Aerographic film speeds

[mikepry]

Does anyone know the formula for converting an aerographic ISO to pictorial ISO? I have bought a roll of that Plus x from Ed on ebay and it is labeled ISO 125. It doesn't give a aerographic designation but the Kodak website lists the 2402 film as ISO A 200. If there isn't a designation on the label would I be safe to assume it is equivalent 125 pictorial?

I have an older roll as well that a friend gave me and it has the designation EAFS 200. I need to know the pictorial speed so I can begin testing it. By the way, Mr.Foto was great to deal with.

[John Bartley]

Does anyone know the formula for converting an aerographic ISO to pictorial ISO?

Mike,

I don't know the answer - sorry. I do have a question. Do you have a plan for cutting it without scratching it? I've looked at buying one of these rolls, and the only things about them that have caused me to hold off are the thinness and the problem of cutting them accurately.

cheers

[jimgalli]

Mike, I shoot it at 125. What can trip you up though is red filters. This aerial film doesn't act like normal film with a red filter as it's extra red sensitive. Kodak says a #25 only costs 2/3 stop.

John, Here's a link to a thread I wrote one time about cutting this stuff. It naturally curls into the emulsion so although it is a little harder to load than regular thick sheets, the natural curl holds it firmly and flatly at the back of the film holders.

[fschifano]

I've seen these ads on Ebay too and was initially attracted to the stuff. Who could resist making sheet film out of this stuff so inexpensively. Cutting it down wouldn't be a problem with a paper cutter. But what got me thinking was the thickness of the support. It's only half as thick and that could be a problem with your plane of sharp focus and the material's fit in your film holders. Finding a good EI for the film shouldn't be a problem. Start at the box speed and expose a few sheets +/- 1 1/2 stops in half stop intervals. Keep notes. Let us know how it turns out.

[John Bartley]

Here's[/URL] a link to a thread I wrote one time about cutting this stuff.

Thank you Jim, Great article !!

Now that I have an 8x10 on the way from eBay, I guess I'll give it a try

cheers eh?

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Kodak Aerial group told me rough rule of thumb for conversion from ISO A (aerial) to ISO (terrestrial) is to multiply by 2.5, so ISO A of 200 becomes ISO 500.

However, the people I sent some lengths to test before I had a camera capable of using it told me they exposed at ISO 80.

Then if you look at the data sheet, they get a very wide range of film speeds depending upon developer chemistry, number of tanks, temperature and process speed (5-25 feet per minute, 99 degrees F for example).

We would be likely to use nothing remotely related to the original chems or process methods.

[John Bartley]

I'm new to 8x10 in particular and LF in general, but here's what I've found so far::

1) The film is very easy to cut and loads quite nicely and stays quite flat in the holders
2) I did my first couple of negatives at iso125 and found them soooo thin that expozure times were in the order of 1-2 seconds on AZO gr3 and they were very lacking in contrast
3) I exposed a couple more at 2 stops over and found them better - did NOT change development from normal
4) did the next couple at 4 stops over, developed normally and now have negatives with full detail and exposure times on gr3 azo in the the area of 1 minute.
5) My last four negs are 3-4 stops overexposed and are developed slightly "harder" than normal and don't look a whole lot different than the ones developed "normally".

The caveat : I am a complete newbie and am still experimenting, so try this with that caution in mind and be prepared to ruin a few negatives.

cheers

[Murray@uptowngallery]

2-4 stops over ISO 125 makes the film sound s-l-o-w...

Maybe I have directional dyslexia...the why tested ISOA (aerial) 200 film (2402) at 80 may have simply ignored my info because I went the wrong way...200/2.5 IS exactly 80. I do this with metering shadows and trying to overexpose them instead of under...can't seem to stop making that error.

Murray

[jimgalli]

Ahhh. Ignorance is bliss. The can said 125 so I rate the stuff at 125 and have always gotten excellent exposures. Murray, I'll look for a neg to scan and post for you. Out in the piles.

[mikepry]

Actually the film I bought from this fella on ebay was surplus from a custom made order. It was an emulsion made specifically for a customer to their specifications. I bought the 9 1/2" wide and not the 5" wide.

After doing some testing (BTZS) I finally came to the proper speed and it is 40. It is slow, but I've had nice results.

The weak point is a low contrast scene when using Platinum. Otherwise it's nice. If anyone would like the cuves from winplotter I'd be happy to email them.