[tuco]

You know you can shoot at EI 12, 6 and 3 without having to seek out such slow film. Rollei RPX 25 with a yellow, orange or red filter will do it plus you get the features of the colored filters.

[smigol]

And you can shoot Acros with the Wratten 29 filter for a whopping -8 stops.

[Alex645]

And you can shoot Acros with the Wratten 29 filter for a whopping -8 stops.

Why stop (no pun intended) there? With the OP's ISO 6 and a ND 7.2 filter you'd reduce 24 stops giving it an effective ISO 0.000000357627869.

Welcome to the realm of reciprocity failure. Most of the universe is dark matter.

Formatt Hitech 58mm Firecrest Ultra Neutral Density FCU58ND7.2

[tuco]

And you can shoot Acros with the Wratten 29 filter for a whopping -8 stops.

I see a Wratten #29 is listed as having a filter factor of 20. And that is about equal to 4.3 stops of light reduction. But I'm just saying you get the effects of filters which helps avoid things like white skies on nice blue days and separating colors that would otherwise reproduce as similar gray tones as you know. ND filters only cut your light down.

---

Last edited by tuco; 11-17-2017 at 01:21 PM.

[leekil]

I don't know why Kodak would make a movie film stock without the rem jet unless it's a special batch in manufacture. If that's true, then yes, no worries with C-41, but I'd err on the side of caution on the first roll and with a good lupe, check the negs after drying on a light table.

HOWEVER, the web site for the OPʻs film does explain there is rem jet that needs to be filtered out:
Darkroom Supplies - FPP C-41 Development Kit (1 Liter) ? Film Photography Project Store

It explicitly says it has no remjet, twice, in the listing for the film. Other than what I quoted before, it says in the listing "The film seems clear. Is there an anti-halation layer? This film does not appear to have a standard anti-halation layer." The remjet is the anti-halation layer.

It may not have an anti-halation layer because this film was not intended to be run in a movie camera. It seems to be used for making film prints via digital printing, so perhaps the digital printer you run it through would not need an anti-halation layer on the film.

[sqrrl]

It looks like a standard black and white film. Not c41 - just d96, d76 or similar - normal hand processing in D76 will work fine, as will rodinal, HC110 etc.
https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/5234_Ti0147.pdf

These were typically made for making duplicates/negatives of master rolls - they are basically used for contact printing from the original stock roll. The SO302 I mentioned earlier was specifically made for duplicating/making titles but other than the SO302 being ortho it's similar (a panchro film can be used for making duplicate process negs from colour slide film)

It just seems to be a very slow, standard process black and white film.

[leekil]

The thread drifted to also discuss a 1.6 ASA color film.

[sqrrl]

Ah, is that where c41 came into it

This is the same kodak stuff - I brought from ultrafine a bunch of times before they changed their international shipping - Never had any problems buying from them.
Kodak 5234 Black & White Film Pan Fine Grain Duplicating ISO 6 35mm x 100 Ft. Roll - Kodak 5234 Black & White Film 35mm Pan Fine Grain Duplicating ISO 6

[pathdoc]

Ah, is that where c41 came into it

This is the same kodak stuff - I brought from ultrafine a bunch of times before they changed their international shipping - Never had any problems buying from them.
Kodak 5234 Black & White Film Pan Fine Grain Duplicating ISO 6 35mm x 100 Ft. Roll - Kodak 5234 Black & White Film 35mm Pan Fine Grain Duplicating ISO 6

How did you find it? Were you processing it yourself or sending it out, and if you were doing it yourself, how did you deal with the backing layer? (That is the only thing that's putting me off at the moment, although I'm given to understand that a solution of carbonate and bicarbonate can remove it in a presoak.

Seeing as I usually develop in Caffenol or in one-shot commercial goop (Ilfosol 3) anyway, accidentally getting this stuff back into the developer bottle is a non-issue for me.

[Alex645]

It explicitly says it has no remjet, twice, in the listing for the film. Other than what I quoted before, it says in the listing "The film seems clear. Is there an anti-halation layer? This film does not appear to have a standard anti-halation layer." The remjet is the anti-halation layer.

It may not have an anti-halation layer because this film was not intended to be run in a movie camera. It seems to be used for making film prints via digital printing, so perhaps the digital printer you run it through would not need an anti-halation layer on the film.

Sorry, I think we're mixing up the OP's film with Smigol's post #5.

I am referring to Smigol's post for the color emulsion. The directions for that states "When pouring your chemistry back into your containers, please use a coffee filter in your funnel to capture any "rem jet" waste. This will keep your chemistry clean for re-use!"

[sqrrl]

How did you find it? Were you processing it yourself or sending it out, and if you were doing it yourself, how did you deal with the backing layer? (That is the only thing that's putting me off at the moment, although I'm given to understand that a solution of carbonate and bicarbonate can remove it in a presoak.

Seeing as I usually develop in Caffenol or in one-shot commercial goop (Ilfosol 3) anyway, accidentally getting this stuff back into the developer bottle is a non-issue for me.

The product I linked is the same as the original post - it's a standard (albiet slow) black and white emulsion - I have never processed c41.

[pathdoc]

The detail for the original post describes a remjet-like backing on this black-and-white ISO 6 film.

I mentioned sending it out because I know that not everyone develops their own black and white.

[sqrrl]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I am unaware of any black and white film with remjet. Not negative process at any rates.

My understanding of the point of remjet is that it acts as an antihalation layer when it's used on colour films which are presented on a clear base - which of course projection films must have. I believe the remjet layer also has something to do with the way the film is loaded in large reels rather than in safety canisters a la 135, or possibly the feed mechanism in cine cameras.

My understanding is that the remjet stripping happens at the start of the reversal process for colour films for projection (ie done by a machine in a pre-wash).

In the b&w photographic films I have used (quite a few, but certainly not even a fraction of all of them) I have usually seen a coloured/grey film base which I believe is there to miniimise halation and lightpiping (though it's also useful for contrast control).

Even where I was using dupe films, microfilm, sound films and infrared - which often are on a transparent base I still haven't seen remjet. Though I have seen some positive films (xray dupe specifically) with a layer of black silver which dissappeared in processing (not the same thing though).

I have tried to hand process cn1 or whatever it's called and remjet is nasty horrible stuff. I wouldn't bother to try to process anything with a remjet at all - too much faffing about.

Much of the above is really kind of conjecture on my part as I have only ever tried processing remjet backed super8 film a couple of times and without much success before avoiding it entirely. I'm totally open to being wrong, but I can't see why the original product mentioned would have remjet backing, and can't find any mention of it in the kodak sheets, massive dev chart, etc.