Topic: Kodak Spectrum Analysis film 5367, no.1 expired 4/1981

[Bryan]

I recently posted about this film in the “I just picked up” thread.  I shot a test roll of the spectrum analysis film today bracketing from 100 ISO down to about 2.  I developed it in HC110 for 5 minutes and it came out looking exactly like the clip I cut off the end when I was putting it in the bulk loader.  Confused I put an undeveloped piece in the fix for 4 minutes, nothing happened.  So I got back online trying to find more information about it.  I found something posted about a different type of spectrum analysis film and saw where they said it comes on a spool with sides like movie film, just like my roll.  They also said it has a blank leader .  Looks like I shot and developed the leader. 

I pulled more film out and felt with my fingers until I reached the end of the leader.  The emulsion is a very light gray, almost white.  I put some in the fix and it cleared in about 15 seconds.  I shot another roll the same way and developed it in HC110 dilution B for 5 minutes again.  The negative looks extremely over developed, everything is dark including the edges that didn’t get exposed.  The ends that saw a lot of light when I loaded the cassette were the lightest.  That seems to be the opposite of what it should be, why would the ends be lighter than the edges?

I can barely see any images, only the ones that were rated at the lowest ISO, and they are very faint and dark.  I thought I was giving it a fairly short development time at 5 minutes.  I’m wondering if it’s possible that this film needs a really short development, like a minute or two.  If anyone has any suggestions let me know.  I’m thinking of doing some short test strips bracketing a few shots and doing very short development starting at one minute. 

[Francois]

Short development times are always problematic as you always get uneven development with them.
Now I'm hesitant... I'm starting to think it might be a high contrast film that has some fog.
You could try a few things. Going for a higher dilution of hc-110 would be an option.
You could try and give it a few minutes in paper developer. If it's a high contrast film you'll know right away.
The other option would be to get some benzotriazole anti fog and add some to the developer.

Personally, I'd start with some paper developer just to see.
This film was probably made to record the lines in a spectroscope, so high contrast would make the results easier to read.

[Bryan]

Short development times are always problematic as you always get uneven development with them.
Now I'm hesitant... I'm starting to think it might be a high contrast film that has some fog.
You could try a few things. Going for a higher dilution of hc-110 would be an option.
You could try and give it a few minutes in paper developer. If it's a high contrast film you'll know right away.
The other option would be to get some benzotriazole anti fog and add some to the developer.

Personally, I'd start with some paper developer just to see.
This film was probably made to record the lines in a spectroscope, so high contrast would make the results easier to read.

You could be right about high contrast, I think I will try that.  I suppose I can develop by inspection under a red light since it’s only sensitive in the blue range. 

[Francois]

You could definitely do that.
Thing is, sometimes, high contrast and fog do strange things.
I don't know what is the logic behind the Kodak numbering system, but when I look at the Compact Photo Lab Index, I notice that 5068 is Plus-X Portrait, 5069 is High Contrast Copy, 5125 is Ortho Copy, 5246 is Direct Positive Panchromatic, 6127 is Commercial film and 6146 is Super Panchro Press Type B. So the Spectrum analysis film would fall between Direct Positive Panchro and Commercial film... Maybe there is a link between the number and the emulsion number, or it's just a sequential list of recipes?

[Bryan]

I tried the paper developer today while I was doing some printing with my 4X5/9X12 enlarger contraption.  I developed a short strip while watching it under a red light.  It got dark really fast, I pulled it out after about 15 seconds.  I got about the same results as I got with HC110 at 5 minutes.  I can see some very faint images.  I thinking I may do a short stand development with Rodinal 1:100 next.  Maybe I’ll try Beerenol if that doesn’t work.  I sent Kodak a message to see if they have any information but I’m not holding my breath for anything.

The good news is I got my 4X5/9X12 enlarger working better.  Added a new led light source and reconfigured things a bit. 

[Francois]

Happy to hear about the enlarger, but not so much about the film.
Have you thought of contacting the George Eastman House? I think you might have a better chance there.
Try and get in touch with Erin Fischer. She's the director of the technology department at the museum and she's sure to get you on the right track.

techstudycenter🎩eastman.org (replace the hat with the proper at)
or
https://www.eastman.org/technology-study-center-researcher-request-form

As for me, I'd go straight for the benzotriazole. It gets added in small quantity to the developer to deal with the fog.
Look at the photographers formulary website. It's not very expressive and a little goes a long way.

[Bryan]

Thank Francois, I forgot about Benzotriazole.  I’ve never used it but just ordered some.

Kodak got back to me quickly, I’m impressed!  Not sure if this helps my situation much, the film may not have aged well. 

Thank you for contacting Kodak about this film that is now forty years old now.  Most information for products that old has been moved over to either the George Eastman Museum or the University of Rochester library, but I was fortunate enough to locate the Technical Information document for this product’s renaming / renumbering in its later life.  When some products sales decline and the company cancels the product, they can come back to life as Special Order products, which is the case for this film.  From what I can locate, the product was given a new life as Special Order, or SO-667, in the 1990-ish timeframe, but was closed down by 1998.
 
Here is the Technical Information you seek.  Two curves, one the DlogE Sensitometric Curve, and the Spectral Sensitivity curve, are found below.
KODAK Spectrum Analysis Film, No. 1 (0667)
1)       Description
·          Blue sensitive
·          High contrast
Use:

·          Emission spectroscopy
 
2)       Darkroom Recommendations
You can use a KODAK 1 Safelight Filter / red with a 15-watt bulb, no closer than 4 feet from the plate.

 
3)       Storage and Handling
Unexposed:
Store at 70°F (21°C) or lower, 40 to 50% RH.

Exposed:
Process as soon as possible.

Processed:
Store at 63 to 77°F (17 to 25°C) 30 to 50% RH.

 
4)       Exposure
(15 seconds)

Meter Setting Value: 8.0 (Tungsten)

Based on 8/E where E is the tungsten exposure (in lux seconds) required to produce a density of 1.6 above minimum density using the specified development conditions and exposure time. The meter setting may be used for exposure meters calibrated to read ASA speed using light reflected from a white card. For incident light readings or reflected readings from a KODAK Gray Card (18% reflectance), Kodak Publication R-27, multiply the meter setting by a factor of 5. This meter setting is not ASA speed.

 
5)       Contrast Classification
High (contrast index between 1.5 and 4.0)

 
6)       Processing
Starting point recommendations.

 
Develop at 68°F (20°C) with continuous agitation:
KODAK Developer D-19
5 minutes
 
 
NOTE: If developer temperature is other than 68°F (20°C), the rinse, fix, and wash temperature should be within 5°F (3°C) of the developer temperature.
 
Rinse at 65 to 70°F (18 to 21°C) with agitation:
KODAK Indicator Stop Bath
30 seconds
KODAK Stop Bath SB-5
30 seconds
 
 
Fix at 65 to 70°F (18 to 21°C) with frequent agitation:
KODAK Fixer
5 to 10 minutes
KODAK Fixing Bath F-5
5 to 10 minutes
KODAK Rapid Fixer
2 to 4 minutes
 
Wash in running water at 65 to 70°F (18 to 21°C) for 20 to 30 minutes.

Dry in a dust-free place.

 
7)       Image Structure
Developed in KODAK Developer D-19 for 5 minutes at 68°F (20°C).

Diffuse rms Granularity: 16 (fine)
Read at a diffuse visual density of 1.0, 48-micrometre aperture.

Resolving Power:
ISO-RP
200 lines/mm
(TOC 1000:1)
Determined according to ISO Standard.
 
Modulation Transfer Function
Curve attached; determined using a method similar to that of ANSI standard.

 
       Graphs[1]
 
DlogE:  (different colored lines are different development times)

 
Spec Sens:

 
Good luck in filming, Happy Christmas, and long live analog!
 
Fred

[Francois]

Well, that was fast!
I must admit that the curve is definitely steep, but the resolution is pretty darn good.
But since the contrast index varies to much, you could probably force it into a continuous tone by using some dilute HC-110 (like Dil. F). I do that with ortho litho.
Now their sensitivity measurement method for the exposure is definitely weird. But since the benzo does reduce the iso speed, I'd take their recommended value with a grain of salt.
I find it weird that they recommend tungsten light... I would have thought that it would have been panchromatic to record the spectrum directly. So I guess it was made for use in some long gone machine. While searching, I did discover that they also made some film for UV spectroscopy that was intended to be used with a machine that used an intensifier tube that was coated with some phosphorous material... so I shouldn't be surprised that this film is simply strange.
But at least it isn't some microfilm stock that's designed for diazo processing.

[Bryan]

I think I'm going to try a stand development with HC-110 next.  I'm also doing a longer exposure and trying a few different things with the light. 

This was the first test roll I did developed in HC-110 for 5 minutes.  I bracketed each shot and only the very slowest ISO's can be seen on the negative.  This was probably around an ISO of 1 or less.

[Francois]

Wow, that is slow.
Let me guess, there are pine trees behind the house?
I wonder what kind of iso their weird formula would have given?

[Bryan]

Wow, that is slow.
Let me guess, there are pine trees behind the house?
I wonder what kind of iso their weird formula would have given?

Mostly Douglas Fir behind the house.  You can also see shadows on my house from the Douglas Fir across the street.  It was a sunny day but the sun is always kind of low this time of year.  Whatever the ISO was I’m sure it’s much slower than it was. 

[Francois]

One thing's for sure, there are good chances that the benzo will clear-out that nasty splotchy fog.

[Bryan]

I'm making progress.  I tried a short stand development with Rodinal and Benzotriazole and got a completely clear negative as if there was no development.  I think I accidentally put too much Benzotriazole in it.  My next attempt was HC-110 Dilution F with the proper amount of Benzotriazole developed for 5 minutes.  Still some base fog but considerably better.  I may add a little more Benzotriazole and lengthen the development time to 6 minutes. 

I can now read the edge markings, "Eastman 6, Safety film"  It also has two squares that are the same as the date codes on Kodak movie film.  The two squares would indicate that it was made in 1980.  That's surprising since it expired in 1981 but if it has a short shelf life that would explain the heavy base fog.

The following test shot was exposed for 1 minute, this film is really slow.  I'll try to get some outdoor test shots if we get a break in the weather, they say the sun may come out tomorrow. 

 

[Francois]

Wow!
Now that is what I call an improvement!
I knew Benzo was good but I didn't expect it to be this good!

I'd say you're close to nailing it.

[jharr]

NIce job Bryan. I think everyone should have a <1 iso film stock around to keep them humble. For me it is some sheets of Camera 2000 that consistently thwart my efforts at photography. Maybe I need some benzotriazole!

[Bryan]

Well James, it just made me a little more humble.  I'm not sure what is going on here, this is really weird.  I took some shots in the sun today, same scene multiple times, bracketing the shutter speed.  All shot at f/2.8, the frame on the left was one second and the frame on the right was 120 seconds.  The exposure on the left frame looks ok as well as the one on the right.  The thing that is puzzling me is the one on the left is a negative and the one on the right is a positive.   Is this solarization?  Isn't solarization from re-exposing the film during development?  I didn't do that.  By the way, the pots are black.  The second frame from the left is 15 seconds and the next one is 30 seconds and they both look like under exposed positives.  I didn't get that effect on my indoor shots that were bracketed, they all came out as negatives.  Maybe it's the UV light which is why I wanted to shoot in sunlight in the first place. 

[Pete_R]

Isn't solarization from re-exposing the film during development?

You can get solarisation just from massive over exposure which is how you can get a black sun sometimes. I guess your seeing the effect the UV light given the sensitivity of the film to it. Maybe you need a UV filter.

[Francois]

Some films are more prone to solarization than others.
Just look at Instax and their infamous black suns... And black mirror selfie flash artifacts.

[Bryan]

I shot almost half a roll of the same view of my flower pots so I have something to compare as I try to nail down the developing.  All shot at f/2.8 for 1 minute.  I'm just clipping a few frames off at a time and developing them.  Right now I'm adjusting development time with HC110 Dilution F using the concentration of Benzo recommended by Photographers Formulary.  I may make some adjustments to the benzo if I think it's necessary.  I'll post a scan when I have a chance.  So far the solarized shots are looking really good.  Next I may try to do a solarized shot with the microscope but that may take some experimentation.  I'm using an incandescent light source on my microscope so hopefully I get enough UV light. 

In my scan of the negative strip above, if the photo on the left side (the negative) is exposed correctly I think that makes the ISO about 0.02.  That scene metered at ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 in my Olympus OM-1.  To get a good solarized shot it looks like I need to rate the film at ISO 0.0008.  I don't think any light meters go that low.

[Bryan]

Here's an unedited scan of a 120 second exposure developed in HC-110 Dilution F with Benzo for 10 minutes.  I think this is about where I want to be on development.  This is overexposed though, I think closer to 60 seconds on the exposure is better.  I just developed one for 12 minutes but that seems too long. 

The directions that Photographers Formulary give for the Benzo is:

Take 10 grams of Benzotriazole and mix into 500 Ml of hot distilled water. Add 15 to 30 ml to a liter of developer working solution.

I'm using 30ml/L, I went straight there because the fog was so bad.  I'll try this with some of my other expired film starting at 15ml/L and see how it does. 

[Francois]

This stuff really does miracles. It even works with photo papers.

[Bryan]

I went down to a park near my home to shoot some scenes under normal conditions to see what this film will do.  All the shots were taken at f/2.8 and bracketed at 2 seconds, 4 seconds, 1 minute and 2 minutes.  I chose these times based on my last tests since I seem to get good negatives and 2 to 4 seconds and good solarization at 1 minute to two minutes.  This first scene was in good light even though the sun is fairly low on the horizon this time of year.  For 100 ASA it metered at f/16 at 1/100. 

In the first photo, exposed for 2 seconds, the scene is exposed good but the bright sky is solarized.  This was reversed as you would a negative.
In the second photo, exposed for 4 seconds, the scene is overexposed and the bright sky is solarized.  This was reversed as you would a negative.
In the third photo, exposed for 1 minute, the scene is completely solarized and has the best exposure.  This was a positive image on the film.
In the fourth photo, exposed for 2 minutes, the scene is completely solarized and is a bit over exposed.  This was also positive image on the film.

[Bryan]

This is the same as above but I wanted to shoot a shady scene. 

In the first photo, exposed for 2 seconds, the scene is very under exposed.  This was reversed as you would a negative.
In the second photo, exposed for 4 seconds, the scene is also very under exposed.  This was reversed as you would a negative.
In the third photo, exposed for 1 minute, the scene has good exposure.  This was reversed as you would a negative.
In the fourth photo, exposed for 2 minutes, this one had the good exposure but you can seem some branches in the background that are in the sun becoming solarized.  This was reversed as you would a negative.

This film is tricky to expose when there is a range of light conditions in the scene since it seems to solarize so easily.  I think if I'm shooting with this film I will always want to do some bracketing to see what comes out the best.  It looks like I can get some interesting effects with the sky solarizing while the subject is exposed correctly. 

[Francois]

The solarized sky scenes would look great as an album cover or as a scene in a music video!