Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,043   Posts: 1,560,835   Online: 1148
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by skahde View Post
    Why would one want to shoot Ortho in the field? A blue filter with panchromatic film will do the same thing. This stuff can do nice tricks in the lab, though as you can safely handle it under red light.
    Not quite true. Although this idea has been proposed over the past 30 or so years, the results of a blue filter with panchromatic film come close but are not identical to those of orthochromatic film. I never leave home without some of each loaded in holders, often Tri-X Ortho and HP5+. No, Tri-X Ortho is not available and has not been for many years. The ability of ortho films to open up the shadows is much superior to that of filtered pan films.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,093
    Images
    125
    I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
    I've been playing with Rollei Ortho and I just love it.

  3. #13
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    I say go for it - I would like to try some ortho film at some time. I just don't agree with underexposing it. Shoot it at its rated ISO (or run exposure tests to determine your personal EI) for best results. Cameras don't care if ISOs are "even" or not.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    800

    You can shoot at a different ISO if you push or pull process

    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim View Post
    I agree about the EI. If you want to shoot at ISO 200, get a film that is designed for it. Foma 200 is pretty nice film if you can get it, or you can shoot Tri-X at EI 200-250 if you adjust development accordingly.
    I have to respectfully disagree. I normally shoot slide film, which has next to no exposure latitude (yes, I know this is a B&W forum). I wanted some 400 speed Provia (400X) to shoot my son's birthday party, and the local camera store, Creve Coeur Camera, didn't have any. I did the next best thing. Grabbed a roll of Provia 100F out of the fridge, wrote on the film cassette "Push 2 stops", loaded it in the camera and shot it at ISO 320. Took it to Creve Coeur Camera and told them to have the lab push 2 stops, and the pictures turned out just fine. I dare say they turned out comparable to shooting at box speed.
    ME Super

    Shoot more film.
    There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.

  5. #15
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    You can get decent quality pushing film, but you will always lose shadow detail. Always better to shoot a film of the appropriate speed than to shoot a slower speed film with push processing.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  6. #16
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    I only developed 1 sheet so far to see if my dev time was good, and it was. The neg is thin, but not underexposed thin, it almost looks like staining developer thin. My Brother's skin looks worse in person, to the acne issue wasn't as bad as i was expecting.

    This is a straight scan. The skin looks almost metallic!
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8602358920_2e509363b1_c.jpg 
Views:	99 
Size:	191.6 KB 
ID:	66570

    here's the info:
    Handheld 4x5
    Graflex RB Super D
    190mm Ektar f/4.5
    Ilford Ortho Plus rated @ ISO 200
    Adonal (Rodinal) 1:100 for 20 minutes at 70 degrees, shake agitation every 4 mins
    1/60th at f/8.5
    Last edited by EASmithV; 03-29-2013 at 10:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,899
    Wow that came out pretty good considering you rated it at 200. I've always wanted to try this film for masking but never got around to it.

  8. #18
    skahde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    425
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    the results of a blue filter with panchromatic film come close but are not identical to those of orthochromatic film.
    You certainly have a point here as the sensitivity added to the silverhalide through the sensitizing dyes will hardly ever exactly match the spectrum removed by filtration. If done right it can be done but if you want to have the same exact effect as using ortho, using the right film is certainly more straightforward.

    This reminds me of my experiences with using tungsten film which I could never quite match by using daylight fim and filtration, but I could get close.

  9. #19
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    here's more

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8617806983_b59d42f9ca_c.jpg 
Views:	49 
Size:	292.3 KB 
ID:	66751

    Handheld 4x5
    Graflex RB Super D
    190mm Ektar f/4.5
    Ilford Ortho Plus rated @ ISO 200
    Rodinal 1:100 for 20 minutes at 70

    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bombay, NY
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    47
    Well, I must say that I was amazed to read that yellow filtration had no effect on Ortho film. The information put out for 75 years must have been all wrong, I guess. Actually, I have found that the response of ortho film to filtration can give beautiful results. Just look in a Kodak master photoguide from the early fifties to get the exposure compensation factors needed. If you use a 2X yellow filter, you expose your 200 number to get the same negative density: e.g. 50. If you use 80 as your starting number, expose at 20 with a 2X yellow. And if you think 20 is too slow, well, that's what tripods are for. Ortho film has a tonality all it's own. I've been shooting it since 1945. I would still be shooting it in rollfilm cameras if it was available.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin