Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,534   Posts: 1,544,025   Online: 1122
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236

    Kodak ImageLink (nonperforated!) film: how to expose 'properly'

    The latitude of this dastardly film is very, very restricted: you choose between beautiful highlight separation with dark, non-existent shadows or you choose shadow detail with midtones and highlights blocked up so badly that there is little tonal differentiation. Yet, it is a 'panchromatic' film and yields great prints with microfilming. When one does choose to use it 'in camera' for snapshots (this must be a creative endeavor as, again, it is not perforated) one is capable of obtaining stunning negatives IF, and only if, one shoots scenes that are very restricted in tonal range. Dull, cloudy days come to life with this film.

    But the question remains: for 'normal' scenes: rate it at EI 16 for beautiful highlight separation or rate it at EI 4 for dismal highlight blocking but proper rendition of shadow detail? The 'safe' answer here is to expose depending upon the particular subject matter and how that particular scene would best be rendered. Changes in development time (about half as long as for Pan F+) give limited assistance here.

    I guess what frustrates me most about this film is the fact that Technical Pan was not so restriced and was only about one stop faster. Grain is on a par. Why could this film not have been made to accomodate a greater lighting range? - David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 12-11-2013 at 03:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,039
    I've looked into Imagelink, but not gotten any yet. Instead I acquired a couple thousand feet of Kodak copy microfilm (forget the number, & it's not handy at the moment). I have played with it a bit and enjoyed it. Basically it was dirt cheap and I'm just going to have fun with it. Hopefully I'll load some again this spring and experiment in earnest. I know I will not get great pictorial results, but it will help me understand things better in general and, most importantly, be fun.

    It seems to be an EI of 1.5 or 3 (no actual testing beyond bracketing, so this is more an opinion) I can't rate much higher than EI 6 and really get enough exposure - though I'm sure this will change for me as I gain experience. I have experimented using an expo-disc to "pre-flash" the film, and it helped a bit.
    Even though it is not Imagelink, I will have to try your suggestion of dull and cloudy days as well. Also, I would be interested in suggestions regarding development. So far I've used D-76 1:1 (8 minutes), and stand Rodinal (on several rolls, from 45 minutes to 2 hours), and I know I should probably try something customized.

    I have spooled some for a coworker who absolutely loves the restricted latitude without trying to compensate for it.
    Truzi

  3. #3
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,600
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    I guess what frustrates me most about this film is the fact that Technical Pan was not so restriced and was only about one stop faster. Grain is on a par. Why could this film not have been made to accomodate a greater lighting range? - David Lyga
    The concept of photography as applied here requires a range of crystal volumes. Microfilming requires a small volume. By excluding larger volumes and having a limit on useful smallnees one limits the range of volumes and thus the exposure range.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,731
    If you're determined to try to use these kinds of films for general photography, perhaps try an extreme low contrast developer.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,832
    I have tried numerous times to use microfilm for general purpose photography with a number of different developers said to be useful with it. Never had any decent results As you go to finer and finer grained emulsions their latitude is also diminished. TANSTAAFL!!
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 12-11-2013 at 10:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #6
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,382
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    I have tried numerous times to use microfilm for general purpose photography with a number of different developers said to be useful with it. Never had any decent results As you go to finer and finer grained emulsions their latitude is also diminished. TANSTAAFL!!
    Are you saying Gerald that, like the moon, microfilm is a harsh mistress?
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #7
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,039
    Personally, I don't expect "normal" or even "decent" results. I'm just playing around, and for $20 I could not resist. Believe it or not, messing with this stuff will teach me something - I just have to figure out what (aside from it not being suitable for general photography).
    Truzi

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Are you saying Gerald that, like the moon, microfilm is a harsh mistress?
    Liked that!

    TANSTAAFL also expresses the First law of Thermodynamics. The others are

    2. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
    3. Who says things are going to get better.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 12-11-2013 at 11:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  9. #9
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,600
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    But the question remains: for 'normal' scenes: rate it at EI 16 for beautiful highlight separation or rate it at EI 4 for dismal highlight blocking but proper rendition of shadow detail? David Lyga
    Do not overlook that there are/had been developers designed for continuous tone photography with microfilms.

    There even had been a developer specially designerd for the Kodak Imagelink HQ that yielded EI 25, though at a somewhat reduced exposure range.

    With other high-reslolution films and their proprietory developers EI of between 20 and 40 are gained.


    Bear further in mind that the Kodak Imagelink will no longer be manufactured but substituted by Agfa films sold under the brand of Imagelink. Thus one would have to adjust processing to the Agfa films anyway.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    I have tried numerous times to use microfilm for general purpose photography with a number of different developers said to be useful with it. Never had any decent results As you go to finer and finer grained emulsions their latitude is also diminished. TANSTAAFL!!
    Agree completely. Although people hope to get larger format results with these films, I've said many times I have yet to see a print from any of these document films that looked like anything but a print from a document film. No free lunch.

    On the other hand I'm all for experimentation.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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