Ortho

[Stephen Batey]

Sparked by Ian's thread on development by inspection.

Has anyone here tried ortho film, and, if so, how did you find the different renderings compared to panchromatic film?

 

[Keith Haithwaite]

I last used it years ago when it was cheap - it 'aint cheap now! Sadly I can't remember too much about it now though.

 

[alexmuir]

I have a box of the Ilford version, and tried some recently. I had been interested in using it for portraits after seeing some people photographs on another forum. It gives quite dark skin tones compared to normal films, and the general effect is of an old fashioned photograph, perhaps from early to mid 20th century. I quite like the effect, although my own attempts were not very good. I'm not too bothered about development by inspection, although that is what I did. I think I rated it at 80ASA, and developed in ID11 stock for 10 mins at 20c (I would need to check to be sure). The combination gave printable negatives. I should say that I managed to pick up a box quite cheaply, otherwise I may not have bothered. I intend using it again, but trying to construct better images this time. I will also use a tank as the open tray method of development an be pretty messy.
Alex.

 

[Stephen Batey]

Skin tones (as opposed to lips) presumably depend on the peron's complexion? I was photographed at Focus some years ago on a 10x8 camera using Ilford's direct positive paper (they were demonstrating it using a 10x8 camera and an on-stand darkroom). I didn't think I came out any darker than I'd expect despite the paper being ortho.

 

[Keith Haithwaite]

"... and the general effect is of an old fashioned photograph, perhaps from early to mid 20th century" many pros and almost certainly all amateurs used ortho film during this period until the mid 1950's when Kodak's Verichrome (ortho) became Verichrome Pan(chromatic). I do believe that Ilfords Selochrome Pan preceded this but I have no further info.

 

[Stephen Batey]

I was sufficiently interested to dig out a few old British Journal of Photography Almanacs. I've only checked a few, and doubtless could narrow things down a bit more, but the following is relevant.

BJP 1951
Kodak advertisement
Verichrome is listed without further details, but Panatomic X and Plus X are described as panchromatic

Ilford list HP3 and FP3 as panchromatic, and Selochrome as ortho. No mention of a Selochrome Pan.

BJP1957
Move on a few years (I checked 1956 - no change) but in 1957 the Kodak advertisment describes the "new, fast verichjrome pan" which it says now replaces Plus X in roll film sizes. Ilford are still listing the same films as in 1951.

I have later BJP almanacs, but they aren't in order, and are in a pile behind another pile of books, so it would take an overwhelming curiosity on my part to venture there...

Post scriptum
I did just pop back and remove the easily reachable volumes (1946 was next to 1962, so definitely a random access filing system). By 1962, Selochrome Pan makes it to the advertisement.

 

[Keith Haithwaite]

Thanks for the info Stephen, most of my old stuff (now a treasure trove of info) got dumped when we downsized home some thirty years ago. I still find the odd volume hiding away in long forgotten dusty spaces so 'random' filing systems do have their advantages methinks.

 

[alexmuir]

Skin tones (as opposed to lips) presumably depend on the peron's complexion? I was photographed at Focus some years ago on a 10x8 camera using Ilford's direct positive paper (they were demonstrating it using a 10x8 camera and an on-stand darkroom). I didn't think I came out any darker than I'd expect despite the paper being ortho.

I have used the Ilford DPP myself and, when developed in Caffenol, I felt that skin in portraits had a more 'solid' feel. That was in artificial light from flash, however, which is not ideal for this material. I understand that daylight, or at least something with a high UV content, gives the best results. I haven't tried any portraits in natural light yet, but outdoor scenes certainly look different on DPP, compared to the same scene exposed on a panchromatic film and printed normally. The contrast, apart from anything else, was very high. Flashing the paper is the way to control that, but I've only tried that with the artificial light shots. I hadn't realised DPP was an Ortho material.
Alex.

 

[Stephen Batey]

Today I was in Arundel, and naturally visited Arundel Photographica. Doesn't everyone? Anyway, amongst various items at the end of a short passge, I found the darkroom section. And tucked away in there were three safelight filters, 5" x 7" which happens to be the size used by my Photax safelight, two Ilford and one Kodak.

The Ilford ones were the 908 and the 906, and the Kodak the 10H. The Ilford box says what they are for: the 906 is for ortho films, and the 908 "for all panchromatic films and plates except the slowest" (and that's not a typo on my part).

The Kodak one doesn't say what it's for, and the 10H designation didn't mean anything to me; but at £1 - well, I took it. It appears it's for use with Ektacolor paper, and is the Kodak equivalent of the 908.

 

[Graham Patterson]

The 907 filter was balanced for slower Pan films, I believe, hence the odd note on the 908. Mind you, I don't think I'd want to risk film even under a really dark green safelight.

 

[Stephen Batey]

If you can read it, this is the info I dug up on Ilford safelights. If it seems legible, I'll add the Kodak equivalent.