Bluefire Police film with Developer

[raytoei@gmail.com]

I have been curious about this film for a long time
recently, I googled as much as I could,
the best reference i could find was this:



"David Foy , Aug 26, 2003; 06:57 p.m.

(Disclaimer: I'm the owner of the business that makes and sells Bluefire Police and Bluefire HR.)

"Bluefire Police" is Tura Pan Line, a panchromatic EI 100 microfilm, packaged in 24-exposure 35mm cassettes. Tura does not sell it in retail quantities.

The Bluefire HR developer is derived from the H&W Control formula but has been modified for longer shelf life. When processed in Bluefire HR, the film must be exposed at EI 80. The recommended development is a compensating procedure (15 minutes, little agitation) that is meant to give pictorial contrast at relatively high acutance with microfilms. Acutance is more usefully considered a property of developer and development technique, not of film.

Since Bluefire Police is a microfilm (very thin, very hard, monodisperse non-tabular small grain emulsion), it gives a different image than tabular films (or any non-microfilm, for that matter), one the photographer may or may not prefer, depending on taste. Ann Clancy's description of it mirrors my experience.

I tested it against Kodak TMax 100 during product development (same camera and lens, same scene, shot immediately after the Bluefire roll) and the Bluefire grain is finer. The super-enlarged bolt-head on the web site cannot be detected on the Kodak negative. The super-enlarged man's head image is not distinct and would be not be acceptable as identification in court (the Bluefire image would be). At the extreme of enlargement, when enlargeability is the goal, Bluefire is the more useful choice.

This is an extreme test and the differences between the two films, in terms of grain's effect on enlargeability, is unlikely to be significant for many photographers. However, the difference in overall image appearance is definitely noticeable at any degree of enlargement, and it is my hope that at least some photographers will find the Bluefire film's tonality a useful addition to their palette. In my own personal photography, I treat it like a conventional EI25 film (AgfaPan 25 or Efke KB25) that I can expose reliably at IE80. The Bluefire HR developer also works beautifully (in my opinion) with Fuji Super HR microfilms. Unfortunately they're not available in perforated 35mm, but the 16mm size can be used for submini camera loads.

...... snip.....

Archaeology Museum, Split, Croatia: Bluefire Police film, October 2002"

So, 15 rolls + developer appeared on my doorstep today....

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

from the pdf file:

* Panchromatic film, insensitive to infra red
* Does not degrade details at extreme magnification
* records 21 stops of gray
* develop between 12m to 16m at 20C with the special Bluefire Police Developer
* practical enlargement is 40x or 1m x 1.5m, can enlarge to 100x without losing image detail to grain
* Can resolve more than 800 line pairs per millimeter under lab condition
------
okay...i went out to shoot a roll today as a test.

this is one of the strips of the negatives.

Note that I used a Pen-FT with 40/f1.4 lens.

This is a half-frame, so instead of 6 frames of 36x24mm, it is 12 frames of 18x24mm on a strip of negatives.

This is how the negative looked like, I blanked out the first few frames of personal photos

Now, ideally, if we want to very clinical, then:

* a tripod should be used
* optimal aperture, ie. 2 stops from widest is optimal or usually 5.6-f8
* film flatness when scanning
* Optimal development process etc

i felt that frame 4 and 5 yielded the best possible pictures from this negative.
I shot it at around 1/60 and f8, however I was inside a car and not immune to shake.

from frame 4 and 5, i noticed that frame 4 was sharper, frame 5 was starting to blur.

... to be continued....

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

This is how frame 4 looks:

going at 100%, this is how the parking signboard and the signboard at the end of the road looks:

not bad for first roll, but i think i can do get better results next time.

As a pictorial film, it is prone to high-contrast, with little or no grains,
metering needs to be spot-on as the latitude is less than traditional films.

here are two more images taken today on the half-frame camera:

In my next and last post, i will write a summary of this film.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

as you can see, the film base is very clear and thin, but thick and curly.

Thin here refers not material thickness as it is very thick, thinness refers
to the negatives which looks like it is underexposed, a lack of highlights.
Despite the curl, this film scans alright.

Regarding development, it is recommended to develop Bluefire Police with
the Bluefire HR development. around 15ml to 235ml of water for
around 12-16mins@20C

I developed it at 6mins at 30C (Asia tap-water temp) in my Rondinax tank.
I think it is underdeveloped, and I should develop it for 7-8mins in future.

Summary
=======
+ No grains, great for enlargement, able to capture a lot of details,
great for half-frame cameras which is problematic by the larger grains
with normal film.
+ Unlike other technical Pan films which is usually 20-50 iso, this film
is rated at 80 with the HR developer.
+ Relatively cheap at 2.65 usd for roll of 24 exposure film, before s&h.
- 21 shades of gray sounds like a lot, but actually is quite a lot less latitude
compared to other B&W film
- many of the histogram is very steep, showing a lack of gray scale.
- Accurate metering is important, Sunny-16 is not easy with such a low ISO film.

Works best where contrast isn't too great between shadows and highlight.
Of course the high-contrast effect may be a look that is deliberately being achieved.

Here is a nice picture which works well, considering that is half the normal negative size.

Funny Signboard. Pen-FT with 40/f1.4 film.
Shot at f1.4 or f2. Artifacts on the film are caused
by the improper washing not defects of the film.

Many things to try out with this film in the future.

thanks for viewing.

FIN.

raytoei

 

[dave lackey]

I like this, Ray...So, this can be purchased? Who carries this film?:angel:

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i purchased it last week from http://www.frugalphotographer.com/

 

[charjohncarter]

I used something similar, which was high contrast copy film and then developed it a special developer that extended the tonal range. The results are startling if you care about resolution. I found at least my negatives where flat and I never was successful at getting a print I liked. But now with curves (or should I say selective curves) have reworked some on these negative. They still bother me a little, but are acceptable.

This is H&W film (35mm) developed in there developer, circa 1971:

 

[Murchu]

I'm curious as to how the film renders a scene differently to other film stocks. The enlargeability is an attractive feature alright, and I must confess to having an addiction to always zooming into the highly detail large format scans on Shorpy, and picking out all sorts of details not immediately apparent.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

raytoei. i like how 40/1.4 FT lens renders on this film.

 

[charjohncarter]

I found this from Photo.Net. Someone else said the developer was similar to the P-Q H&W developer of the 70's:

David Foy, Aug 26, 2003; 06:57 p.m.

(Disclaimer: I'm the owner of the business that makes and sells Bluefire Police and Bluefire HR.)
"Bluefire Police" is Tura Pan Line, a panchromatic EI 100 microfilm, packaged in 24-exposure 35mm cassettes. Tura does not sell it in retail quantities.
The Bluefire HR developer is derived from the H&W Control formula but has been modified for longer shelf life. When processed in Bluefire HR, the film must be exposed at EI 80. The recommended development is a compensating procedure (15 minutes, little agitation) that is meant to give pictorial contrast at relatively high acutance with microfilms. Acutance is more usefully considered a property of developer and development technique, not of film.
Since Bluefire Police is a microfilm (very thin, very hard, monodisperse non-tabular small grain emulsion), it gives a different image than tabular films (or any non-microfilm, for that matter), one the photographer may or may not prefer, depending on taste. Ann Clancy's description of it mirrors my experience.
I tested it against Kodak TMax 100 during product development (same camera and lens, same scene, shot immediately after the Bluefire roll) and the Bluefire grain is finer. The super-enlarged bolt-head on the web site cannot be detected on the Kodak negative. The super-enlarged man's head image is not distinct and would be not be acceptable as identification in court (the Bluefire image would be). At the extreme of enlargement, when enlargeability is the goal, Bluefire is the more useful choice.
This is an extreme test and the differences between the two films, in terms of grain's effect on enlargeability, is unlikely to be significant for many photographers. However, the difference in overall image appearance is definitely noticeable at any degree of enlargement, and it is my hope that at least some photographers will find the Bluefire film's tonality a useful addition to their palette. In my own personal photography, I treat it like a conventional EI25 film (AgfaPan 25 or Efke KB25) that I can expose reliably at IE80. The Bluefire HR developer also works beautifully (in my opinion) with Fuji Super HR microfilms. Unfortunately they're not available in perforated 35mm, but the 16mm size can be used for submini camera loads. It works well with Agfa Copex Pan Rapid AHU, which is available in 35mm perfed, 30.5m bulk length (minimum order, 50 rolls if you buy from Agfa or a microfilm house). That was the 35mm film packaged by Holden and Weichart in the '60s as H&W Control VTE Pan.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

http://www.freelists.org/post/pure-silver/Adox-Bluefire

[pure-silver] Re: Adox / Bluefire

From: David Foy <dfoy@xxxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:36 -0600

I spent a VERY frustrating week last week, traveling in Arkansas, reading this thread on my laptop, with all of my replies bouncing back ("Client host rejected: cannot find your hostname, [64.201.64.238] (in reply to RCPT TO command).")

I appreciate Ed Zimmerman taking the time to answer this question so thoroughly and accurately. I will only offer a correction that the speed of Bluefire Police film (Agfa microfilm), when developed in Bluefire HR developer (H&W Control), is a solid, honest EI 80, not 12. That is the speed that is derived sensitometrically, and it's also the practical speed which I use outdoors in daylight. I have not tested the Spur developers, but my understanding is they require the film be exposed at a lower speed.

Ed is correct that you will be fighting contrast, and there is little exposure latitude. When exposure is accurate (and it should be if you use a camera with good internal metering) the results can be beautiful. If you get good results with color reversal films, you will do fine with Bluefire Police.

While I was in the product-development stage for this film-developer combination, I compared it extensively to other films.

The most comparable conventional films are Kodak and Ilford's tabular-grain 100-speed films. They have significantly more latitude. However, their grain, while small, is definitely more conspicuous. The result is that even though their resolution is outstanding, Bluefire Police's resolution of micro-detail is clearly superior. Also, their tabular emulsions give you edge effects when enlarged that are not to everyone's taste. I hasten to add that I am not trying to be dismissive of these films. They and HP5+ are my favorite conventional films.

I find that people (photographers and viewers both) who really like what Bluefire Police does, like it for its unique image qualities, which derive from the presence of micro-detail. I call it "biting clarity," and once you see it, you'll understand why I use that phrase. Not all images require it, and it's wrong for some kinds of images. No conventional film has it.

I have a 4-ft by 5-ft enlargement on my showroom wall of an outdoor scene, two people seated atop a waterfall feature in Portland, Oregon's civic plaza. The negative is 35mm Bluefire Police, developed in Bluefire HR, and enlarged approximately 67 times, with no apparent grain. The film has resolved all the detail that the lens could deliver, and was not even breathing hard. It also has excellent pictorial tonalities, the plaza's brickwork, running water, and textured concrete being particularly lovely. It was shot at EI 80 in bright early-afternoon light on a cloudless day, so the light was not film-friendly. There is excellent shadow and highlight detail, certainly as good as what the best of conventional b/w films can give.

But...caution, please.


A huge, barn-door size grainless enlargement like this from 35mm is essentially a stunt, albeit an astonishing one, and I do not recommend it as the best use of this film. Even without grain there are what I call micro-effects when you blow up a negative, any negative, 67x. Blacks and whites that are solid and pleasing on normal enlargement show unexpected detail when enlarged to extremes, and to my eye a lot of image depth and sense of dimension depends on these solids staying intact.

This kind of micro-effect is of no consequence in surveillance and technical photography, but it does make an aesthetic difference. For mural-size pictorial enlargements, MF or LF is probably always the better choice over 35mm, and 35mm Bluefire Police should probably be limited to something like 15x or a little more, unless you have an image that benefits from ever-more micro-detail. I say "probably" because there will always be exceptions.

Geoffrey Crawley wrote a fair and objective review in the 9 July 2005 issue of Amateur Photographer. I believe subscribers can access it on-line. Mr. Crawley is in every sense an expert, having been editor of the British Journal of Photography for 21 years. It was he who formulated the famous FX series of developers. I was very pleased and grateful for his validation.


David Foy


Edward C. Zimmermann wrote:

Quoting "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx>:



2) Can this film realistically be used for pictorial photography?


YES.


Microfilms as well as document film can be used to great success but with some
effort for pictorial photography. The trick is to tame the contrast. This is,
in essence, little different from Technial Pan.


Results can be very good. Tonality is not up to the level of APX25 but it
can be good and sharpeness is higher.



3) Is he going to make any format other then 35mm


David Foy--- who as the "maker" of Bluefire and as a member of this list
should take the opportunity to chime in--- can't as its only been available
in 35mm and 16mm. Agfa Copex Rapid AHU, the current equivalent microfilm
(slightly less resolution but higher speed), too has only been available in
35mm--- its still in the program of Agfa in Belgium but now only as unperforated
stock. The only choice for making rollfilms (and keeping to Agfa) is the 105mm
wide HDP 5mil material. This is, I think, what Ludwig (Gigabit) did. Its,
however, not that suited to our application and the effort is not insignificant. Given the fundamental problems of 120 films and the limited resolution of even
the best cameras I don't think its much of an issue. Where microfilms shine are
in subminature photography and in well designed 35mm cameras. In a MINOX camera,
for instance, I think microfilms outperform and have the edge over APX25 (still
available via factory loads as Minopan 25) but not in 35mm. To be honest,
however, APX25 was obsolete and in most cameras one is hardly worse off with
Delta-100, TMAX, APX100 etc. and they are really better suited to the handling
and use style of these cameras..

The best current solution on the market for microfilms is SPUR Nanospeed and
Copex Rapid AHU. Its got the right balance between speed (Bluefire, if I
recall, some of the sensiometric tests did not get beyond EI 12 ASA), tonality,
exposure latitude (Gigabit, an early version of the SPUR Nanospeed developer
has some real problems here) and "user tolerance". The main and most significant
(and not to be ignored) downside to the SPUR products is that they are
distributed in the U.S. via FotoImpex/J&C. Europeans, fortunately, can purchase
directly from 8x11film.com or any of a number of good dealers such as Phototec,
Lumiere or Monochrome in Germany or Fotohuis RoVo in Holland.


=============================================================================================================

 

[sepiareverb]

Ran my first test roll of Police film today, and the HR developer I just got arrived spoiled. I suspected this by the color, but decided to go for it anyway. Negs are thinner than thin, with highlights near Zone 2 at best. The leader got to Zone 2.

Time to email them and see about a replacement...

 

[HuubL]

I have a roll of Agfa Scientia. Would that be a similar type of film?

 

[charjohncarter]

The frugal photographer site seems to be sold out, I've emailed twice with no response.

 

[sepiareverb]

Already got a reply saying they'd ship me some right out. It came to me that perhaps this stuff is so fine grained that I can't see the image?

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

post development, the negative should be clear, and details on the negative should be faint, aka. thin. but it attracts a lot of dust and it curls too.

here is a recent image (+100% crop) which unfortunately suffers from lack of proper washing and dust.

Captured on the olympus 35rd, i think at f1.7

raytoei

 

[charjohncarter]

Yes, good definition, I hope they restock.

 

[sepiareverb]

post development, the negative should be clear, and details on the negative should be faint, aka. thin. but it attracts a lot of dust and it curls too.

Zone 2 Thin???

I'll go cut it now, I use Sprint End Run as a Photo-Flo (yeah I know a waste of time) and Photo Wipes to remove the bulk of that after pulling them off the reel (yeah I know a waste of time and money) but I never have dust anything like that on any film. So, lets just see what Bluefire does...


8 minutes later...

SO, curly yes. Like a document film. Think CMS, ATP, Ortho 25. But not dusty, and I'm wearing wool today. The anti-static properties of the Sprint End Run may actually be of benefit. I can't imagine getting anything close to a useable print from one of these negatives. They look like a contrast mask not a negative. Nothing in the shadows. I'll give one a go, but I expect more from the next roll with the new developer, and then I'm going to ISO 40...

 

[sepiareverb]

Here is the Bluefire & my first test of Adox Silvermax side by side on a sheet of white paper, not the lightbox:

Of the full frames you can see, frame 5 in each page is the same scene. I'll reserve judgement till the new developer gets here...

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

err.. not sure about what is "zone 2 thin", but this is a pic taken
2 mins ago from my r-d1, i bumped up the contrast a bit, but
the negative is more faint than this picture.

the first frame of the negative is that of the images posted in my earlier post.

ps. your negatives looks fine 🙂