 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004First experience with Gigabit film
I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made my first prints. Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would like to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the film. I have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used). Max The gigabit I shot using their developer and following the instructions to a *T* made the film come out very thin as you described. I'm not sure why, its what they publish. I found that like- I think $13 for a roll and developer totally not worth the results. Maybe I got a bad batch, who knows.. I do recall hearing, I think, that the base the film is on is very very thin and that is why it has a terrible tendency to curl. And maybe other bad results... For 1/4 the price I'd use Efke-25 @ 12 and rod 1:25. but thats just me. I have some dev times you may want to check out at: http://www.zoom.sh/alex/media/photography/process.html scroll down a little and you'll see a link for an XLS spreadsheet- There's some Gigabit stuff in there I think. Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh Thank you for the link. I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film and then see if it looks better. Can you remember how you agitated the Gigabit film in the developer? I also had the problem with curling of the film. I thought if maybe was caused by the fixer I used (Teternal SuperFix). It is written the fixer has to be diluted 1+20 or something like that where normal is 1+3 to 1+9. Do you know the reason for that? The Efke ISO 25.....has it about same grain size as the Gigabit? Do you use normal developer for the Efke? Regards, Max > The gigabit I shot using their developer and following the > instructions to a *T* made the film come out very thin as you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -sd > http://www.zoom.sh > Thank you for the link. > I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film > and then see if it looks better. If the negatives were thin, you'd need to either increase exposure (if the shadows lack detail) or increase development (to increase contrast and increase density in the highlights). Reducing development would make them thinner still. However: Gigabit film is a microfilm emulsion, and for pictorial application those typically need to be developed to relative low contrast. I've gotten good results with Kodak and Agfa microfilms with extreme dilution or relatively short development in a low activity developer (which is more or less what POTA and Technidol are -- developers with normal alkalinity but reduced level of developing agent, to reduce activity and make low contrast development possible in a time compatible with tank processing). But any attempt to develop to higher contrast results in excess contrast instead -- what appears to happen is that the film base is much clearer than we're used to, and a negative that prints well will look very thin without the gray base color. I recommend printing before you adjust development -- if the negatives print well at normal contrast, it doesn't really matter how they look to the eye. > It is written the fixer has to be > diluted > 1+20 or something like that where normal is 1+3 to 1+9. Do you know the > reason for that? Diluted fixer is recommended for some microfilm stocks because it makes it easier to avoid overfixing. With ordinary films, overfixing by 2x or even 10x the correct time (which is 2x to 3x the clearing time) has no visible effect, but the extremely fine grain of microfilms can show discernible bleaching in "film strength" fixer in as little as ten minutes. Very dilute fixer, combined with a clearing time test and fixing for no more than 3x clearing time, will allow minimum fixing with a film that would normally clear in 30 seconds in fresh rapid fixer at film strength -- and thus avoid bleaching away shadow details. > The Efke ISO 25.....has it about same grain size as the Gigabit? > Do you use normal developer for the Efke? Not even close. Efke R25 is a pretty ordinary ISO 25 film, other than its reduced red response; it's very fine compared to an ISO 100 film, especially in a super fine grain developer like A49 or Microdol-X (which, however, would reduce the effective speed to about EI 12), but it's still nowhere near as fine, or capable of the kind of resolution as microfilm emulsions like that on Gigabit film. Microfilms gain fineness and resolution because they have only a single grain size, instead of a range of grain sizes or even multiple emulsion layers with different grain size ranges in conventional films. This makes them tricky to develop for continuous tone, because different grain sizes make for different sensitivity levels from grain to grain and automatically produce a stochastic stipple that blends into a smooth continous tone if not enlarged too much -- with microfilm, one must instead develop in a manner that gradates how much silver is developed from exposed halide crystals, based on how much light they received; compared to ordinary film that can be over- or under-developed by a large factor and still produce printable negatives, microfilm in pictorial use has little tolerance for changes in development -- because overdevelopment tends to fully develop too many halide grains and lead to the "black or white" look of document films (i.e. the film reverts to its design contrast), while underdevelopment (relative to pictorial use) gives a huge loss of speed, which is already low in pictorial use.  SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined? You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description the fix time is only 10 sec. in normal fix dilution. Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I wondered about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development time.....and that seems to be correct? The film was exposed in sunny conditions. So very high contrast in the negs. The shadows looks a bit to "transparant" to my eye.....but I it probably caused by the clear base. I got a minor chock when I compared the Gigabit negs with my TMAX100 negs. Then I thought something was very wrong. But the negs seems to print very well. I use Afga Multicontrast paper. Graduation 1.5 seems to be perfect (I use a durst color head (Y = 60, M=50, C=50). Then 10 sec. at 5.6 using a 50mm lens. Enlargement about 20 x 30 cm. The negs also scans very well using a Epson 3200. So maybe it is about right...... Regards, Max > > Thank you for the link. > > I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > while underdevelopment (relative to pictorial use) gives a huge loss of > speed, which is already low in pictorial use. On 7/11/2004 1:32 PM MXP spake thus: > How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined? Simply, and just as you'd expect: it's the time it takes fixer to clear the film (you can simply put an unexposed scrap of film and fixer and observe how long it takes to clear). > You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description > the fix time is only 10 sec. in normal fix dilution. I wouldn't sweat it at that short time. > Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I > wondered about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development > time.....and that seems to be correct? Yes, again just as one would expect. Less development = thinner negative. SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky >Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I >wondered >about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development >time.....and that >seems to be correct? If they're printing fine, don't fix what ain't broke. :) Check the details in the shadows. If you're not getting enough shadow detail, increase your exposure. Then, check your highlights. If they're being blown away and you're losing highlight detail, reduce your developing time. If your negs are too flat, then increase development time. -- Eric http://canid.com/ > How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined? > You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description > the fix time > is only 10 sec. in normal fix dilution. The best test I've seen for clearing time is to put a single drop of fixer on a scrap of film (in daylight). Wait until the film starts to clear under the drop, then drop the whole scrap into the beaker of fixer, start a timer, and agitate as you would when fixing film in the tank. When you can no longer tell where the first drop was, stop the timer; that's your clearing time. Fix for 2x to 3x that interval (2x for conventional cubic grain films, 3x for T-grain or Delta films), though with conventional film it doesn't hurt anything visible to fix up to ten times that amount (thus up to 30x clearing time). It is possible to measure bleaching with a densitometer in as little as an hour in rapid fixer, but it's very hard to see by eye (the first symptom would be loss of shadow detail, which could mimic underexposure). Ten seconds in regular fix -- that's exactly why they had you dilute 1:20 instead of 1:3 or 1:4 as is common for film strength; doing so should lengthen the clearing time from 5 seconds (to yield a 10 second fixing time at 2x clearing) to around 1 minute, with no damage to the image with a three minute fix (and no need to adjust times until the fixer starts to get pretty exhausted). Watch your capacity with this dilution, though -- if a liter would normally fix 24 films (the figure for Ilford Rapid Fixer at film strength of 1:4), it will fix only about 4-6 films at 1:20 because there's that much less thiosulfate in a liter. > Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I > wondered > about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development > time.....and that > seems to be correct? Generally, extending development will increase constrast, which will usually make a negative look thicker because the mid tones and highlights will be denser. What you might have been told was to increase exposure and cut back development to avoid excessive contrast with the higher exposure -- so, if you were shooting Gigabit at EI 25 and found the negatives too thin (required a #4 filter to print well), you might expose at EI 12 instead, and then cut development by 20% to 30% to avoid excessive contrast; this should get a negative with better shadow detail and overall density, but avoid having the contrast get out of hand with the higher exposure. But you have to do both, if you go that way -- just increasing exposure will blow out the highlights (that's why you have to reduce contrast), and just reducing development will just make a thin negative thinner. > The film was exposed in sunny conditions. So very high contrast in the negs. > The shadows looks a bit to "transparant" to my eye.....but I it probably [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 10 sec. at 5.6 using a 50mm lens. Enlargement about 20 x 30 cm. The negs > also scans very well using a Epson 3200. So maybe it is about right...... If it produces "normal" looking prints on grade 1.5, you may actually need to make the negatives a little thinner, which would mean (in this case) reducing development by around 15% to 20%. This may in turn require increasing exposure (rating the film at a lower EI) in order to avoid losing shadow details, but the idea is you should be able to print on a 2, 2.5, or 3 grade filter or paper and have good details in highlights and shadows. Some of this is the light, of course; sunny conditions without a source of reflection or scatter to fill the shadows is a classic high contrast situation, and might push you below #2 printing with exposure and development that would be just right in "normal" lighting (hazy or cloudy bright, or light with some scatter to fill the shadows). I'd first try some tests with the same EI and develoment in a less harsh light -- if those are good, then you'll just know you have to downrate the film and reduce development in harsh light (just like you'd do with Plus-X, Tri-X, HP5+, or even XP2 Super). SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. Thank you for the response........... When I switched from Ilford to Agfa Premium MCP 310 RC paper I should use much lover grades than when I used Ilford Multigrade IV paper. I follow Agfa's recommondations for filtration on their homepage. They have a table of values for Durst color heads.....and these values are not the same as Ilford's recommondations for their paper....as far as I remember. Without any filtration at all gives grade 2. I add 10Y to reach 1,5. This is according to Agfa's homepage. Agfa's paper also requires less exposure time. I like the paper very much after having used it for a while. Regards, Max > > How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined? > > You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > the film and reduce development in harsh light (just like you'd do with > Plus-X, Tri-X, HP5+, or even XP2 Super). Thanks Donald thats real goof info. >> Thank you for the link. >> I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >while underdevelopment (relative to pictorial use) gives a huge loss of >speed, which is already low in pictorial use. Do you know why Gigabit recommend a non hardening fixer? ......it seems to go well with Teternal Superfix Plus at 1:20 in 3 min. But the film curled after fixing. Could this be caused by the hardening fixer? Max > > Thank you for the link. > > I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > while underdevelopment (relative to pictorial use) gives a huge loss of > speed, which is already low in pictorial use. > Do you know why Gigabit recommend a non hardening fixer? ......it seems to > go well with Teternal Superfix Plus at 1:20 in 3 min. But the film curled > after fixing. > Could this be caused by the hardening fixer? I don't know specific to Gigabit, but most films now carry a recommendation for non-hardening fixer -- emulsions are hard enough now not to need additional hardening for scratch prevention, and the harder the emulsion, the longer it takes to wash (which can actually increase the risk of damage, since the film will be wet longer). Curling usually means that the film has little or no gelatin back coating -- again, what one might expect from a microfilm, whose resolution and archival properties are more important than its handling. With a back coat, film that's wound on a spool and gets the least bit damp will ferrotype -- layers stick together, with the gelatin acting as glue. This is (very slightly) more recoverable if there isn't a well subbed gelatin layer already present on both surfaces... SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > > Do you know why Gigabit recommend a non hardening fixer? ......it seems to > > go well with Teternal Superfix Plus at 1:20 in 3 min. But the film curled [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > glue. This is (very slightly) more recoverable if there isn't a well > subbed gelatin layer already present on both surfaces... OK. I have been happy so far with the Teternal Superfix Plus. And it seem to work well for Gigabit film also. I have just got some new Gigabit films. This time with description in english. They seems to be aware of the curling problem and suggested to put the film "opposite" in the develoment spiral and let it be there for 24 hours. I will do this next time. The description for development, agitaion and fixing is also much better. The only thing is that they only writes about 20 sec. fixing in normal film strength fixer. In the old description they recommented to dilute thinner to reach a fixing time of 2-3 min. Max > The only thing is that they only writes about 20 sec. fixing in normal film > strength fixer. In the old description they recommented to dilute thinner to > reach a fixing time of 2-3 min. The concern with long stays in full strength film fixer is that it can bleach the image. This isn't usually a concern with conventional films; most ISO 100 films won't show visible bleaching (though it is measurable with a densitometer) after soaking for 24 hours in rapid fixer. I have bleached with fixer, using film strength acidified with additional acetic acid (one ounce stop bath concentrate in eight ounces of working solution fixer); it took about an hour in this more active solution to show visible bleaching in Kodachrome developed with B&W chemistry. With the extremely fine grain of microfilms, however, there's a real possibility of significantly degrading the image by overfixing -- even more frightening, since all the grains are the *same* size, you might not really notice bleaching (if you take the lid off to look at your film in the fix, like a lot of folks do) until, fairly suddenly, the film goes from very slightly thin to completely clear. I don't know that image bleaching with fixer would be this dramatic, even with microfilm -- but degradation from overfixing is real, and much more a problem with the very small grain of microfilm stock. I've used rapid fixer at 1/5 of normal film strength to get fixing time around 6 minutes on Tri-X in an monobath experiment -- this was used one-shot, of course, but no sign of problems. What I'd suggest is to make up a special working solution of fixer you use only for Gigabit, diluted as they suggest; do a clearing test with a scrap of Gigabit film in this fixer, and then fix for twice the clearing time as you would with any fixer -- and don't over fix. Keep careful track of capacity; if diluted 1:2 relative to normal film strength, this fixer will have a capacity 1/3 as great per liter (instead of 24 films in a liter of Ilford, as an example, you'd get only 8 films in a liter after dilution 1:2 with water -- one "film" being 80 square inches, a 135-36, 120 roll, or 8x10 equivalent of sheet film). SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > > The only thing is that they only writes about 20 sec. fixing in normal film > > strength fixer. In the old description they recommented to dilute thinner to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -- one "film" being 80 square inches, a 135-36, 120 roll, or 8x10 > equivalent of sheet film). I will make a clearing time experiment with an extra diluted fixer and try to reach 2-3 min. of fix time. When I develop film I only use the developer and fixer once. Thank you for the answer. Max > I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made my > first prints. > Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would like > to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the film. I > have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using > another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used). You said the film "looks" thin but how are the prints? Gigabitfilm is a microfilm (Agfa Copex IIRC) and has a cystal clear base. This is why the negs are looking very thin although they are printable. I haven't used Gigabitfilm yet as I still have several meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16 and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed but print fine. Chris. Until now the prints looks very nice......so I am a little confused if I should adjust the development time a bit. Therefore it could be intereresting to hear experience from other people here.....e.g... like you :-) Max > > I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made my > > first prints. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Chris. I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald. I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty flimsy. Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy Cameras? :) If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder if it comes in 120.. p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra sharp. p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me: I still have several >> meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16 >> and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed >> but print fine. Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh >Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy >Cameras? :) High resolution film has been around for a long time. More the 100 years or so. The Eastman house has an exposition on micro dot photography done in the 1890's. In one example they have the whole Bible printed on a 1 inch sq piece of film. Your Gigabit film is most likely micro film. There must be at least 10 different types of microfilm over 3 or so brand names that exist. Most microfilm have an ASA of about 10 and will produce about a 180 line per millmeter image with most $100 production lenses at about f-4. For spy work, films with very thin backings are use. This is so you can pack 100 or so exposures in a small space. Biggest problem in getting a good image on high reso film is really not the quality of the lens or even film but the quality of the camera bodies. Camera bodies need to be within 20 microns of true focus in order to place a good enough image on high reso film. Most camera bodies have larger focus errors then that. Most average 40 or more microns. A human hair is 400 microns. What is the limit? Well a perfect f-1 lens will produce about 2000 lines per millmeter in noon summer sun resulting in an image transfer of about 1500 lines in 649 micro film. This is generally hard to do as exposures would be sonw what long even in strong sunlight. Generally speaking, a good 1.2 system producing 1800 lines per millmeter aerial image will place about 800 lines on a ASA 1 microfilm. Exposure would be 100 at f1.2 in noon summer sun. A 100 times blowup print would not be out of the question. A good Kodak 110 camera with an Ektar lens will do about 500 lines per millmeter at f-4 placing a 200 line image on 5460 ASA 10 microfilm. This would be good enough for 50 times blowup 30x40 inch prints viewed at about 2 ft. This is really something to see if you never seen this done. Larry >High resolution film has been around for a long time. More the 100 years or >so. The Eastman house has an exposition on micro dot photography done in the >1890's. In one example they have the whole Bible printed on a 1 inch sq piece >of film. Funny you should mention. There was no exhibition of any sort like that there two weeks ago :( Wish I had seen it. Most of Eastman Houses really interesting stuff is never displayed from what I hear. >Your Gigabit film is most likely micro film. There must be at least 10 >different types of microfilm over 3 or so brand names that exist. I don't have any Gigabit film? :) >Most microfilm have an ASA of about 10 and will produce about a 180 line per >millmeter image with most $100 production lenses at about f-4. >For spy work, films with very thin backings are use. This is so you can pack >100 or so exposures in a small space. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Larry Thanks alot for the info. Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh >Funny you should mention. There was no exhibition of any sort like >that there two weeks ago :( Wish I had seen it. Most of Eastman >Houses really interesting stuff is never displayed from what I hear. Hi They may have move things around a little since I was last there about a year ago or so. The show was located in the passageway form the main house to the much newer exhibition center. They even had microscopes set up for visitor viewing. Larry Nope nothing like that! :( They had some "tourism" exhibit and a really, really bad mixed up exhibit of random cameras with extremely poor gallery lighting (like, 60w incandescent bulbs on the ceiling). There was some "mixed media" exhibit right when you got in the door on the left but honestly that was really wanting too....It got a *little* nicer when you got towards the house (past the gift shop)..Of course his house was awesome..Then again, that has very little to do with photography. c'est la vie... >>Funny you should mention. There was no exhibition of any sort like >>that there two weeks ago :( Wish I had seen it. Most of Eastman [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Larry Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh > I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald. > I always wondered why this film was so thin. I'm going to interpret > Microfilm emulsion literally- I assume? This makes sense. I don't > know the chemistry of Gigabit, nor most films for that matter, but it > seems most us us agree it comes out thin and the backing is pretty > flimsy. > Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy > Cameras? :) Sold as "Gigabitfilm" or as Agfa Copex? Microfilm is still used as long term storage medium. It's cheap, it's simple (don't need to take care of 20 years old tape-drives etc... just need a light source and a magnifier) and durable (Kodak quotes up to 500years for Estar based microfilm). If interrested in this topic you may look at: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/TKX/name/SourceDocumentMicrofilmsProduct > If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder > if it comes in 120.. In may 2002 Gigabitfilm anounced the development of a new film type "320", a 120 without paper backing (or a 220 with only 12 exp. 6x6). Don't know when/if it will be released. > p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra > sharp. > p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me: > I still have several >>> meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16 >>> and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed >>> but print fine. Imagelink HG is microfilm stock from Kodak. Gigabitfilm is microfilm stock from Agfa with special chemistry. I still have about 70 meters (230 feet) Imagelink (16mm unperforated) left which I use in my 16mm subminis like the Edixa 16. The resulting negatives look (when compared to "normal" film like FP4+) heavily underexposed but print fine. I don't think I will use Gigabitfilm in 35mm as I usualy don't do prints > 16"x 12". And I use my MF gear more and more often. Chris. > I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder > if it comes in 120.. I think it is ready now for 120 rolls also. Quite funny it also exist in 4x5" at ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm > p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra > sharp. Yes.....it is the sharpest B/W prints I have made. The 35mm film is rated at ISO 40 and should be able to resolve 720 lp/mm. 20x30cm enlargements is really overkill for this film. You can go down with a x15 loupe and details still looks sharp in the prints. In this digital wold I don't understand why more people are trying out the film. I am not experienced with developing film.....and I got very usable results. The film is not that expensixe......I got it from the web.... 10 pcs. of 35mm rolls for EUR 95. That is with everything included ....it comes with a bottle of developer for each film. > p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -sd > http://www.zoom.sh >ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm This may be true but this is for the film itself. In order to tell what it will do in a camera system you must use the calculation of film resolution times lens resolution over film resolution plus lens resolution. Typical calcualtion for this film in a camera system would be 900X500 450000 ________ = _________ = 321 l/mm 900+500 1400 So it would be about 321 l/mm system resolution. Far less then 900 for just the film itself. Larry > >ISO 25 and can reslolve 900 lp/mm > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Larry OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice enlargements...... :-) Max >OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice >enlargements...... :-) Sure would but the one only problem is most if not all 4x5 lenses are much lower in resolution then say a 35mm lens. This is due to the f-stops normally used. In order to get about 500 lp/mm out of a lens is must be set at f-4 and it must be used in noon summer sun. Most 4x5 lenses could be used in noon summer sun but the f-stops would be in the f-8 or 11 range. The resolution for f-8 is half the resolution of f-4 or 250 l/mm. New calculation would be 900x250 over 900+250 is 195 lp/mm. About 1/3 less then the 321lp/mm 35mm or 16mm image. Larry > >OK.....but 321 lp/mm on a 4x5" sheet should give some nice > >enlargements...... :-) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Larry A good photographic paper should be able to resolve 60 lp/mm? .....This will be hard to reach for an 8" x 12" enlargement......but should be possible for the 4x5"? My 35mm Gigabit enlagements looks at least as good as they were made with a 6x6 using TMAX100. Maybe the Gigabit looks even better.....so I am very surprised. Max > I learned a lot from this thread, especially from Donald. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there a specific use for this film as sold? For copystands? Spy > Cameras? :) Gigabit film is said to be a member of the Agfa Copex family, if not Copex itself. If so, its original manufacturing purpose is for document recording -- with high speed cameras, a page at a time under a strong flash, developed to extremely high contrast and archivally processed, intended to literally last a thousand years. Microfilms come on different bases. I have some that's just barely more flexible than sheet film, and some that feels like the thinner grades of magnetic tape. If Gigabit feels thin, it might well be on the thinner base; this is used to allow storing more information (more feet of film, more page images) in the same volume storage cabinet. It's completely incidental, of course, for our use of Gigabit; in fact, the stuff would probably be easier to handle if it were closer to regular 35 mm film in terms of base thickness. FWIW, the Gigabit sheet film is probably microfiche with the same emulsion, and as such similar in handling qualities to conventional sheet film (but I'm guessing here, having never handled Gigabit). > If it weren't so $$$ i'd buy some more rolls and try it out...Wonder > if it comes in 120.. You can get Agfa Copex in 35 mm from JandCPhoto.com; developed in Spur Nanospeed, it's quite a bit cheaper than Gigabit, and gives a higher EI without much if any loss of quality. However, they don't have it in any other format. If you find someone who has some, you can get Copex or Copex Rapid (the latter supposed to be the stock that becomes Bluefire Police, EI 80 in H&W Control derived chemistry) in 16 mm unperforated, suitable for some 16 mm cameras -- you can buy it from dealers/distributors only if you're willing to buy literally thousands of feet at once. > p.s. when printing the 35mm negatives they came out ultra, ultra > sharp. With the right developer and an excellent lens, at high contrast, this material is capable of recording a page of 10 point text for legible reproduction at less than 1/4" height. In continuous tone, the lens is the limitation, not the film -- no matter how good your lens. In a Minox with Complan, this film is capable of exceeding the detail recorded in 35 mm on Plus-X with an average 50 mm SLR lens. > p.p.s. Chris can you decipher this for me: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed >>>but print fine. Imagelink HQ is a Kodak microfilm, similar on properties to Tech Pan or Agfa Copex. The Edixa 16 and Minolta 16 MG are subminiature cameras, the predecessors of the 110 format (especially Minolta, with its drop-in cassette). I have a Minolta 16 MG, Minolta 16 II, and original Minolta 16, all in working condition. All are capable of producing nice images on a 10x14 mm negative. All could benefit from faster film than the EI 25 to EI 50 commonly obtainable with microfilms in common low contrast developers. I'm working on it... SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. Thanks donald for the clarification. Never heard of these cams (or films)- Will have to go do some research! Donald you have a "WIP" website? >Imagelink HQ is a Kodak microfilm, similar on properties to Tech Pan or >Agfa Copex. The Edixa 16 and Minolta 16 MG are subminiature cameras, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >25 to EI 50 commonly obtainable with microfilms in common low contrast >developers. I'm working on it... Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh > Donald you have a "WIP" website? I'm guessing, since I don't know what "WIP" stands for, that I probably don't -- please enlighten me! SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. Work In Progress :) >> Donald you have a "WIP" website? > >I'm guessing, since I don't know what "WIP" stands for, that I probably >don't -- please enlighten me! Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh > Work In Progress :) > >>>Donald you have a "WIP" website? >> >>I'm guessing, since I don't know what "WIP" stands for, that I probably >>don't -- please enlighten me! Ah. Photographically, no. If you follow the links in my .sig below, you can link from there to my main page, and thence to a number of other pages about model rocketry (which I did intensively from 1996 until 2001, building more than forty models and recording literally hundreds of launches -- at least one model was flown more than fifty times), telescope making (with a little astrophotography thrown in), and a small page on digital photography, which hasn't been updated in almost three years. Once I complete my upcoming move and get settled, I'll be able to get my darkroom set up, set my machine shop back up, and get started making stuff worth putting on pages to replace those old ones. Of course, I need to find an economical place to host a relatively large storage and bandwidth for photo viewing -- the two webspaces I have for my ISPs total only 20 MB storage, with one explicitly limited to 650 MB per month and the other likely to have a similar limitation; those numbers pale pretty rapidly when you want to put up pictures bigger than a couple hundred kB. I do have a portfolio on photo.net, where recent work can be seen (and even critiqued, if you're a registered user): http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=748533 These images are up to about a year old, including a few made when I first picked up film photography again last summer. SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > Thanks donald for the clarification. Never heard of these cams (or > films)- Will have to go do some research! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -sd > http://www.zoom.sh Edixa 16 was designed by Heiz Waaske in the 60s when he worked for Wirgin Wiesbaden as camera designer. There are several models: Edixa 16, with Schadt Tragevar 25mm/2.8 triplet lens Edixa 16M, with unit focusing Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 25mm/2.8 lens with manually changeable shutter 1/30,1/60 and coupled to the meter speed 1/30,1/60,1/150. Edixa 16MB black model of Edixa 16M, functionally identical Edixa 16S, Edixa 16 with simpler lens Franke, Edixa 16 made by Franke alka 16, a supermarket model Edixa 16S, an Edixa with simpler lens Edixa 16 is about 6 oz, takes 20 pictures each 12x17mm, usually referred to as quarter frame. Example of Edixa 16 pictures, with Agfa Copex film http://www.accessv.com/~martntai/public_html/Edixa16.html martin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.