different could it really be?". It's that kind of thinking that often gets me into photographic trouble. But that's how I think, so waddaya gonna do?

To take a step back, what is bleach bypass? Well to answer that, you have to know the various steps in color film processing. The steps are:

• Develop
• Bleach
• Fix

There are various stop baths and rinses and washes in between these, but these are the chemically important steps. So knowing that, it becomes obvious from the name, that bleach bypass skips the bleach step. So what does that mean? Well, let's dig into the process chemistry a little more.

• Developer does what it says. It develops the silver image, just like with black and white film. Byproducts of the silver development activate the color dyes selectively so that color dye clouds are formed in the emulsion.
• Bleach converts the developed silver back into silver halides, basically 'undeveloping' the silver image.
• Fixer, then dissolves away the 'undeveloped' silver halides, just like in black and white development, leaving just the color dye clouds in the emulsion layers.

So, if you skip the bleach step, you are leaving the developed silver black and white image on the film. If it isn't converted back to silver halides, then the fixer does not remove it. So what does all of that mean? What is the point? Basically, what you get (to varying degrees with different films) is an image with muted (possibly shifted) colors and higher contrast. It is a distinctive look, but don't take my word for it. Take my pictures' word for it.

I developed this picture of a mural in the North Park neighborhood of San Diego using bleach bypass. Now I didn't get quite what I thought I would or even what I wanted. There was a base fog because the film was 10 years expired and of unknown storage history. So the negatives were very dense and my scanner (Epson V600) had trouble pushing enough light through them to get the image. So there is electronic noise on top of the add grain from the remaining silver. So what to do? I just took the strips and dunked them in the bleach (room temp for about 15 minutes). Curiously, I did not need to re-fix. The negatives were nice and 'clear', that is the base fog was gone and they looked like normally developed color negatives. One more note is that I used ECN2 chemistry on these. That system is meant for use with motion picture films, but this was just regular old color negative (CN) film designed for C-41 development. So technically, this is a cross process, though not a drastic one like developing slide film as negatives.

So here are the results, first the bleach bypass, then the same image after bleaching.. Let me know which you like better. I personally like the bleached image better, but I will definitely try this process with other film stocks. Since it is 'reversible', there is really nothing to lose.