First experience with Gigabit film

I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made my
first prints.
Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would like
to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the film. I
have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using
another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used).

Max

The gigabit I shot using their developer and following the
instructions to a *T* made the film come out very thin as you
described. I'm not sure why, its what they publish. I found that
like- I think $13 for a roll and developer totally not worth the
results. Maybe I got a bad batch, who knows..

I do recall hearing, I think, that the base the film is on is very
very thin and that is why it has a terrible tendency to curl. And
maybe other bad results...

For 1/4 the price I'd use Efke-25 @ 12 and rod 1:25.

but thats just me.

I have some dev times you may want to check out at:

http://www.zoom.sh/alex/media/photography/process.html

scroll down a little and you'll see a link for an XLS spreadsheet-
There's some Gigabit stuff in there I think.

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

MXP wrote:
I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made my
first prints.
Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would like
to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the film. I
have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using
another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used).

You said the film "looks" thin but how are the prints?

Gigabitfilm is a microfilm (Agfa Copex IIRC) and has a
cystal clear base. This is why the negs are looking
very thin although they are printable.

I haven't used Gigabitfilm yet as I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Chris.

Thank you for the link.
I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film
and then see if it looks better.
Can you remember how you agitated the Gigabit film in the developer?
I also had the problem with curling of the film. I thought if maybe was
caused
by the fixer I used (Teternal SuperFix). It is written the fixer has to be
diluted
1+20 or something like that where normal is 1+3 to 1+9. Do you know the
reason for that?

The Efke ISO 25.....has it about same grain size as the Gigabit?
Do you use normal developer for the Efke?

Regards,
Max

"Some Dude" skrev i en meddelelse
...
The gigabit I shot using their developer and following the
instructions to a *T* made the film come out very thin as you
described. I'm not sure why, its what they publish. I found that
like- I think $13 for a roll and developer totally not worth the
results. Maybe I got a bad batch, who knows..

I do recall hearing, I think, that the base the film is on is very
very thin and that is why it has a terrible tendency to curl. And
maybe other bad results...

For 1/4 the price I'd use Efke-25 @ 12 and rod 1:25.

but thats just me.

I have some dev times you may want to check out at:

http://www.zoom.sh/alex/media/photography/process.html

scroll down a little and you'll see a link for an XLS spreadsheet-
There's some Gigabit stuff in there I think.

Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Until now the prints looks very nice......so I am a little confused if I
should adjust the
development time a bit. Therefore it could be intereresting to hear
experience from other
people here.....e.g... like you :-)

Max

"Christian Kolinski" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made
my
first prints.
Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would
like
to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the
film. I
have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using
another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used).

You said the film "looks" thin but how are the prints?

Gigabitfilm is a microfilm (Agfa Copex IIRC) and has a
cystal clear base. This is why the negs are looking
very thin although they are printable.

I haven't used Gigabitfilm yet as I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Chris.

Until now the prints looks very nice......so I am a little confused if I
should adjust the
development time a bit. Therefore it could be intereresting to hear
experience from other
people here.....e.g... like you :-)

Max

"Christian Kolinski" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made
my
first prints.
Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would
like
to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the
film. I
have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using
another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used).

You said the film "looks" thin but how are the prints?

Gigabitfilm is a microfilm (Agfa Copex IIRC) and has a
cystal clear base. This is why the negs are looking
very thin although they are printable.

I haven't used Gigabitfilm yet as I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Chris.

Until now the prints looks very nice......so I am a little confused if I
should adjust the
development time a bit. Therefore it could be intereresting to hear
experience from other
people here.....e.g... like you :-)

Max

"Christian Kolinski" skrev i en meddelelse
...
MXP wrote:
I har just developed my first roll of Gigabit film (24x36)....and made
my
first prints.
Results looks interresting so I will continue using the film. I would
like
to hear if other have some experience with developing and fixing the
film. I
have to adjust my development time (film looked thin) and maybe using
another fixer (a non hardening fixer should probably be used).

You said the film "looks" thin but how are the prints?

Gigabitfilm is a microfilm (Agfa Copex IIRC) and has a
cystal clear base. This is why the negs are looking
very thin although they are printable.

I haven't used Gigabitfilm yet as I still have several
meters of Kodak Imagelink HQ which I use in my Edixa 16
and Minolta 16MG. The negs look as if 1 1/2 stop underexposed
but print fine.

Chris.

MXP wrote:

Thank you for the link.
I will use 1 min. less in the developer next time I develop a Gigabit film
and then see if it looks better.

If the negatives were thin, you'd need to either increase exposure (if
the shadows lack detail) or increase development (to increase contrast
and increase density in the highlights). Reducing development would
make them thinner still.

However: Gigabit film is a microfilm emulsion, and for pictorial
application those typically need to be developed to relative low
contrast. I've gotten good results with Kodak and Agfa microfilms with
extreme dilution or relatively short development in a low activity
developer (which is more or less what POTA and Technidol are --
developers with normal alkalinity but reduced level of developing agent,
to reduce activity and make low contrast development possible in a time
compatible with tank processing). But any attempt to develop to higher
contrast results in excess contrast instead -- what appears to happen is
that the film base is much clearer than we're used to, and a negative
that prints well will look very thin without the gray base color.

I recommend printing before you adjust development -- if the negatives
print well at normal contrast, it doesn't really matter how they look to
the eye.

It is written the fixer has to be
diluted
1+20 or something like that where normal is 1+3 to 1+9. Do you know the
reason for that?

Diluted fixer is recommended for some microfilm stocks because it makes
it easier to avoid overfixing. With ordinary films, overfixing by 2x or
even 10x the correct time (which is 2x to 3x the clearing time) has no
visible effect, but the extremely fine grain of microfilms can show
discernible bleaching in "film strength" fixer in as little as ten
minutes. Very dilute fixer, combined with a clearing time test and
fixing for no more than 3x clearing time, will allow minimum fixing with
a film that would normally clear in 30 seconds in fresh rapid fixer at
film strength -- and thus avoid bleaching away shadow details.

The Efke ISO 25.....has it about same grain size as the Gigabit?
Do you use normal developer for the Efke?

Not even close. Efke R25 is a pretty ordinary ISO 25 film, other than
its reduced red response; it's very fine compared to an ISO 100 film,
especially in a super fine grain developer like A49 or Microdol-X
(which, however, would reduce the effective speed to about EI 12), but
it's still nowhere near as fine, or capable of the kind of resolution as
microfilm emulsions like that on Gigabit film. Microfilms gain fineness
and resolution because they have only a single grain size, instead of a
range of grain sizes or even multiple emulsion layers with different
grain size ranges in conventional films. This makes them tricky to
develop for continuous tone, because different grain sizes make for
different sensitivity levels from grain to grain and automatically
produce a stochastic stipple that blends into a smooth continous tone if
not enlarged too much -- with microfilm, one must instead develop in a
manner that gradates how much silver is developed from exposed halide
crystals, based on how much light they received; compared to ordinary
film that can be over- or under-developed by a large factor and still
produce printable negatives, microfilm in pictorial use has little
tolerance for changes in development -- because overdevelopment tends to
fully develop too many halide grains and lead to the "black or white"
look of document films (i.e. the film reverts to its design contrast),
while underdevelopment (relative to pictorial use) gives a huge loss of
speed, which is already low in pictorial use.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

On 7/11/2004 1:32 PM MXP spake thus:

How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined?

Simply, and just as you'd expect: it's the time it takes fixer to clear the
film (you can simply put an unexposed scrap of film and fixer and observe how
long it takes to clear).

You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description
the fix time is only 10 sec. in normal fix dilution.

I wouldn't sweat it at that short time.

Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I
wondered about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development
time.....and that seems to be correct?

Yes, again just as one would expect. Less development = thinner negative.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

On 7/11/2004 1:32 PM MXP spake thus:

How do you find the "clearing" time? .....how is "clearing" time defined?

Simply, and just as you'd expect: it's the time it takes fixer to clear the
film (you can simply put an unexposed scrap of film and fixer and observe how
long it takes to clear).

You say you destroy shadow detail if you overfix? ....in the description
the fix time is only 10 sec. in normal fix dilution.

I wouldn't sweat it at that short time.

Funny I was told to reduce develoment time if the negs look thin......I
wondered about that. I had the idear that I should extend the development
time.....and that seems to be correct?

Yes, again just as one would expect. Less development = thinner negative.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky