# Using Ortho film: Why is film continuous tone?



## Vautrin

Hi,

So I picked up a roll of Rollei Retro Orthographic 25 just to play with and see what kind of pictures it shoots.

I've had some trouble getting it developed:

First the lab wanted to know if i shot "continous tone" or letter images
Then the lab wanted more money to develop because ortho films require a special process
Lastly the woman from the lab mentioned the negatives didn't look like any she'd seen before, and she was mailing them back today

Anybody know what I got myself into?

What is continuous tone and what is letter?  

Any tips on shooting orthographic film?

Sometimes I buy strange films just to see how I shoot, so I'm comfortable if the pictures turn out terrible.  But I'm more curious as to how I can shoot this type of film and get interesting results...

And it's still two or three days before I'll actually receive my negatives so I'm dying to see the result.... =)

Thanks,

Dan


----------



## Torus34

Orthographic films were the precursers of today's panchromatic b&w films.  They were less sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, permitting them to be developed by actual visual inspection under dim red light.  One of their interesting characteristics was that people's lips printed somewhat darker than with modern panchromatic films.

The lab's questions regarding continuous or 'letter' probably indicated some confusion on their part.  They may have confused your film with high-contrast types used for eliminating grey shades.  Ortho films are 'continuous tone'.

The 'standard' ortho film for many years was 'Verichrome'.  Some confusion occurred when Big Yellow [Kodak] named one of their newer films 'Verichrome Pan'.

Have fun.  Enjoy your 'experiments'.


----------



## Derrel

The lab personnel probably were thinking of Kodalith ortho, which is a very high-contrast film often used to make line art and titles.


----------



## Dwig

Technically "ortho" (orthochromatic) refers to a film's spectral sensitivity (what colors it is sensitive to) and has nothing to do with its contrast. The lab's confusion arises from the fact that ortho films were replaced 60-70 years ago by "pan" (panochromatic) films in the types used for conventional photography, what they were referring to as "continuous tone". They continued only in graphic arts films, such as Kodak's Kodalith. This long period of the only ortho films made being lithographic films (high contrast graphics arts films) has lead many to use "ortho" when they mean "litho", (e.g. "Kodalith Ortho" being abbreviated to "ortho" instead of "lith" or "litho").

When they saw "ortho" on your Rollei film they confused it with the graphic arts films. They apparently weren't familiar with the Rollei product.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> The lab personnel probably were thinking of Kodalith ortho, which is a very high-contrast film often used to make line art and titles.



No, again you're wrong. Stop answering questions here. You are insufficiently equipped to do so.

Very slow films tend to have high-contrast and are used as 'microfilms' to photograph text. They can in some cases be developed (using special soft-working developers) to give normal contrast. Kodak Technical Pan was such a film, and Technidol developer was the special developer for it.

Litho films (such as Kodalith Ortho) are even contrastier and cannot easily be developed for normal contrast.

There have been panchromatic litho films and ortho(chromatic) continuous-tone films. 'Ortho' and 'litho' are not synonyms.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lab personnel probably were thinking of Kodalith ortho, which is a very high-contrast film often used to make line art and titles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, again you're wrong. Stop answering questions here. You are insufficiently equipped to do so.
> 
> Very slow films tend to have high-contrast and are used as 'microfilms' to photograph text. They can in some cases be developed (using special soft-working developers) to give normal contrast. Kodak Technical Pan was such a film, and Technidol developer was the special developer for it.
> 
> Litho films (such as Kodalith Ortho) are even contrastier and cannot easily be developed for normal contrast.
> 
> There have been panchromatic litho films and ortho(chromatic) continuous-tone films. 'Ortho' and 'litho' are not synonyms.
Click to expand...


Douchey answer Pee Pee... $100 says the newbies at the lab thought "ortho" meant Kodalith. I was a newspaper darkroom tech and photographer for a number of years. I have probably developed more film than you'll ever encounter in your life P-P...you're funny!!!


----------



## Helen B

Rollei Ortho is a document film, rather like Technical Pan in the respect that it is naturally very high contrast (though they have very different spectral sensitivities). It has to be developed in a low contrast developer to get pictorial results. It seems quite reasonable and intelligent for the lab to ask what contrast you wish it to be developed to. It's not unusual for labs to ask for more money to develop high contrast document films to pictorial contrast.

I would really recommend developing it yourself, if at all possible.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lab personnel probably were thinking of Kodalith ortho, which is a very high-contrast film often used to make line art and titles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, again you're wrong. Stop answering questions here. You are insufficiently equipped to do so.
> 
> Very slow films tend to have high-contrast and are used as 'microfilms' to photograph text. They can in some cases be developed (using special soft-working developers) to give normal contrast. Kodak Technical Pan was such a film, and Technidol developer was the special developer for it.
> 
> Litho films (such as Kodalith Ortho) are even contrastier and cannot easily be developed for normal contrast.
> 
> There have been panchromatic litho films and ortho(chromatic) continuous-tone films. 'Ortho' and 'litho' are not synonyms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Douchey answer Pee Pee... $100 says the newbies at the lab thought "ortho" meant Kodalith. I was a newspaper darkroom tech and photographer for a number of years. I have probably developed more film than you'll ever encounter in your life P-P...you're funny!!!
Click to expand...


Hardly possible. I have developed thousands of rolls in 46 years.

It sounds like the lab was asking what Helen also thinks: document or pictorial development? I understood it perfectly. So did the lab. So did Helen. The fact that you didn't means you should not be here answering questions. Get out. Everything you think you know is wrong. Your posts are ill-informed and misleading to people. You have no business here and replying to correct the misinformation you hand out is a waste of my valuable time. Get out!


----------



## Alpha

Me too. I shoot a lot of Kodak Contrast ortho in 4x5 at ISO 12 and develop in HC-110 1:100 for 10+ minutes (after 10 or 12 minutes I get diminishing returns on development). If I gave the film to a lab I would fully expect that I needed to tell them to develop it in this manner.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

I'm hopeful that any further name calling will cease.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Vautrin said:


> Hi,
> 
> So I picked up a roll of Rollei Retro Orthographic 25 just to play with and see what kind of pictures it shoots.
> 
> I've had some trouble getting it developed:
> 
> First the lab wanted to know if i shot "continous tone" or letter images
> Then the lab wanted more money to develop because ortho films require a special process
> Lastly the woman from the lab mentioned the negatives didn't look like any she'd seen before, and she was mailing them back today
> 
> Anybody know what I got myself into?
> 
> What is continuous tone and what is letter?
> 
> Any tips on shooting orthographic film?
> 
> Sometimes I buy strange films just to see how I shoot, so I'm comfortable if the pictures turn out terrible.  But I'm more curious as to how I can shoot this type of film and get interesting results...
> 
> And it's still two or three days before I'll actually receive my negatives so I'm dying to see the result.... =)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dan



This is not the sort of material I would send to a lab.


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> This is not the sort of material I would send to a lab.



I don't see why not. Any professional lab should be capable of developing it. In this instance in particular, the lab had the good sense to ask if the OP wanted it developed as continuous tone or high contrast, which indicates that they know how to develop it either way...


----------



## Vautrin

So can I use the high contrast mode for dramatic effect?

What will it look like?  Just black and white, no gray tones?


----------



## Vautrin

Chris of Arabia said:


> I'm hopeful that any further name calling will cease.



Agreed.  Please don't hijack my post.  PM each other if you must flame.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Vautrin said:


> So can I use the high contrast mode for dramatic effect?
> 
> What will it look like?  Just black and white, no gray tones?



I would not do that at this stage. I would use it to try to achieve conventional contrast, and end up with normal-contrast negatives which could be printed either normally or for high contrast..


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the sort of material I would send to a lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why not. Any professional lab should be capable of developing it. In this instance in particular, the lab had the good sense to ask if the OP wanted it developed as continuous tone or high contrast, which indicates that they know how to develop it either way...
Click to expand...


Yes, but they may not have the kind of soft-working developers needed and may try to wing it using conventional developers.


----------



## Vautrin

Petraio Prime said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I use the high contrast mode for dramatic effect?
> 
> What will it look like?  Just black and white, no gray tones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not do that at this stage. I would use it to try to achieve conventional contrast, and end up with normal-contrast negatives which could be printed either normally or for high contrast..
Click to expand...


You make a good point... I guess in printing I can always make more contrast, but you can't change the negative?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Vautrin said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I use the high contrast mode for dramatic effect?
> 
> What will it look like?  Just black and white, no gray tones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not do that at this stage. I would use it to try to achieve conventional contrast, and end up with normal-contrast negatives which could be printed either normally or for high contrast..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a good point... I guess in printing I can always make more contrast, but you can't change the negative?
Click to expand...


Correct. Not easily at least.


----------



## Alpha

For pictorial purposes (continuous tone), these kinds of film are shot very SLOWLY (the stuff I shoot I rate at EI 12 or 6), and then developed in a weak or low contrast developer. Alternatively, you could rate it much higher and develop "normally" but the results would not be the same. 

In my experience there is not as much room for toying around with the EI as you might think. It's very easy to end up with really thin negs. You have to find a development process that works for your film and shoot with that in mind.


----------



## Vautrin

So on the rollei site it say the ortho film is perfect for monochrome slides...

How do I develop a negative ortho film to be a positive?


----------



## Alpha

Vautrin said:


> So on the rollei site it say the ortho film is perfect for monochrome slides...
> 
> How do I develop a negative ortho film to be a positive?



Send the film to DR5 unless you're ambitious enough to try the Kodak positive development kit (not recommended).


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the sort of material I would send to a lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why not. Any professional lab should be capable of developing it. In this instance in particular, the lab had the good sense to ask if the OP wanted it developed as continuous tone or high contrast, which indicates that they know how to develop it either way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but they may not have the kind of soft-working developers needed and may try to wing it using conventional developers.
Click to expand...


I've never know any professional lab to "wing it" without permission. I've also never known a pro lab to not have ANY low contrast developer around or something that can be used as a substitute (e.g. dilute HC110).


----------



## Vautrin

Alpha said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So on the rollei site it say the ortho film is perfect for monochrome slides...
> 
> How do I develop a negative ortho film to be a positive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send the film to DR5 unless you're ambitious enough to try the Kodak positive development kit (not recommended).
Click to expand...


What is DR5?  I send them negatives and they make positives?


----------



## Alpha

Pretty much. Not cheap but they do excellent work!


----------



## Mitica100

Helen B said:


> Rollei Ortho is a document film, rather like Technical Pan in the respect that it is naturally very high contrast (though they have very different spectral sensitivities). It has to be developed in a low contrast developer to get pictorial results. It seems quite reasonable and intelligent for the lab to ask what contrast you wish it to be developed to. It's not unusual for labs to ask for more money to develop high contrast document films to pictorial contrast.
> 
> I would really recommend developing it yourself, if at all possible.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



Helen!!!  Glad to see you're gracing with your presence once in a while! We missed you!


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why not. Any professional lab should be capable of developing it. In this instance in particular, the lab had the good sense to ask if the OP wanted it developed as continuous tone or high contrast, which indicates that they know how to develop it either way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they may not have the kind of soft-working developers needed and may try to wing it using conventional developers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never know any professional lab to "wing it" without permission. I've also never known a pro lab to not have ANY low contrast developer around or something that can be used as a substitute (e.g. dilute HC110).
Click to expand...


These films require special low-contrast developers. HC110, even highly diluted, isn't it. Many labs would not have them for such infrequent occasions.


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they may not have the kind of soft-working developers needed and may try to wing it using conventional developers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never know any professional lab to "wing it" without permission. I've also never known a pro lab to not have ANY low contrast developer around or something that can be used as a substitute (e.g. dilute HC110).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These films require special low-contrast developers. HC110, even highly diluted, isn't it. Many labs would not have them for such infrequent occasions.
Click to expand...


I understand your point but you're just wrong. I have developed high contrast orthochromatic films myself using developers other than Technidol or TF4 or whatever. Massive dev chart, in fact, lists times in D-76, ID-11, and Rodinal, among others for this particular film. Find me a pro lab that doesn't have any of those and I'll eat my shorts. http://www.rollei-film.be/Development_Chart_161007.pdf


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never know any professional lab to "wing it" without permission. I've also never known a pro lab to not have ANY low contrast developer around or something that can be used as a substitute (e.g. dilute HC110).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These films require special low-contrast developers. HC110, even highly diluted, isn't it. Many labs would not have them for such infrequent occasions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point but you're just wrong. I have developed high contrast orthochromatic films myself using developers other than Technidol or TF4 or whatever. Massive dev chart, in fact, lists times in D-76, ID-11, and Rodinal, among others for this particular film. Find me a pro lab that doesn't have any of those and I'll eat my shorts. http://www.rollei-film.be/Development_Chart_161007.pdf
Click to expand...


It would be difficult at best, and would require experimentation, something the lab is probably going to be reluctant to do.

These films  require special low-contrast developers for best results.


----------



## Alpha

At the very least we're getting side-tracked here. Why would the lab have asked if he wanted continuous tone if they couldn't do it?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> At the very least we're getting side-tracked here. Why would the lab have asked if he wanted continuous tone if they couldn't do it?



Since I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what they thought, except that from what I can tell they understood the film could be processed as either high-contrast or continuous tone. I doubt that they could do the job right on the first try.


----------



## Alpha

OK now you're just being difficult.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> OK now you're just being difficult.



No, just realistic.


----------



## Alpha

There is no good reason to suggest that the lab cannot develop this in an alternate developer. Indeed, they suggested they were capable of doing so. Further, the comparison to Tech Pan is correct only insofar as both films are slow and require special low contrast developers for _ideal_ results. The similarities end there. Not only is TP not orthochromatic, but it's red sensitivity is greater than most pan films. It is easily possible to get good looking pictorial development out of a film like this using a different developer. Moreover, I would suggest that the only reason Rollei lists only their special developer on the package is because they manufacture it.

And how is your assessment realistic? How many ortho films have you shot?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> There is no good reason to suggest that the lab cannot develop this in an alternate developer. Indeed, they suggested they were capable of doing so. Further, the comparison to Tech Pan is correct only insofar as both films are slow and require special low contrast developers for _ideal_ results. The similarities end there. Not only is TP not orthochromatic, but it's red sensitivity is greater than most pan films. It is easily possible to get good looking pictorial development out of a film like this using a different developer. Moreover, I would suggest that the only reason Rollei lists only their special developer on the package is because they manufacture it.
> 
> And how is your assessment realistic? How many ortho films have you shot?



The 'ortho' property is not the issue, it's the contrast. I tried several rolls of Tech Pan with  Technidol and found it difficult to work with at best.


----------



## Alpha

Just to be clear. you've not shot and/or developed any orthochromatic film. Is that correct?


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Just to be clear. you've not shot and/or developed any orthochromatic film. Is that correct?



Oh, yes I have. Sheet continuous- tone (Tri-X) and Kodalith. As I said, it's not the orthochromatic sensitivity that's the issue, not at all. It's the contrast. _Ortho_ has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear. you've not shot and/or developed any orthochromatic film. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes I have. Sheet continuous- tone (Tri-X) and Kodalith. As I said, it's not the orthochromatic sensitivity that's the issue, not at all. It's the contrast. _Ortho_ has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...



I don't see what TX has to do with this. And Kodalith can be developed for pictorial uses in...wait for it...a dilute non litho developer.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear. you've not shot and/or developed any orthochromatic film. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes I have. Sheet continuous- tone (Tri-X) and Kodalith. As I said, it's not the orthochromatic sensitivity that's the issue, not at all. It's the contrast. _Ortho_ has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see what TX has to do with this. And Kodalith can be developed for pictorial uses in...wait for it...a dilute non litho developer.
Click to expand...


Tri-X Ortho was a _continuous-tone ortho film_. You are still confusing orthochromatic sensitization (blue-to-yellow, insensitive to red) with litho (high contrast). They are two different things. Most litho films were orthochromatic for a number of reasons (but there _were _pan litho films). Most continuous-tone films have been panchromatic since the 1940s, though continuous-tone films ortho films such as Tri-X Ortho, Plus-X Ortho, and Portrait Ortho were around until the 70s or 80s.

Kodalith can be developed for a lower contrast result but it is hard to control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthochromatic


----------



## Alpha

Kodalith was an orthochromatic film. It is you who are confused. Litho has to do with the developer, not the film. Indeed, some films were made to produce certain results with litho developers. But there is nothing litho about the film itself.

The result is not hard to control. You shoot slow and stand develop in a dilute non litho developer. I've done it myself.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Kodalith was an orthochromatic film. It is you who are confused. Litho has to do with the developer, not the film. Indeed, some films were made to produce certain results with litho developers. But there is nothing litho about the film itself.
> 
> The result is not hard to control. You shoot slow and stand develop in a dilute non litho developer. I've done it myself.



Yes, there is.

Litho films in litho developers produced extreme contrast. Litho films in other developers produced lower contrast, true. But they never were easy to control.

Specialized products of this kind were designed to work with others.


----------



## Alpha

The Rollei RHS developer is not specialized! It's just a plain old hydroquinone-based high speed developer!


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> The Rollei RHS developer is not specialized! It's just a plain old hydroquinone-based high speed developer!



I was referring to litho films. They are designed to work in litho developers. 

'Regular' films (ISO 50-400) are designed to work in 'normal' developers such as D-76.

These 'copy' or 'microfilm' films are sort of in-between. The can produce high contrast for microfilm work, when developed in suitable developers (such as D-11 I suppose) or 'normal' contrast when developed in special low-contrast developers (such as Technidol was). Even when using 'normal' developers (such as D-76) there is higher-than-normal contrast.


----------



## Alpha

Have you even looked at the spec sheet for this film? You get normal results using a normal developer. You get high contrast using a high contrast develoer. End of story. No in-between necessary.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Have you even looked at the spec sheet for this film? You get normal results using a normal developer. You get high contrast using a high contrast develoer. End of story. No in-between necessary.



The film is a microfilm type of material, not just a slow film such as Pan-F.


----------



## Alpha

You're not addressing my point. Achieving pictorial results does not require the use of a special developer. I am officially done arguing with your nonsense.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> You're not addressing my point. Achieving pictorial results does not require the use of a special developer. I am officially done arguing with your nonsense.



These films perform best when using a special low-contrast developer. The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false. This seems to be an all-too-common problem on photography discussion forums.

If you read the page it says exactly what I have stated:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/37210...ochromatic-35mm-x-36-exp.-Single-Roll-Unboxed

"The comparable steep gradation is bent by this special developer. Extreme fine grain structures and highest sharpness connected with detailed gray tones, can be reached in such a way."

I think the translation should read:

"The comparatively* steep gradation *is softened by this special developer. "

"The ROLLEI ORTHO 25 is a technical, *steeply working* monochrome photographic film with a nominal sensitivity of ISO 25/15°."

"The ORTHO 25 in combination with the *ROLLEI LOW CONTRAST* developer has compiled itself a legendary call. These results reminiscent of the quality of technical pan-Film. The comparatively* steep gradation *is softened by this special developer. Extremely fine grain structure and the highest sharpness connected with detailed gray tones can be reached in such a way."

*Now*, do you believe me?


----------



## Alpha

That you can produce pictorial results with a low-contrast developer does not mean it's the _only_ way. You keep insisting that a LC developer is required. It is not.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> That you can produce pictorial results with a low-contrast developer does not mean it's the _only_ way. You keep insisting that a LC developer is required. It is not.



I have mentioned that this type of film is *best *when used with such developers. Unsatisfactory results are likely otherwise. The LC developers are not just dilute normal ones. They are formulated differently.

Why are photographers so reluctant to follow the mfr recommendations? Do you have issue with authority? Are you mistrustful? What is your problem?

*Just do what Rollei says.

*Is that so complicated?

Now, the lab is unlikely to have this developer, right? Are you with me so far?

*For that reason, I would not take the film to a lab.*


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you can produce pictorial results with a low-contrast developer does not mean it's the _only_ way. You keep insisting that a LC developer is required. It is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have mentioned that this type of film is *best *when used with such developers.
Click to expand...


I said as much myself. I think we're in agreement on this point.



> Unsatisfactory results are likely otherwise. The LC developers are not just dilute normal ones. They are formulated differently.



I understand that LC developers are different from normal high speed developers. But the idea that "unsatisfactory results are likely otherwise" is simply incorrect. I have developed many sheets of copy film in dilute normal developers and achieved perfectly acceptable- great, even- results.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you can produce pictorial results with a low-contrast developer does not mean it's the _only_ way. You keep insisting that a LC developer is required. It is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have mentioned that this type of film is *best *when used with such developers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said as much myself. I think we're in agreement on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unsatisfactory results are likely otherwise. The LC developers are not just dilute normal ones. They are formulated differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that LC developers are different from normal high speed developers. But the idea that "unsatisfactory results are likely otherwise" is simply incorrect. I have developed many sheets of copy film in dilute normal developers and achieved perfectly acceptable- great, even- results.
Click to expand...


Not everyone wants to do things the hard way just to prove a point. Besides, you may have been a little lucky, and the results may not be so consistent. Others may not be so fortunate. I would hate to think you recommend doing this. I advise following the mfr's recommendations.


----------



## Alpha

Don't knock it till you try it.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Don't knock it till you try it.



Why would anyone who is using such a material want to get anything but the best results from it? Why waste time, money, and effort?


----------



## Alpha

All I will say in reply is that if everyone followed the maxim that the only way to get the "best results" was to follow the rules on the box, life would be very boring. To illustrate this point, and one I made earlier, if you read the spec sheet for Delta 100, Ilford will swear that the only way to get the "best overall image quality" is to use Ilfotec-DDX or ID-11, and the only way to get "maximum sharpness" or "finest grain" is to develop in Ilfotec HC or Perceptol. Having shot a lot of Delta 100, I could not be more convinced that the best prints are from Delta 100 negatives that have been developed in a staining developer.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> All I will say in reply is that if everyone followed the maxim that the only way to get the "best results" was to follow the rules on the box, life would be very boring. To illustrate this point, and one I made earlier, if you read the spec sheet for Delta 100, Ilford will swear that the only way to get the "best overall image quality" is to use Ilfotec-DDX or ID-11, and the only way to get "maximum sharpness" or "finest grain" is to develop in Ilfotec HC or Perceptol. Having shot a lot of Delta 100, I could not be more convinced that the best prints are from Delta 100 negatives that have been developed in a staining developer.



Well I was referring specifically to specialist materials. I am well aware that various developers have subtle to significant effects. This is a different case. In general, one should start with recommended procedures. Once those are mastered the experimentation can begin. In any case, all of those would be 'recommended'.

Using litho developer for Tri-X Pan for instance falls outside of 'recommended procedures'.


----------



## Alpha

You're just harping on this "specialist" thing. What do you have to say regarding the spec sheet's remark that "With highest requirements in terms of sharpness and extreme fine grain, the ROLLEI ORTHO 25 offers excellent results in combination with the fine grain balance developer ROLLEI HIGH SPEED (LP SUPERGRAIN)"? Further, what do you have to say about the fact that the slope of the density curve for the film in D-76 for 4 minutes is remarkably similar to the 4 minutes density curve in RHS? 

Just because they compare it to tech pan in their flashy little blurb where they try to sell you on RLC developer in the spec sheet, that doesn't mean all other developers will produce crap results. What part of "Standard Processing" do you not understand?

To address the original problem you posed (whether or not the lab could develop it), I imagine the scenario going something like this:
1) Lab gets film. Sees that it's slow and ortho.
2) Lab call and asks if OP wants it HC or continuous tone. OP says continuous tone.
3) Lab googles "Rollei ortho 25" and finds spec sheet.
4) Lab reads spec sheet's instruction for "Standard Processing," for which they recommend RHS.
5) Lab does not have RHS but they have D-76, which, as the spec sheet shows, has a very similar density curve.
6) Lab develops in D-76.

Or, we could settle this the easy way. Once the OP gets their film back and determines that the results are, indeed, continuous tone, the OP can call the lab and ask what they developed in. Clearly it was not in RLC.

I will also add that if the results come back very contrasty, that does not mean the developer was improper. It simply means the film needs to be shot with the development in mind, as always.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> You're just harping on this "specialist" thing. What do you have to say regarding the spec sheet's remark that "With highest requirements in terms of sharpness and extreme fine grain, the ROLLEI ORTHO 25 offers excellent results in combination with the fine grain balance developer ROLLEI HIGH SPEED (LP SUPERGRAIN)"? Further, what do you have to say about the fact that the slope of the density curve for the film in D-76 for 4 minutes is remarkably similar to the 4 minutes density curve in RHS?
> 
> Just because they compare it to tech pan in their flashy little blurb where they try to sell you on RLC developer in the spec sheet, that doesn't mean all other developers will produce crap results. What part of "Standard Processing" do you not understand?
> 
> To address the original problem you posed (whether or not the lab could develop it), I imagine the scenario going something like this:
> 1) Lab gets film. Sees that it's slow and ortho.
> 2) Lab call and asks if OP wants it HC or pictorial. OP says pictorial.
> 3) Lab googles "Rollei ortho 25" and finds spec sheet.
> 4) Lab reads spec sheet's instruction for "Standard Processing," for which they recommend RHS.
> 5) Lab does not have RHS but they have D-76, which, as the spec sheet shows, has a very similar density curve.
> 6) Lab develops in D-76.
> 
> Or, we could settle this the easy way. Once the OP gets their film back and determines that the results are, indeed, pictorial, the OP can call the lab and ask what they developed in. Clearly it was not in RLC.



I am not harping on the 'specialist thing'. The film *is *a special material!

I don't know if the lab would necessarily think of doing that. You may be giving them way too much credit.

In any event, I have already *told *you that these films require gentler than normal contrast developers, and that no matter how much you dilute D-76 or anything else it won't give the same results.

Notice, now, *I *have told *you*. This is a statement of *fact*, not to be disputed. You have been told. Don't question it or me again.

Do you understand me?

The answer to the Op's question is to get the proper developer and work with it himself.

Erwin Puts says:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page32.html

"The document films, of which the Kodak Techpan was one of the main products, have a mixed reputation. They are certainly grain free, but the steep CI value demands special developers to get a decent curve suited for pictorial use. High resolving power is the second property that attracts users. But one does not always need that level of resolution and sometimes the claims are greatly exaggerated."


----------



## Alpha

Petraio Prime said:


> In any event, I have already *told *you that these films require gentler than normal contrast developers, and that no matter how much you dilute D-76 it won't give the same results.



The films do not _require_ much of anything for continuous tone results except a developer that is not high-contrast. The bar we are trying to reach here, as asked by the lab, is whether we want continuous tone or not. Will a negative developed in RLC look the same as one developed in RHS? No, of course not. The density curve of the former is probably less steep than the latter (The "required" RLC developer does not have a curve in the spec sheet because RHS is *standard*). But both are continuous tone.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Alpha said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any event, I have already *told *you that these films require gentler than normal contrast developers, and that no matter how much you dilute D-76 it won't give the same results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The films do not _require_ much of anything for continuous tone results except a developer that is not high-contrast. The bar we are trying to reach here, as asked by the lab, is whether we want continuous tone or not. Will a negative developed in RLC look the same as one developed in RHS? No, of course not. The density curve of the former is probably less steep than the latter (The "required" RLC developer does not have a curve in the spec sheet because RHS is *standard*). But both are continuous tone.
Click to expand...


But why bother with a specialist material just to get so-so results? I have worked with slow films a lot, from Adox KB14 to Technical Pan, and other special films. They are very tough to work with and have limited latitude.

I would advise using Fuji Neopan Acros and D-76 1:1. Rate at 50-64. Tough to beat.


----------



## dxqcanada

Rollei Ortho25

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...Y-kVfJGKWljg0SJNg&sig2=ljqRjsscFBdjcBUsp6ejLQ

Kodalith Ortho
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...my7kEu1unvrcdDIPA&sig2=Di6SlSXFer38TzfZOcuxew


----------



## Alpha

Yes, they're difficult to work with. But I actually find them much easier to develop, especially since you can do it by inspection. But then again I only shoot the stuff in sheet, not roll film. I think the dynamic range of the film is great, actually, if you shoot and develop properly. You have to be very careful not to overexpose because the highlight detail is very finicky with these films. But the results can be great, even when developed in something otherwise very boring like HC-110 Dilution G. The images are very creamy yet razor sharp at the same time.


----------



## beala




----------



## Alpha

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82uem2A0q8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82uem2A0q8[/ame]


----------



## Petraio Prime

beala said:


>




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtwlHV1-O8[/ame]


----------



## Vautrin

Alpha said:


> Or, we could settle this the easy way. Once the OP gets their film back and determines that the results are, indeed, continuous tone, the OP can call the lab and ask what they developed in. Clearly it was not in RLC.



Perhaps that is the best way to deal with this.

I will find out what developer my lab used, and in two or three days when I receive my film, I'll post some pictures to show the results...


----------



## Vautrin

I called up the photo lab I used, and the developer was in fact Rollei LC (low contrast).  (They're a german photo lab, maybe that's why they use Rollei chemistry, and they do good work (and speak english) Photo Studio 13 - Fachlabor und Digitalservice in Leinfelden-Echterdingen bei Stuttgart or info@photostudio13.de)

In terms of pictures, below are some of my results.  These were all shot in the dutch province of Zeeland with a Mamiya RZ67, and scanned using a Canoscan 8800F.  Minimal postproduction was done, just cropping and making sure the histogram wasn't bunched up to one side.

The weird thing with the film is those white spots are actually black splotches on the edge of the negative.  Anyone know what might cause that?  I did abuse the film a little (I left it in a hot car when it was 40C / 100F out)

 Keep in mind I was playing around, not really looking for great shots just to see how the film looks, so any errors in composition are my fault not the film :

#1






#2





#3





#4




#5






I think I'd like to shoot a roll of Ortho and compare it with the retro or maybe some ilford HP5.  I may post the pictures at some point -- I think it could be interesting, because it's hard to see how the lack of red sensitivity effects the way the picture looks.


----------



## Alpha

The spots seem like light leaks. Why they're in different places I don't know. Are these shot on 120? This can be sometimes be caused by sloppiness when rolling up your film.

Guess we'll never know the answer to the developer question.


----------



## Vautrin

Alpha said:


> The spots seem like light leaks. Why they're in different places I don't know. Are these shot on 120? This can be sometimes be caused by sloppiness when rolling up your film.
> 
> Guess we'll never know the answer to the developer question.



I'm tempted to give them another roll and tell them not to develop it in rollei LC just to see what it looks like


----------



## Petraio Prime

Vautrin said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spots seem like light leaks. Why they're in different places I don't know. Are these shot on 120? This can be sometimes be caused by sloppiness when rolling up your film.
> 
> Guess we'll never know the answer to the developer question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to give them another roll and tell them not to develop it in rollei LC just to see what it looks like
Click to expand...


Looks like a good lab!


----------



## epatsellis

Alpha said:


> All I will say in reply is that if everyone followed the maxim that the only way to get the "best results" was to follow the rules on the box, life would be very boring. To illustrate this point, and one I made earlier, if you read the spec sheet for Delta 100, Ilford will swear that the only way to get the "best overall image quality" is to use Ilfotec-DDX or ID-11, and the only way to get "maximum sharpness" or "finest grain" is to develop in Ilfotec HC or Perceptol. Having shot a lot of Delta 100, I could not be more convinced that the best prints are from Delta 100 negatives that have been developed in a staining developer.


Wow, and to think, some of us use lith film (real lith film) in ULF sizes due to cost, between 16x20 and 20x24, I have probably 1000 sheets sitting here,total cost of $0. Dektol 1:9 with a pinch of benzo and sodium sulphite and it get wonderful contone negs every time. Makes splendid gum bichromate prints. Granted the EI of around 6 is limiting, but you can't have it all. I also have a 42" roll of Agfa N31P I've been working through, EI of 25, but trickier to get the exposure nailed. 

Then there's the xray film, as well as cross processing (Fuji CDU dupe film being my present favorite, due to having ~500 sheets of it), pyro developers, caffenol, self mixed developers, the list just goes on and on. I"m with you Alpha, if one has the desire to experiment, why not???


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I will say in reply is that if everyone followed the maxim that the only way to get the "best results" was to follow the rules on the box, life would be very boring. To illustrate this point, and one I made earlier, if you read the spec sheet for Delta 100, Ilford will swear that the only way to get the "best overall image quality" is to use Ilfotec-DDX or ID-11, and the only way to get "maximum sharpness" or "finest grain" is to develop in Ilfotec HC or Perceptol. Having shot a lot of Delta 100, I could not be more convinced that the best prints are from Delta 100 negatives that have been developed in a staining developer.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, and to think, some of us use lith film (real lith film) in ULF sizes due to cost, between 16x20 and 20x24, I have probably 1000 sheets sitting here,total cost of $0. Dektol 1:9 with a pinch of benzo and sodium sulphite and it get wonderful contone negs every time. Makes splendid gum bichromate prints. Granted the EI of around 6 is limiting, but you can't have it all. I also have a 42" roll of Agfa N31P I've been working through, EI of 25, but trickier to get the exposure nailed.
> 
> Then there's the xray film, as well as cross processing (Fuji CDU dupe film being my present favorite, due to having ~500 sheets of it), pyro developers, caffenol, self mixed developers, the list just goes on and on. I"m with you Alpha, if one has the desire to experiment, why not???
Click to expand...



Sure, go ahead. But first understand the way the materials bare _supposed_ to work.


----------



## Vautrin

Petraio Prime said:


> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I will say in reply is that if everyone followed the maxim that the only way to get the "best results" was to follow the rules on the box, life would be very boring. To illustrate this point, and one I made earlier, if you read the spec sheet for Delta 100, Ilford will swear that the only way to get the "best overall image quality" is to use Ilfotec-DDX or ID-11, and the only way to get "maximum sharpness" or "finest grain" is to develop in Ilfotec HC or Perceptol. Having shot a lot of Delta 100, I could not be more convinced that the best prints are from Delta 100 negatives that have been developed in a staining developer.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, and to think, some of us use lith film (real lith film) in ULF sizes due to cost, between 16x20 and 20x24, I have probably 1000 sheets sitting here,total cost of $0. Dektol 1:9 with a pinch of benzo and sodium sulphite and it get wonderful contone negs every time. Makes splendid gum bichromate prints. Granted the EI of around 6 is limiting, but you can't have it all. I also have a 42" roll of Agfa N31P I've been working through, EI of 25, but trickier to get the exposure nailed.
> 
> Then there's the xray film, as well as cross processing (Fuji CDU dupe film being my present favorite, due to having ~500 sheets of it), pyro developers, caffenol, self mixed developers, the list just goes on and on. I"m with you Alpha, if one has the desire to experiment, why not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. But first understand the way the materials bare _supposed_ to work.
Click to expand...



If you are doing something as a hobby, then I think you should do whatever you want.

If trying to cross process xray film in e6 chemistry, or making your own uranium based film makes you happy, have at it.


----------

