Image link HQ film

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

photo72
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:07 am

Image link HQ film

Postby photo72 » Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

I have recenly obtained a roll of Image Link HQ film format 616 from film for classics. Has anyone ever used this film and if so how did you develop it? It is supossedly a high contrast film that can be developed for normal contrast. Film for Classics recommended D76. Anyone have any other suggestions. I plan on shooting it soon and will probably cut it in half and process it one section at a time to see how it turns out. Thanks for any help you can give me.
photo72


Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Postby Lowell Huff » Mon May 04, 2009 9:58 am

It is microfilm ( very high contrast). What do you want it to do?

photo72
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:07 am

Image Link HQ film

Postby photo72 » Mon May 04, 2009 1:33 pm

I want to use it as a continous tone film. I undeerstood that it could be done much like Tech Pan film is used with a special developer.
photo72

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Postby Lowell Huff » Mon May 04, 2009 2:02 pm

I think you will come to grief trying to make this film C/T. You can try our F 60 Film Developer @ 1+19 dilution, then you will have to experiment with developing times at 14 to 20 minutes.

Murray Kelly
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:51 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Postby Murray Kelly » Wed May 06, 2009 8:55 am

I have a couple of rolls of 150' myself and it is proving difficult to get CT. I use it in 16mm. I have tried many developers and there are many to go, it seems.
D76 sounds pretty ridiculous to me. My best result so far is to use H&W (homebrew) following the instructions for Bluefire but at an EI of about 30.
Highly dilute D-72 with added glycin is a possible start too. This is a virtual Ansco-130 - try 1:20 for 20min stand.
I used technidol once so far and the results were OK - but getting the Technidol is problematic since Kodak have discontinued it. pH and general appearance make me wonder if it isn't a low pH Beutler. Metol and buffered borax or Na bicarb.
Murray

photo72
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:07 am

Image link HQ

Postby photo72 » Wed May 06, 2009 1:49 pm

Thanks for all the info. It sounds like the results will be pretty poor. I will probably try the D76 on part of the roll and see what it looks like and go from there. This is just an experiment with an old Kodak Brownie camera so there is little to lose. I'm not interested in making my own developer. I may be able to get some technidol on ebay and may try that route. I'll post my results when I finish. Thanks again
photo72

photo72
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:07 am

Image Link HQ

Postby photo72 » Wed May 20, 2009 12:01 pm

I processed the roll of 616 film in D76 1:1 Results were just ok. A little underexposed or maybe underdeveloped. Very little shadow detail. I don't think I would try it again. Film speed is to slow even for this camera which was designed for slow speed films back in 1938.
photo72

Murray Kelly
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:51 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Postby Murray Kelly » Tue May 26, 2009 7:00 am

Scanned a couple of IL-HQ last night, and the two developers were quite different in results.
The Technidol wasn't as continuous tone as the H&W which surprised me. I had rather imagined the Technidol would've been better.
Used an EI of 30 (because the shutter speeds of the Kiev-30M were more convenient at that speed.
Pretty well followed the recommendations for Bluefire with the H&W and the Kodak rules for the Techndol which came out of the tank brown, seemingly oxidised. Kodak advise a lot of shaking. Perhaps next time I'll be gentler and take more time - semi stand.
Just thought I'd report in.
Murray


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests