|
whereismyshoe posted:Can someone help me identify this film? I just inherited a whole shitload of it and based on the color of the base i think it's some sort of color film but googling what's on the cartridge gives me next to nothing. It came in a red plastic canister and says "GAF RECORDING FILM TYPE 2005" and something about opening it in complete darkness. If you have several rolls you might try sacrificing one. Assuming it's B/W film, make a series of test exposures, I'd suggest trying rating it from ISO 6 to 3200 in single stops (i.e. 10 exposures) on the test roll, then stand develop it. Assuming it works at all, at least one of the exposures should come out reasonable. You could also try making several series of test exposures on the roll, then cut it up in the darkroom into several smaller pieces you can develop separately, using different methods each. Of course that requires a lot of care to cut at the right places. Or you can just ebay it.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
I would go lower. If I had to guess it may have started out in the ISO 3 to 5 range, maybe like 25 tops. I doubt it would be faster than 100 under any circumstance. If it's 30 years old it's probably fogged to hell, maybe try rating from ISO 1/2 up to like ISO 50. Develop in Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hour, unless you really feel like experimenting. What color is the base, by the way? It looks like B+W base from what I can see in that picture. Slide films are usually a milky brown color, color negative films are usually a darker brown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you have several rolls you might try sacrificing one. Assuming it's B/W film, make a series of test exposures, I'd suggest trying rating it from ISO 6 to 3200 in single stops (i.e. 10 exposures) on the test roll, then stand develop it. I have like, 50 rolls of it. The same guy that gave me all my darkroom stuff found a box of film - like 110 rolls all together of this stuff, a lot of panatomic-x 32 and a bunch of tri-x pan 400. All outdated from like the 70's, but hey it was free. I'll run a roll through and see what i get. oh, and a single unopened roll of kodachrome. i thought it would have some sort of worth on ebay or something, but it's not as expensive as i thought so i might just shoot it and get it sent to wherever it is they process it. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:... i might just shoot it and get it sent to wherever it is they process it. Which would be nowhere. The last lab processing Kodachrome stopped doing it January of 2011. I have three rolls in my freezer, including a roll of K25 that I never got a chance to shoot 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Which would be nowhere. The last lab processing Kodachrome stopped doing it January of 2011. I have three rolls in my freezer, including a roll of K25 that I never got a chance to shoot haha poo poo, well up on the shelf it goes then. adds to my ~*~hipster cred~*~ i guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Cross-process it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Cross-process it It would be blank, Kodachrome isn't really a color film. Processing in B&W would work though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It would be blank, Kodachrome isn't really a color film. Processing in B&W would work though. Would it really? Maybe i'll try that. what kind of process? e: here's a picture of the whole stash.  freezer-stored since he bought it, late 70's i believe. like 50 rolls of panatomic-x, 10 ish of tri-x pan, a bunch of assorted film and 37 rolls of that mystery film. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Mar 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Why didn't he give that brick away BEFORE they stopped processing it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
So what's the deal with Kodachrome processing? Is it impossible to homebrew some chemicals to develop it at home?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Why didn't he give that brick away BEFORE they stopped processing it the pan-x? i'm going to just try standing it, from what i read it develops pretty similar to pan f, with a little less time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Kodachrome is a layered B&W film that has dyes added during development. You could dev it in whatever. It has a remjet backing that will need to be wiped off after fixing while wet though. Apug has a thread about it here: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/58189-kodachrome-b-w-neg.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
It is not worth it. You cannot now or ever get a color image from it, just lovely B/W where you would be better off using a real B/W film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Yeah but why can't you get a colour image off it? I understand the development process is quite complicated, but presumably people still know how to do it and somebody could replicate it somehow, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:Yeah but why can't you get a colour image off it? The Kodachrome process is quite involved, it requires 6 chemicals most of which are pretty toxic to produce and dispose of. Unless you're doing bulk production, I don't think there's any way it's economical, let alone safe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:Yeah but why can't you get a colour image off it? Probably not. There was only one lab still doing it. The chemicals are very rare and quite toxic from what I have heard. That and it's not economical to do small batches. My kodachrome just lives in the back of my freezer as a reminder of rad films gone by.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:Yeah but why can't you get a colour image off it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
It's chemistry. It's not lost knowledge. "Economical" doesn't enter into it if you're not doing it for other people. Somebody will figure out a way to home-process kodachrome in colour, though it will take all drat day and the probability of total failure will be pretty high on a per-roll basis. Then somebody else will make it better, then it will be doable by an enthusiastic rank amateur. This will take time. Possibly decades. But not never. \/\/\/ Define "unusable" ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This will take time. Possibly decades. But not never. Oh, when all remaining stock is basically unusable, sweet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's chemistry. It's not lost knowledge. "Economical" doesn't enter into it if you're not doing it for other people. Somebody will figure out a way to home-process kodachrome in colour, though it will take all drat day and the probability of total failure will be pretty high on a per-roll basis. Then somebody else will make it better, then it will be doable by an enthusiastic rank amateur. Will people take the effort to develop this process when there is a dwindling number of unexposed rolls out there that are degrading all the time? I did read on APUG about an australian ex Kodak engineer that had made a coating machine in his garage (with parts borrowed from one of Kodak's decomissioned coating machines) and he was working on a way to reproduce kodachrome. But then he just stopped posting like a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
I serious doubt we will ever see someone home processing K14. It's just too expensive. If they ever do I will gladly shoot the 4 rolls chilling in my freezer. If not then oh well at least I own a piece of photographic history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I serious doubt we will ever see someone home processing K14. It's just too expensive. If they ever do I will gladly shoot the 4 rolls chilling in my freezer. If not then oh well at least I own a piece of photographic history. I imagine if it ever happens it'll be something like pleading to pay $50 per roll to be developed, when enough people have pleaded they have stuff to be developed a development run can be started.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The Kodachrome process is quite involved, it requires 6 chemicals most of which are pretty toxic to produce and dispose of. Unless you're doing bulk production, I don't think there's any way it's economical, let alone safe. They're no more toxic most color film chemicals, and one of the development chemicals is really one of the LEAST toxic you'll see in the dark room. Besides for the guy who puts film developer in his fridge I would hardly think he would worry about safe  I think more the problem for the home dark room user is the shear scale of the process(number of chemicals to do the process) and having to re-expose the film several times during development to different colors of light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
I read on APUG recently that a Kodak film executive was talking about the possibility of producing Kodachrome again on a small scale, I have a feeling it was all hot air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 12:10
|
|
|
Well I dug around the internet and found the MSDS for K-14 chemicals. http://www.siri.org/msds/gn.cgi?query=K-LAB&whole=partial&start=0 I guess the "highly toxic" is just hearsay since nothing in there looks too bad (note: I am not a chemist). Still, it's a complicated process with hard to source chemicals so I stand by my original "no loving way is someone doing that in their basement".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Well I dug around the internet and found the MSDS for K-14 chemicals. http://www.siri.org/msds/gn.cgi?query=K-LAB&whole=partial&start=0 I guess the "highly toxic" is just hearsay since nothing in there looks too bad (note: I am not a chemist). Still, it's a complicated process with hard to source chemicals so I stand by my original "no loving way is someone doing that in their basement". Totally, the fact it has to be re-exposed by different lights at different points in the process yet at all other times be totally dark ect ect, makes the process to hard to duplicate consistently for the home dark room guy or gal. You know it's going to be bad when you can't use water to take off the anti halation coating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
Hey I hope I can tune in here too after clogging up the 35mm point and shoot thread, near effectively bringing it to a grinding halt. Well at least I hope I can give some people here some valuable info if they want or have to use Fuji chemicals with Kodak film. Like I did. I'm using these cheaply purchased cameras (Thrift store pickups both sold as "broken"):  To produce these, it's my first time to use the local chemicals here so I was pretty much worried how it would turn out, but it seems to be fine.  Drying film, the "it's too late to shop for proper film hangers" way:  Okay Some Details: Film Shot on Kodak T-Max 400, because that's the one I know. Shot on the two Cameras above. 50 Manual / 50 Automatic. Development Developed with "Fuji Super Prodol", 8 Minutes and a couple of seconds at 20degrees Celsius. Stopped with the "Fuji Acid Stopper A", 500ml water on 15ml stopper, 30 seconds, 20degrees Celsius. Fixed with "Fuji Super Fix", for roughly 5 minutes, again 20degrees Celsius. Washed with 25degree warm water and a teeny drop of dishwasher detergent. Once I get a scanner or can someone into scanning them for me, I'll post some results here. Some quick macro shots with my digital SLR, which I then inverted seemed to turn out fine. Obviously they're very blurry as the film is slightly arced and swinging freely, but the exposure seems okay-ish. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:Can someone help me identify this film? I just inherited a whole shitload of it and based on the color of the base i think it's some sort of color film but googling what's on the cartridge gives me next to nothing. It came in a red plastic canister and says "GAF RECORDING FILM TYPE 2005" and something about opening it in complete darkness. There are only snippets of old journals on Google Books, but our library at work has volumes 11-12 of Optical Engineering listed in the catalog and I set a reminder for myself to see if they can dig it out and scan the page for me to get the full description.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:It was manufactured between 1965 and 1972. Panchromatic with extended red sensitivity, high speed (actual speed not specified, probably ISO 160,) intended for aerial tracking, hydrogen bubble chamber photography, CRT photography, and general scientific applications. AWESOME this rules. thank you very much. so "extended red sensitivity" means that reds will be brighter or darker? whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Mar 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:AWESOME this rules. thank you very much. so "extended red sensitivity" means that reds will be brighter or darker? Probably that it extends into the infrared range, similar to Ilford SFX200. So if you shoot through a deep red filter it'll capture mostly IR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Well at least I hope I can give some people here some valuable info if they want or have to use Fuji chemicals with Kodak film. Like I did. My understanding of B&W developing chemistry is that each of the big manufacturers (Kodak, Fuji, Ilford) tweaked their own formulas and instructions to optimize them for their own films; Ilford describes their Ilfosol 3 as being ideal for their Delta line of films, for example. But they all aknowledge plenty of inter-manufacturer processing going on, my Ilfosol 3 bottle lists a few films from Kodak and from Fuji on the instructions. And there's always the Massive Dev Chart. NihilismNow posted:Will people take the effort to develop this process when there is a dwindling number of unexposed rolls out there that are degrading all the time? NihilismNow posted:I did read on APUG about an australian ex Kodak engineer that had made a coating machine in his garage (with parts borrowed from one of Kodak's decomissioned coating machines) and he was working on a way to reproduce kodachrome. But then he just stopped posting like a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
That can mean practically anything, technically Tri-X has "extended red sensitivitity".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
OH i get it, as in the spectrum of light captured by the film is extended past the red point on the spectrum. i got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
1965 is a bit late to brag about being panchromatic. Well, maybe in the good ol USA at least 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
notlodar posted:1965 is a bit late to brag about being panchromatic. Well, maybe in the good ol USA at least I legitimately mourn the loss of ortho sheet film. Developing by inspection sounds pretty cool 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I legitimately mourn the loss of ortho sheet film. Developing by inspection sounds pretty cool http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24605-REG/Ilford_1813157_Ortho_Plus_4x5_B_W.html http://www.freestylephoto.biz/3728100-Rollei-ORTHO-25-iso-Orthochromatic-8x10-10-sheets ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24605-REG/Ilford_1813157_Ortho_Plus_4x5_B_W.html http://www.freestylephoto.biz/3728100-Rollei-ORTHO-25-iso-Orthochromatic-8x10-10-sheets ? Both of those are basically copy films. They're "ultra-contrasty", "technical, steeply working." You may be able to tame them with special developers and poo poo, but it's kind of unappealing to have a grand total of like two film-developer combinations available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Both of those are basically copy films. They're "ultra-contrasty", "technical, steeply working." You may be able to tame them with special developers and poo poo, but it's kind of unappealing to have a grand total of like two film-developer combinations available. I don't have personal experience with this, but there seem to be a bunch of 8x10 shooters using x-ray film because it's super cheap. You're certainly right that it would be cool to have more normal film/developer combinations...
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:AWESOME this rules. thank you very much. so "extended red sensitivity" means that reds will be brighter or darker? quote:GAF Recording Film Type 2005--Pan emulsion with extended red sensitivity. High Speed. Process in all types of systems. Designed for aerial tracking, instrument and CRT recording, hydrogen bubble chamber photography, and general scientific work. notlodar posted:1965 is a bit late to brag about being panchromatic. Well, maybe in the good ol USA at least
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 17:36
|
|