Posted on

Of Colored Filters and T-Max 100

As some of you may know, we’re going on vacation to Iceland coming up here soon. As part of my (over) preparation, I decided to upgrade and add to my filter collection. As an aside I’ve made quite a few accessories for the trip, some of which I have already teased which includes some circular and rectangular filter cases which I’m rather fond of.

Anyways! Among the filters I decided to pick up were Hoya X0 (light green) and X1 (green) filters. I’ve never used green filters but it seemed like something worth trying going to a country with lots of green things. My main black and white film will be T-Max 100 so I decided to use one of my recently expired rolls of TMX in 120. This also let me test a new film back for my Hasselblad while doing so. The test was simply taking photos of my color chart on our outdoor seat during the mid afternoon on a cloudy day. I metered on the middle grey patch of the color chart which matched the incident reading as well. Here are the results:

Here’s a flatbed scan of the PrintFile sleeves of the film I shot. So it’s not the sharpest but the goal here was to just compare the color swatches to my X-Rite Color Chart. The exposures go left to right and down and are as follows:

  • 1: No filter
  • 2: Hoya K2 Yellow
  • 3: Tiffen Yel 15 (more of an orange)
  • 4: Tiffen Red 25
  • 5: Hoya X0 (light green)
  • 6: Hoya X1 (green)
  • 7: K2 without any exposure compensation (so same shutter speed as shot 1)
  • 8: G0 without any exposure compensation (so same shutter speed as shot 1)
  • 9: Pretty sure I messed up my aperture setting on this one
  • 10: X0 with +2 exposure, though also messed up my aperture
  • 11: X1 with +3 exposure
  • 12: X0 with +2 exposure

I developed this roll in Zone Imaging’s 510-Pyro (which by the way we do carry on the store!) at 1:100 for 12:30 with 404ml working solution in my DIY rotary. I don’t think that plays a huge role here but 510 is likely the developer I will be using to develop most of my black and white films from the trip.

As an aside, Mrs. BitByBit Photo gives me a hard time to this day about how much that color chart cost for what amounts to color dyes on plastic. But nonetheless, it gives a good sampling of lots of colors I might see in the field. I’ll admit though a color chart won’t necessarily tell the whole story. Either way, here is what it actually looks like (taken from my phone):

So far my initial conclusions are that the X0 and X1 seem fairly similar to the yellow filters though are less steep on the light blue shades. I expected a bit bigger of a difference, and that may be the case with other films perhaps. I was surprised to see how much of a difference there was with the K2 filter. I often see TMX mentioned as having a “built-in yellow filter” and while I actually also tend to agree, it’s probably very mild or at least shows that the K2 still has a noticeable effect compared to no filter. This was actually the main reason I decided to do this test and I’m glad I did as that was somewhat unexpected.

From an exposure compensation perspective, I think the exposure compensation provided by Hoya and Tiffen is pretty spot on. Noting I used whole stops here and rounded to the nearest slower shutter speed for values in the middle. I do think the Red filter could use a bit more exposure based on the above though. Not by much, but by a little. I used my (recently CLA’d) Hasselblad with 80mm lens for these tests so there could also be some mechanical tolerances going on here, though that’s what I would experience in the field anyway and not something I wanted to worry about here.

I had already planned to bring all these filters and if I have a chance where I feel like I can burn some film on a particular scene, I might re-run these tests out in the field with a real subject just to see what comes of it. All told, part of the reason I got the K2 and X0 filters was for being able to double as protection filters, noting the unpredictable weather (including rain and wind) that I may experience while up there.

So there you go! Not particularly scientific but I learned something there and perhaps you did too!

Posted on

Initial Infrared Tests With Astrum/Svema FN64

As I’ve been slowly getting into 8×10 large format photography, I’ve been wanting an 8×10 infrared film stock since I really enjoy taking IR photos using Rollei IR 400 in 4×5 (even with some of the annoying caveats). Until recently, I didn’t think there was an available solution (apart from super expired and expensive film), and while there’s varying opinions about whether FN64 is still being manufactured, it is available “new” from Astrum (a Ukranian based photographic company, of note). I managed to get my hands on some to test by way of a group buy and thought I would provide my initial findings:

FN64
Svema FN64
Rollei IR
Rollei IR 400

These were taken minutes apart using an R72 filter and metered the same way. I bracketed 5 and 6 stops so for FN64, I rated it at an effective ISO of 1 and 2; and for Rollei IR 6 and 12. Oddly the Rollei came out a but underexposed and I also under-developed it slightly. That may explain why it seems to have a more dramatic appearance. Both were developed in Adox XT-3 (Replenished) in my DIY rotary. I picked the 1 ISO shot for FN64 and the ISO 6 for Rollei IR (more on that in a bit).

These images have been “dodged and burned” in Lightroom but with similar treatments to both. I wanted to compare results of how I would make an actual darkroom print rather than just a raw scan, although the raw scans aren’t too far off – I just accentuated the darkened sky a bit more and burned in the water some.

These were both shot in 4×5 – I only have 25 sheets of FN64 in 8×10 and didn’t want to break those out until I have a good working process in 4×5. FN64, like Rollei IR, is on a thin base. This is true for 35mm as well and, though I haven’t opened the 8×10 package yet, I expect it to be on a similarly thin base. That makes for a potentially challenging situation but one I hope I can work with. Being able to make contact prints for an 8×10 IR negative would be quite something!

The results are pretty close I would say. Of course, FN64 has lower grain and, being a much slower shutter speed (I believe 2 seconds), has more movement in the tree leaves though I quite like that. Unfortunately both sheets have some annoying blemishes. The FN64 has what looks like streaks running left to right which can be seen in the sky. I’m not sure if they would print through in the darkroom but they are definitely there in the scan. The Rollei IR has lots of pinholes (also in the sky). Oddly more than I usually get. Similarly, the other sheets from both films had one half of the image slightly darker divided right along the middle. I think this may be an issue in the camera (my Chamonix bellows aren’t fully IR safe and perhaps that’s enough to cause an issue, or there’s an issue with my holders – though I used two different brands for these tests).

I used a pre-wet for both films which I commonly do when using XT-3 in replenishment. For Rollei IR I tend to prefer 510-Pyro and expect that will be a good match for FN64. I started with XT-3 since it’s more economical to do film tests with. That and my last bottle of 510-Pyro seems to have crystalized in a weird way and opted not to risk it for these tests. My plan is to use the DeFehr semi-stand agitation method for both (probably in my SP-8×10 tank) and compare those results. The minimal agitation, I hope, will help avoid the pinholes for Rollei IR (it has helped in the past) and might perhaps avoid those developing streaks.

Thing about IR is there’s more of a guessing game going on since you can’t directly meter for the IR anyway which makes semi-stand development a reasonable trade-off I think. I don’t expect perfectly printable negatives necessarily. In the past using 510-Pyro with Rollei IR has made for some fairly easy to print negatives though and I hope FN64 will prove to be the same. If so, it might just be the solution I’ve been looking for in 8×10!

That is until Ilford finally decides to offer SFX 200 in sheets…. (that’ll be the day!)

Posted on

Product Photography On Film: Part 2

A week or so ago, I announced BitChrome 100, which is Kodak 5294 (E100D) re-spooled into 100ft rolls suitable for use with still film bulk loaders. The main reason for doing this was so I could bulk load E100 film for doing product photography. Most of the time, I don’t need 36 exposures per roll and doing it this way allows me to only load what I need and minimize waste. Even bulk loaded, E100D isn’t cheap stuff!

While I also plan on sending film to a lab (such as The Slide Printer, who confirmed they will process bulk rolled film), I’ve also been testing out the Bellini E6 kit. I’m fond of this kit since it uses separate bleach and fix. My first go round wasn’t the best as I was pretty sure I missed the proper developing time for the 1st developer (arguably the most important) and under-developed the film. So this time I opted not to rotary process and, instead, used my steel 35mm tank, following the instructions more precisely and using a tempered bath that I was periodically refilling. I also left the film in the 1st developer for 7 minutes instead of 6. The Bellini kit recommends this for Fuji films but I had a hunch I should try it for E100 as well.

Turns out I think between that and my better processing, I ended up with much better results this time! I also improved my lighting setup substantially. I now have 2 LED light panels where I can set the white balance to 5600K (what E100 notes is daylight based on the datasheet). This also means I have much faster shutter speeds for doing actual product work, which is nice. I also now have a digital shutter release cable/trigger for my F100. I quite like the F100 but doing away with the mechanical release was a bummer.

Anyways I decided I should do a bracket test:

As before I checked the camera meter, and did an incident and reflective meter reading on my Sekonic and all were in agreement. Then I shot a total of 8 shots between -3 and +4 using my X-Rite Color Checker card as a boring but accurate subject. I then scanned them using both Epson Scan and Silverfast using my V800.

Here’s the raw results:

Epson:

Silverfast:

The conclusions I reached are that, yes, the metered exposure seems to be the correct one based on the gray scales on the color chart. But I think I actually like +1 or even +2 better. This does crush the highlights more though still shows recoverable tone when looking at the gray patches and seems to be easier for my Epson to scan. It also lifts the shadows more and seems to give me a bit more room to work. The +1 also seems to remove the color cast that my scanner seems to be good at picking up. For the metered exposure, I can white-balance the cast out but the raw scan seems more accurate.

I should say the above tests were mostly untouched. I cropped the photos a bit and also set the white balance of each exposure using either middle gray or next brighter swatch. That was it.

Surprisingly I find Epson Scan did a better job with the slides than Silverfast. For Silverfast I used Multiple Exposure. Perhaps that wasn’t the best choice and in fact I’ve had mostly miss results with using that settings. Even so, epson scan is usually quicker anyway although I really like and prefer Silverfast when scanning C-41.

What this tells me is scanning slides, at least 35mm ones, on my Epson is maybe not the best option. Part of this product photography experiment included downsizing my digital camera setup. I’m not sure if my D80 can really do the slides justice but that will be the next thing to try (and as an aside I really do like the CCD look of my D80 vs the D750 when I had it). I generally prefer the flatbed scanning workflow though.

This test also really only gives me information for the Bellini kit and my processing with it. The next step is to do an exposure test to send over to a lab I think and compare that way. Certainly a lab adds cost but these aren’t extravagant relative to the film cost itself.

So there ya go! I should make clear, these results are what I landed on for my process and methods. They may be different for you! I am very curious about how this compares to lab developed film so I suspect that will probably be part 3 of this little mini-series. Until then, if you want to grab up your own 100 ft roll of BitChrome 100, you can do so here.

Posted on

Introducing BitChrome 100 & My Product Photography Experiment

First and foremost, let me introduce you to BitChrome 100!

A 100ft can of BitChrome 100

BitChrome 100 is Kodak 5294 (E100D) that has been hand-spooled from a fresh 400ft roll down to 100ft rolls suitable for loading into typical still film bulk loaders (such as the Lloyd, Watson, Bobinquick, etc.). I’m not yet sure if I’ll continue to re-roll 5294. It depends on interest and how folks that participated in the first batch like it.

400ft can of Kodak 5294 (E100D)

The reason I went down this road was actually as a bit of an experiment. I sell analog photography accessories and it occurred to me it would be interesting to take my product photos ON film. A lot of folks who wax poetic about film (myself included) talk about how it slows you down. I haven’t enjoyed product photography all that much and I think it has showed in my results. The idea of using film though, indeed, slows me down and makes me more deliberate and thoughtful on taking good photos.

In fact I’ve already done this. Surprise surprise the above shot was taken ON BitChrome 100! And admittedly it shows a bit. Not because of BitChrome but because I under-developed the film. This was my first time developing E-6 film using the Bellini kit and I miss-timed the first development step. Doh! I need to work on that.

Testing exposure and development using a color chart. Film ended up fairly dense due to under-development.

But why 5294? The big issue was, when taking product photos on 35mm, running through 36 exposures isn’t always ideal. If I’m only adding 1 or 2 new products that only require a few photos each, now I have the rest of the roll I need to figure out what to do with. By using the movie stock, I can short roll down to whatever frames I might actually need and just develop that. There is some space used on the ends but when you consider the raw cost of a 400ft roll of Kodak 5294, it ends up being quite economical.

If Kodak Alaris were to offer 100ft spools, I would have just done that. For whatever reason they don’t (but they should) so instead I simply ordered from Kodak Rochester directly. That results in a substantial discount and is why I was looking at bringing out BitChrome 100 so other folks have a more affordable bulk roll option for E100D. Note that I’m only planning on offering 100ft spools and not small 36exp canisters. That said, bulk rolling your own film is both cost effective and fun!

If you’re interested in buying some BitChrome 100, have a look at our store or contact us directly!

– Tim