Fuji compared to PFG-01, 8E75, and BB-640

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:29 pm

Here are four H2 copies on four different emulsions:

All were made in an identical setup, a reflection H2 copy from a transmission H1 master. 35 mW HeNe laser. Processing was ascorbate (JD-4) developer and Fe EDTA bleach. The master was on BB-640. Details on each:

Upper left: Agfa 8E75 film(obviously out of date)

18 second exposure

Upper right: Fuji film

18 second exposure

Lower left: BB-640 plate

2 minute 3% TEA presoak

33 second exposure

Lower right: PFG-01 film

23 second exposure

Comments:

I photographed all four at the same time and post them here with no 'tweaking' on the photo other than cropping. The photo does a fair job of expressing the differences I see when viewing the holograms directly. The Fuji film compares very well to the Agfa, having very similar brightness and slightly lower noise. BB-640 is the hands down winner for brightness and noise. PFG-01 is definitely behind in noise, with brightness similar to the Fuji and Agfa.

Caveats:

Purists may complain that this isn't fair to PFG-01 as I didn't process it with the recommended JD-2 (pyrogallol) process. This accounts for its red color - it would undoubtedly be more yellow-green if processed with a solvent bleach. However, as far as noise is concerned, I do think this example of PFG-01 is representative of my general experience with PFG-01, even when processed with JD-2.

Ron Michael · Post by **Ron Michael** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:27 am

Cool, I'm glad to see the Fuji looks that good. Appreciate the side by side comparsion!

MichaelH · Post by **MichaelH** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:15 am

That's cool Tony. What were the processing times on each?

I wouldn't consider the comparison unfair to the PFG but the BB640 comparison might be unfair to the others since they weren't treated with TEA. In any case I think it's a minor detail since you've disclosed the info and supplied pictures. It's all there for people to judge.

Ed Wesly · Post by **Ed Wesly** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:36 am

Congratulations! It shows what was more or less expected; similar enough to Agfa to be a drop-in replacement but nothing substantially better.

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:47 am

Processing times were not recorded but were similar and very short. The JD-4 developer seems to act very quickly, reaching close to desired density (~2) in 10-20 seconds. Also, I didn't use a stop bath, rather a very short (10 second) rinse between develop and bleach. This is because Jeff B pointed out that without a pH change, development continues in the rinse.

dave battin · Post by **dave battin** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:43 am

Tony excellent comparison! The thing with this film, is its all you need! i doesn’t matter what laser you have as long as you have the Fuji film chances are you can shoot one.............

Ed Wesly · Post by **Ed Wesly** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:30 pm

The next step is for someone to do something similar in the green and then in the blue, and then start combining them...

dave battin · Post by **dave battin** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:56 pm

Ed Wesly wrote:The next step is for someone to do something similar in the green and then in the blue, and then start combining them...

IM WAITING FOR A DELIVERY...................................AND WAITING AND WAITNG....

LarryD · Post by **LarryD** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:36 pm

Tony wrote:Upper left: Agfa 8E75 film(obviously out of date)
18 second exposure

Upper right: Fuji film
18 second exposure

RonMichael wrote:page 114. H.I. Bjelkhagen. Silver-Halide Recording Materials. Springer. Vol 66 1995.
Agfa Gevaert holotest:

8e75hd 7um thick <5000 lp/mm gn size 35/44 nm 633nm 10uj/cm2, 694nm 20uj/cm2

Whats the deal with such a difference in energy? Agfa 10-20uJ/cm2 and Fuji's paper says 100-200uJ/cm2?

Tony- what lead you to shoot both for the same time (18 secs) when the Fuji film spec appears to be 10 times less sensitive? I see the hologram came out nice. Is their data sheet incorrect?

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:46 pm

Tony- what lead you to shoot both for the same time (18 secs) when the Fuji film spec appears to be 10 times less sensitive?

...nothing but a WAG (wild ***** guess)...

I have no real calibration to the outside world. All my exposure calculations are based on an empirically derived system using a Radio Shack solar cell as my light meter. Not having paid any attention to the data sheet, I just started at the same exposure.

Please don't read anything relevant into this - I'm not making any statement about the relative sensitivity.