Using Ortho film: Why is film continuous tone?

[Petraio Prime]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.