Kodak WL Surveillance Film 2210

I acquired several 100 foot rolls of this on a popular auction site. It came spooled for movie cameras on metal spools, so I had to unwind it in a darkbag (tedious) and load into my film loader for spooling into canisters. The claim of 100 feet was pessimistic as I got 24 36-exposure rolls with plenty of leader and trailer.

This film is on a very thick, very clear base on possesses a T-Grain emulsion. Considering I had paid about $8 each 100 foot roll (including shipping) I felt I had a bargain. Now I am even more convinced.

It is mutli-rated, and Kodak says it rates from EI 150-800, or EI 1600 – 3200 pushed. It speed rating is EI 400.

I tend to rate it at EI 640 then process as normal (EI 400) to get best results. It dries fast, really fast, and the base is absolutely clear. It scans OK except for the highlights, which tend to flare because of the antihalation layer. What I like most is the gradation, which is superb, and the grain structure, which produces very pleasing effects.

Here is a sample exposed at EI640 and processed at EI400 in TMAX Dev for 7 minutes at 20C.

The photo was taken at Reynolda House Museum of American Art in Winston-Salem, NC. Yes, I am aware that I scratched the emulsion down the right side.  I scanned this on an OpticFilm 7300. The photo was taken with a Voigtlander Bessa R using a Nokton 50mm at f/1.5. Shutter time was 1/250s (it was a cloudy day).

Agfa Geavert Agfachrome CT-18 Color Reversal Processing

I had the good fortune to come across 20 sealed rolls of this excellent and beautiful film. They came as ten 2-packs of 35mm film sealed in aluminum cans and if Agfa still existed, even pre-paid processing.

 

I began to research the technique to develop this fine film under the assumption that it might be worth the effort. There is no way to know if the emulsion is still good without trying, at least. I started in the obvious place: Google. I searched for Agfachrome processing and came across an archived conversation on the APUG site that got me on the right track.  Ian Grant had posted the actual formulary for all steps in the process and times/temps for each step (I will repost here later).

He posted two versions, both published by Crawley in the BJP annual. There was a major problem with each: obsolete chemistry. Both relied on proprietary color developers, Droxycrhome in one case and Gevachrome in the other. I searched the obvious places for quite a while then became frustrated. I decided to go the prima facie source, but Ian never cited the year of publication and I could never get in touch. So I started buying up the annuals until I got luck and came across the 1968 annual, which contained yet another formula. More importantly, it contained the chemical name of Droxychrome which is N-Ethyl-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-p-phenylenediamine sulfate salt monohydrate. I began, of course, to search for this prime component as the rest are easily had from Photographer’s Formulary. I found it in several places and on one site I actually confirmed that my chemical was a synonym for Droxychrome. Apparently my repeated searches have pushed the search rank up in Google and it is much easier to find.

I still don’t have the Droxychrome, though I found two US suppliers. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get this stuff.  The first took my order and my money, waited a month, then let me know it is on backorder. I will get it soon, however. More to follow…

Analog Images

The purpose of this blog is, like many others, the advancement and retention of skills necessary to maintain and further the art of analog photography. The purpose is not to debate the merits of analog vs. digital photography or to advocate one at the expense of the other.