70mm Film FUN up ahead

Nokton48 said:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devcha...Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

Calzone likes this film processed in Diafine with minimal agitation.
I needed to add several stops of extra exposure, to get the shadow detail where I wanted it. It does have an almost "infared" type of "look" which can be pictorial in my opinion. But this is not like Tri-X. A gallon of Diafine A&B can last for years I have read.
The AM74-type "Rollei Supergrain" developer I selected, because 400s is listed on the developer bottle as being compatible with this film. Haven't tried anything else at this point. I order Supergrain from Freestyle in California. I used the 1:9 dilution as I didn't want a long development time. ID11 and HC110 are both listed on the Digital Truth website so it looks very promising. D74 is earlier version of Supergrain.
Click to expand...

Dan,

It has its IR look for sure. With Diafine I do 3+3 with only two inversions instead of three, but I figure I only get about 125 ISO.

The benefits of Diafine is that it gets reused and it has a long shelf life. Also know that it is a compensating developer so contrast gets compressed.

Cal
 
So I caved recently. After all the coverage of the Apollo 11 50th anniversary, the idea of trying 70mm remained in mind. This arrived today with matching serial numbers, and approximately five feet of old Vericolor 70mm still in one of its cassettes. I've run that through the magazine, and interlocks, frame spacing and film counters are all good. All it needs are new dark slide seals, and a careful going over of the cassettes, and it will be good to go. I've got a Kindermann fifteen foot reel and tank as well as a 220-length modified Paterson reel, so I will be all set to shoot and process.

49428235982_706523a4d8_b.jpg
 
I ordered $300 worth of glass amber bottles in 1000ml, half gallon, and full gallon sizes in copious quantities from Photographer's Formulary. They have decent prices and are super quick turnaround.

Speaking of compensating devs I am mixing Willi Beutler "Leica" developer A&B, a gallon of Acufine I am replenishing, Ansco 130 (for film and prints, a "cult" developer), and maybe some DK-50 replenished. And maybe a gallon of Diafine A&B sitting on my shelf.

Today I'm running some old HP5 4x5 (not +) in the JOBO with the replenished Acufine for an extended period of time. I love this developer with Ilford Ortho + Commercial sheet film, ordered some more in 4x5, and also in 8x10, some to use 8x10, some to cut down to feed my 5x7 Sinar Norma.

I need at least a half gallon to fill the 70mm Kindermann reel in the tank.

This is all great fun :)
 
I always keep at least a couple of light seal kits on hand. Cheapo so good insurance, can change it out in ten minutes.

Some more 400s ideas regarding development. I've had excellent results with Rollei Supergrain dev and 70mm 400s
(Supergrain is classic Rollei AM74 dev google it) but it is expensive and my first batch of chemistry went south and had to dump it. Fotohuis is really the expert on this stuff. Rodinal, D76, Diafine, and maybe D23 appear promising. D23 is just Metol and sulphite, can mix with measuring spoons. Highly compensating so worth a try...... Wondering about Acufine for increased speed..... I'm diggin' replenished Acufine in the larger formats where I need the extra speed.

https://filmdev.org/film/show/1072

Mixing from bulk chemicals, and buying raw long roll 70mm stock, saves you money over time. 120 film is expensive purchased new and is not getting any cheaper. By bulk rolling medium format film you have control over packaging costs and by mixing chems from bulk you control exactly you want to brew up. I've been bulk mixing fairly exotic B&W developers all day today. Time consuming but quite a hoot.
 
Nokton48 said:
I always keep at least a couple of light seal kits on hand. Cheapo so good insurance, can change it out in ten minutes.

Some more 400s ideas regarding development. I've had excellent results with Rollei Supergrain dev and 70mm 400s
(Supergrain is classic Rollei AM74 dev google it) but it is expensive and my first batch of chemistry went south and had to dump it. Fotohuis is really the expert on this stuff. Rodinal, D76, Diafine, and maybe D23 appear promising. D23 is just Metol and sulphite, can mix with measuring spoons. Highly compensating so worth a try...... Wondering about Acufine for increased speed..... I'm diggin' replenished Acufine in the larger formats where I need the extra speed.

https://filmdev.org/film/show/1072

Mixing from bulk chemicals, and buying raw long roll 70mm stock, saves you money over time. 120 film is expensive purchased new and is not getting any cheaper. By bulk rolling medium format film you have control over packaging costs and by mixing chems from bulk you control exactly you want to brew up. I've been bulk mixing fairly exotic B&W developers all day today. Time consuming but quite a hoot.
Click to expand...
Thank you for those details, Dan. Between you and Cal you've given the 70mm format some forward momentum! I might give ID-11 a try to start with, then, it's a developer I've used a lot of over the years. But D-23 sounds interesting, so I'll chase up the ingredients. Your advice about the ease of mixing D-23 is noted, but I was also gifted a laboratory balance a while back. I haven't tested it but if it works, mixing various other developers from scratch will eventually be that much easier. I've got some Agfa Rodinal here, too, so that's another possibility.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Be careful with the Xtol recipe from Massive Devchart, it will give you a very thin negative that hardly shows a trace of an image. I've tried to reduce the developing time, but I have not been able to get a decent result with Xtol. Searching the net I've seen that others have the same problems. I use the Rodinal 1+25 recipe from Massive Devchart, that is quite good. I intend to try HC-110 dilution H next time. I like developers that can be diluted a lot, both for the economy as well as the ecology. :)
 
I've had issues with HC110 "H" and thin negatives. That was a while ago.

Today I finished off a short end of EFKE R100 unperforated 70mm in my Auto Makiflex with Beatty Coleman Transet 70mm back and 210 XENAR auto Plaubel Makiflex lens. And some test shots with the Hassy HENSEL ringflash wired up to Norman 200b power pack. Very portable and cool. I just rewired new sets of rechargable lead acid batteries which are cheap and brand new. The flash was hot rodded at New York City Flash Clinic, they produced hundreds of these mods starting in the 80s when ringflash was all the rage with fashion guys. So some ambient and some same lighting with 200ws ringflash. My favorite soups with PL100 (very similar I think) were D76 1:1 and Pyro PMK+. Negs were different from these two, liked them both. I think I will use ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. TomA and I were using this a lot with Eastman XX 5222. I know it works with the 70mm Kodak Surveillance film I have (about like old Tri-X). Also I have 1000ml of Harveys 777, which I need to mix up and try. And an unopened bottle of TMAX dev which I should use up on some of this. The 70mm Efke unperforated I got short dated from J&C, they were closing it out at the time. Should have bought all they had! I think I'll use the big Kindermann 70 tank for this particular run. I'll have to practice loading the reel with scrap film.
 
Hi guys, I have been reading this thread and going back and forth on whether to start using 70mm reloads... The lack of info on how to develop the 15 foot strips in my Jobo autolab makes me hesitant to order the rollei 100ft roll... Any how I think I might just be willing to let go of my 70mm stuff for a reasonable offer. I have a Watson 70mm bulk film loader, a Hasselblad A70 back in good shape and like a half dozen or so 70mm cartridges... Would like to keep them together, so pleade make me a decent offer and I'll put them right in the mail...
Best regards
JoshuOne
Ps I am new here, but have 100% positive feedback on the auction site, my handle there is joshuone
 
Last edited:
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Thank you for those details, Dan. Between you and Cal you've given the 70mm format some forward momentum! I might give ID-11 a try to start with, then, it's a developer I've used a lot of over the years. But D-23 sounds interesting, so I'll chase up the ingredients. Your advice about the ease of mixing D-23 is noted, but I was also gifted a laboratory balance a while back. I haven't tested it but if it works, mixing various other developers from scratch will eventually be that much easier. I've got some Agfa Rodinal here, too, so that's another possibility.
Cheers,
Brett
Click to expand...

Brett,

I think I got good results with Rodinal. I'll check tonight. I think I only got about 80 ISO though, and if I remember the negatives looked interesting.

I paid big dollar for Rollie 400S in 120 for my testing. The ISO for me is grossly exaggerated.

If you are a CF like me Diafine seems the way to go. 3+3 and about 125 ISO but again I'll have to check.

The thing with Diafine is the chemistry gets better with "seasoning" (use) meaning the mids become more pronounced in a great way after about 20-25 rolls of film. Also no replenishment. Just keep on reusing it.

Basically I mix a new gallon batch when I loose enough Part "A" from spillage and wetting the film that the total volume left at hand falls below 2 liters.

I call Diafine "Slackers Brew" for a reason. Also the developer is "Panthermic" meaning as long as the temperature is above 68 degrees "F" (20 degrees "C") who cares. EZ-PZ.

Cal
 
I shot about 2 dozen rolls of Rollie 400S in 120 as test rolls for testing film speed and developers. Over the weekend I examined my negatives and fully evaluated my results.

First off I learned that 400 ISO is a gross exaggeration and that Rollie 400S is really a fine grained slow speed film.

Two developers I would highly recommend: Rodinal 1:50; and Diafine 5+5. Understand that Rodinal 1:50 and Diafine exploit a compensating effect that creates wonderful fluffy highlights, deep shadows, and I use both exposure and development to really optimize the mids.

The effect is kinda like HDR but with analog film. Looks like a step topwards a larger format due to tonality, detail and dynamic range. A large format shooter once said of my 6x9 negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

Understand that with highly dilueted Rodinal you effectively approach stand development and this is why the highlights are so lovely. I tend to over expose and this adds detail in the shadows. Again I expose and develop for optimizing the midrange.

Diafine has a bit more of a profound compensating effect, and what this means in other words is it unwinds contrast. Know that Rollie 400S has an IF sensitivity and also is high contrast, so in a way compensating developers are well suited.

With Diafine I minimized agitation down to only two inversions per minute. This exaggerates the fine grain, but I also have extended development to 5+5 to make up some development. Diafine normally recommends 3 inversions per minute. In effect I am exploiting a stand like effect for less contrast and finer grain.

So here are my results that have to be tweaked further.

Rodinal 1:50, 20 degrees C, 11 minutes, 50 ISO. This roll was shot on a cloudy overcast day, and the contrast is on the negative for pretty much "straight printing" on a straight grade number 2 paper. No dodging or burning needed. From experience my next Rodinal test roll would be say 80 ISO to tame down the density a bit from avoiding over exposure, allowing me to use the same above process for two different lightings: 50 ISO overcast; and 80 ISO bright and sunny.

Rodinal is best with slow speed films and seems well suited with Rollie 400S. These negatives look really great, Rodinal is mighty cheap especially at 1:50 dillutions, and there is one shot convenience.

With Diafine my best results were 5+5 with two inversions per minute. I shot 100 ISO and 200 ISO, both looked good but I liked the 100 ISO better because it had the contrast in the negative that I like for wet printing and added density for printing big.

Perhaps for scanning 200 ISO would be a better density. Know that in art school I was trained to make good negatives that would straight print with little manipulation on a single grade 2 paper. Pretty much in the style of a large format shooter making contact prints was the training.

In the above testing the lighting was August 10:00 AM lighting that had that intense summer brightness. Diafine mitagated the contrast and pretty much a nice detailed midrange, even though harsh bright lighting. How cool is that?

There were some rolls shot at 100 ISO and 200 ISO and developed in the same tank as above, but under late afternoon low-key lighting around the dusk golden hour. Pretty much these negatives suggest adding exposure to increase density as the negatives were thin. 100 ISO was better than 200 ISO, but from experience it is likely 50 ISO would be the sweet spot.

Diafine unwinds contrast so much that if not a high contrast situation that thin negatives result. I compensate for this by adding density by overexposing. So for me, a wet printer, 100 ISO bright sun/high contrast and perhaps 50 ISO under diffused lighting of low contrast situations.

Also know with Diafine when in doubt-overexpose.

I had another Rollie 400S test where I developed Diafine 4+4 with two inversions per minute. The ISO was 60 and I had the glassy contrast that I love that translates into great straight prints. This alternate test suggests that under diffused lighting or low contrast situations perhaps 50 ISO might be better and extending development to 5+5 likely would add contrast, although 4+4 with 2 inversions at 60 ISO looked mighty great.

I tried Ilford DDX at 125 ISO. DDX is a high energy fine grain developer, but the slight push I was expecting did not happen. I love DDX because it is a lot like Microphen but in a convenient liquid. I would try 100 ISO and 80 ISO. I was not too far off the film speed, but DDX at 9 minutes is just a "solvent" developer. Care has to be taken not to over develope that would loose the highlights.

Dan and I bartered, and now I have 70mm Kodak WL Surveillance film which Dan says is like old school Tri-X. It just so happens that Diafine and Tri-X is a match made in heaven. I shoot Tri-X at 800 ISO and 640 ISO so you get a serious bump in film speed. Develop in Diafine 3+3 with only 2 inversions. Even though pushed I get fine grain.

With certain film and developer combinations I get this sheen in the contrast that is kinda magical. With great negatives it is easy to print.

The benefits I see here in my methodes is Rollie 400S can be secured in bulk at a low cost where it is like a time machine where we go back when a 120 film equiv is less than $3.00 a roll.

Diafine gets reused, and after about 20-25 rolls of film gets "seasoned" to where the mids get better. Diafine I call "Slacker's Brew" because it is "Panthermic," meaning not temperature sensitive (as long as above 68 degrees F), has short development times, and gets reused.

Cheap-cheap-cheap...

Rodinal when dilueted to 1:50 is mucho cheap also and is a one shot.

Anyways thanks for getting me to look at my Rollie 400S testing. I would also add for the CF's like me that Kodak 5222 loves Diafine 4+4 two inversions per minute at 400 ISO. For 135 I love it better than Tri-X. Also don't tell anyone, Kodak 5222 loves DDX, 9 miutes, 20 degrees C, three inversions per minute for 500 ISO. The contrast has this silver rich metalic look to it.

Pretty much this work I mention above is how I determined how I will proceed into and after retirement. Rollie 400S, Kodak WL Surveillance Film, and Kodak 5222 is all I need to sustain me for decades.

Cal
 
Dear Cal,
I'm so sorry for not replying to your earlier post a few days ago, but thanks so much for taking the time to share all your findings—really is appreciated.

I shot my first dozen frames of 70mm Rollei on Sunday—or so I thought! In fact, I had used the standard metal clips to secure the ends to both the supply and take up spools. As is my habit when loading 36 exposure rolls of 35mm I had kept the amount of fogged film between the two cassettes to a minimum and it seems I must have gently pulled the leading end out of the clip. I also managed to be too clever by calculating the amount of film wound off before the first frame, thinking I could start my first frame earlier. Didn't happen! With a film sitting by the relevant lever the magazine happily permitted the camera to cock, and fire, without actually feeding any film through it.

The moral of the story, I suppose, is whilst it's good not to waste film, don't think you're smarter than the manufacturer. Clearly, I'm not!

On the plus side, because no film was actually transported anywhere, I also didn't waste any. When I established what I'd done, I was able to simply re-attach the leading end to the supply spool (with tape, this time), and re-insert the cassettes into the insert. At which point I promptly wound the film on until it reached the first frame stop. Next attempt, film will actually be exposed through lens!

I like the idea of fastening the film to the supply cassette with the clip. When you reach the end of your fifteen foot load the film can be drawn out of the cassette so you can shoot that extra frame or two until the blocking lever is cleared. With it attached with tape there's probably a frame or two of shootable film that won't wind. But I'll be in the habit of taping the film to the take up spool from now on. Removing it for development is really no different to handling 120 or 35mm.

Having read through this entire thread end to end a couple of times I was aware the Rollei is nowhere near its box speed in most developers, thank you. Actually that's a plus (for me at least). I'm usually happiest shooting an ISO 100 speed film most of the time, so, I bought some on the strength of it really being a couple of stops slower than claimed. All good!

I've got most of a bottle of original Agfa Rodinal on hand, tightly capped and air-free—I'm certain it's still good. So I shall start with that as you and Dan have recommended. I've got one normal Paterson reel modified to take old rolls of 116 Verichrome Pan I was asked to develop on a couple of occasions. I have a lot of reels here so I'll alter another to 70mm/116 spacing. They'll be ideal for processing 120/220 lengths of 70mm. Although I was lucky enough to be given a Kindermann fifteen foot reel and tank, I think I'll probably mostly shoot my 70mm as if it was 220, at least, to begin with.

Sincere thanks to you and Dan for taking the initiative and giving this film a go. I might otherwise still be idly wondering about its possibilities, instead of actually having fifteen feet of it in a loaded mag ready to go. I'm quite excited about it.
Cheers
Brett
 
Brett,

A word of warning is that 400S has no anti-halogen layer and if not loaded in a very subdued light "light piping" will happen.

Effectively the edge of the acetate base becomes and works like a fiber optic to transmit light to fog your film.

Also the base is very thin so be aware that you can load a lot more than 15 feet in a CINE cassette. This thin base also makes it easy to slice your fingers pretty easily.

For the lazy slacker I think Rodinal at 50:1 and 50 ISO makes great negatives. I love it. Pretty much the lazy man's way for great negatives that pop and are easy to print.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Brett,

A word of warning is that 400S has no anti-halogen layer and if not loaded in a very subdued light "light piping" will happen.

Effectively the edge of the acetate base becomes and works like a fiber optic to transmit light to fog your film.

Also the base is very thin so be aware that you can load a lot more than 15 feet in a CINE cassette. This thin base also makes it easy to slice your fingers pretty easily.

For the lazy slacker I think Rodinal at 50:1 and 50 ISO makes great negatives. I love it. Pretty much the lazy man's way for great negatives that pop and are easy to print.

Cal
Click to expand...
Thanks Cal, I have tried to minimise exposure to light during handling, but I was loading the magazine in moderate room light. I've taped all the ends to the cassette bodies just in case they're a bit tired (I spent quite a while gently tweaking the components for best possible fit and brushed and cleaned all felts). It will be interesting to see whether or not the limited exposure to light the ends protruding from my cassettes received does actually create any fogging issues.

One thing I also did was to dismantle the magazine insert a couple of nights ago. Simply because its base plate had perhaps half a millimetre of play when attached to the body. It was marginal and probably not enough to cause any problems, but with the susceptibility of this film to fogging, I decided to investigate it. There was just a little wear on the tapered pin with a slot inside the mag that the locking lever engages with. After disassembling the insert I was able to gently adjust the profile of the locking lever to make it more secure. Three hands would have been useful to re-assemble the insert, but I got there. The insert is seating more securely in the magazine body, now.

I must admit I'd not considered the film thickness when I dispensed some film onto a spool. I had done some investigations and noted in Wildi's Hasselblad Manual that the spool may be loaded to just below its flanges, so that's what I did. Given the thin base it sounds as though I may have loaded closer to 100 frames worth.

There are parallels with the Apollo program, because Kodak made special thin base versions of Eg Ektachrome for use in space. It was this, combined with the use of darkroom-loaded magazines that dispensed with cassettes, which enabled 200-plus frames to be contained in each mag. I was aware of that, and should have remembered. Never mind. I'm not processing this load all at once. Something to bear in mind in future, though.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Hi Brett,

In my A70 instruction book, it states that (due to film thickness) up to 250 exposures can be loaded into an A70. The film counter simply stops counting at 70, as we know. Hasselblad did make a 250 exposure A70 model, but I don't have one. Yes you are absolutely right to tape the takeup spool, but always use the spring clip when loading the supply roll. You can strain the mechanisms if you don't.

One last thing (for now) due to the film thickness, I found at first go, that I had a couple of half-moon shaped crescent marks, so be extra careful handling it. Last few rolls I have run through have been just fine.

Post some photos when you can, and enjoy the new equipment. :)

There is a learning curve with 70mm but it is not excessively steep or overly difficult. Just different.

It's like shooting digital, I seldom have a need to look at the film counter. This can sometimes affect my photographic approach (endless film!!)
 
Nokton48 said:
Hi Brett,

In my A70 instruction book, it states that (due to film thickness) up to 250 exposures can be loaded into an A70. The film counter simply stops counting at 70, as we know. Hasselblad did make a 250 exposure A70 model, but I don't have one. Yes you are absolutely right to tape the takeup spool, but always use the spring clip when loading the supply roll. You can strain the mechanisms if you don't.

One last thing (for now) due to the film thickness, I found at first go, that I had a couple of half-moon shaped crescent marks, so be extra careful handling it. Last few rolls I have run through have been just fine.

Post some photos when you can, and enjoy the new equipment. :)

There is a learning curve with 70mm but it is not excessively steep or overly difficult. Just different.

It's like shooting digital, I seldom have a need to look at the film counter. This can sometimes affect my photographic approach (endless film!!)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Dan. Yes I used a clip to fix the film to the supply spool, so that's all good. I'll try to be extra careful when loading a reel.

I took my first photos on 70mm yesterday. Nothing too exciting, just a couple of landscapes up near Bushy Park in Tasmania using the 250mm Sonnar on my big Linhof tripod. I've bracketed images at EI 50, 100 & 200. It's sounding like 80-100 might be the sweet spot, but it will be helpful to see the difference. I'll snip off the frames when I've done about a dozen or fifteen and process with my modded Paterson reel in next week or two, and certainly share them. Thanks to you and Cal for all your advice. :)
Cheers
Brett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom