ATP "vs" Kodak TP; Please Look And Explain Something Unusual...

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Contrastique, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    As you might have read in the previous thread I shot some ATP and developed in HC110 and Rollei RLC. Did the same with the Kodak TP.

    Something strange happened with the TP and ATP in the RLC developer and I'm not sure what it is. It looks like some sort of liquify-photoshopfilter applied in the unsharp parts but it's in the negative for sure. I first thought with the TP that it had something to do with its too short development but then I noticed the same thing to occur with the ATP as well... I really can't explain it.

    First batch:
    ATP & TP developed for 6 minutes in Rollei RLC. ATP treated as a 40 asa, TP treated as a 25 asa. TP really underdeveloped so the contrast has been a bit enhanced in photoshop. I think it will be quite printable though as the "effect" looks pretty cool to me so I'll definitely will give that a go.
    ATP has not been photoshopped except for dust removal and I made the landscape photo a little darker.

    Second batch:
    ATP and TP developed for 5 minutes in HC110. Same asa values. ATP a tad overdeveloped as I lost some detail in the highlights. No changes in photoshop except for dust removal.

    The grain seems with both films a lot less when developed in HC110 then in the RLC but maybe I did something wrong...and I'm looking at scans...

    I will post some impression pics:

    ATP in HC110:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    TP in HC110:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    ATP in RLC:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    TP in RLC:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2008
  2. maxbloom

    maxbloom Member

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Looks almost like some kind of funky reticulation.
     
  3. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    It might be a lack of agitation effect.How did you agitate the film?
    The pyrazolidone type developers are subject to this, it is mentioned in the Film Developing Cookbook.
     
  4. Iwagoshi

    Iwagoshi Subscriber

    Messages:
    455
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Location:
    NorCal
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Wtf?? Definitely not the same results as Fotohuis, see post

    Sorry but I have not used RLC so I don't know its nuances. If all else fails you might try and PM Fotohuis directly. But the HC-110 seemed to work OK.

    Terry
     
  5. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    5 seconds every 30 as with every other film I process.. Have to check about the pyrazoli-something developer you mentioned...have never heard of that...

    Yes Terry, I have seen the photos from Fotohuis, that's why I got even more surprised... have to try a second batch and then maybe..well...I don't know. I first would like to know where this comes from. I just bought 9 films to take to Berlin and I woudn't want each of them to end up like this. I mean, it's pretty fun for a time but not with all films.
     
  6. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Pyrazolidone is just shorthand for phenidone and its newer derivatives that may or may not be used in some of these low contrast developers.
    In the original phenidone based type like H&W Control, the oxidation product of phenidone is an inhibitor of development that needs to be removed by agitation.It is these early types of low contrast developers that are discussed in the Film Developing Cookbook.
     
  7. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,385
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The images are posterized.

    I would take a guess that you have drastically underdeveloped the negatives, scanned them so that only a few levels exist in the scans and then expanded in PhotoShop. The scanner you are using probably, like most scanners, doesn't deal well with very limited dynamic range source material. So yes, you have in effect put the images through a PhotoShop filter.

    What do prints - real analog ones made in an enlarger - look like?

    For scanning problems you might want to take the thread to http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/home.php.
     
  8. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The Kodak yes, has been underdeveloped but the ATP for sure not.

    Believe me, this IS in the negative itself. I really couldn't believe what I saw and blamed the scanner at first, which I couldn't really believe either as I've literally seen thousands of negatives scanned with it and not just mine and have never seen anything like this before, so took a closer look at the negatives and to my surprise it's really in them. My boyfriend took a look as well as he couldn't believe it himself.

    "What do prints - real analog ones made in an enlarger - look like?"
    Sorry... :confused:
    You mean like, what do they look when being printed through an analogue process..? I don't know, I haven't tried just yet but when I have I certainly will post them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2008
  9. Bob F.

    Bob F. Member

    Messages:
    3,984
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Could be the Sabattier effect (pseudo-solarization). Usually caused deliberately by exposure to light partway through development but I think there are chemical causes too.

    Bob.
     
  10. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,946
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I like Bob F.'s answer. I'm not sure what causes it either as a chemical effect. Solarol is a print developer designed to produce this effect chemically.

    Did you develop the two films together in RLC or reuse the developer? Maybe there is something in these two films that combines to form a fogging agent that is effective in RLC but not HC110.
     
  11. Murray Kelly

    Murray Kelly Member

    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It looks like a phenidone problem. They had the same problem with POTA but overcame most of that with brush development, so I've read.
    When I first used H&W with Agfa Copex Rapid I got this
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11040255@N04/2203188844/

    Further reading of the instruction sheet said that if you had this problem then instead of 60 secs you should give an intitial 90 sec agitation.

    They specifically mentioned skies and broad areas of single tone.

    A possibility, if there's phenidone in the Rollie developer.

    Murray
     
  12. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanx for your visible input although it's hard to see on the image if it's really what I have. I can't find anything about Phenidone being in the Rollei developer so can't rule that out.
    The mentioned broad areas of singletones..in my photos it also happens when there's actually more tone as well, it's just visible in the unsharp parts so I'm not sure.
    I just emailed RoVo and got back a list from what's in the RLC:

    Dangerous components:
    Name: - % - CAS-No. EINECS-No. -Symbols

    Hydroquione - 3 - 123-31-9-204-617-8 - Xn, N;
    R 22-40-41-43, 50

    Sodium Hydroxide - 1 - 1310-73-2-215-185-5 - C;
    R35

    Sodium Carbonate - 8 - 497-19-8-207-838-8 - Xi;
    R36

    Other Informations: Main component = water

    It looks as though it has been solarized. My collegue mentioned the same thing. I developed the 2 films together and used no stop as recommended in another thread. I fixed for 2 minutes, maybe this was too short..?
    Funny thing is that somehwere else on a spec-sheet I read that stop was needed and water in between was not sufficient. Maybe something went wrong there?
    Still merely speculating as I'm still kind of clueless.
    I'll try one more batch soon and use stop, use demi-water for the developer and see if the problem goes away.

    Thanx to all for your input so far :smile:
     
  13. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Another phenidone example.Here's ATP in H&W Control wrongly agitated only once per minute:
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanx. That does seem to look like it...too bad I can't seem to find a conclusive answer to whether this Phenidone is in the RLC or not.
    I read it's advised to continuously agitate the first 30 seconds and than 5 seconds every 30. I'll give that a try next time. Maybe that'll solve it...
     
  16. Murray Kelly

    Murray Kelly Member

    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think they would have said so if phenidone was in the mix. Avoiding a direct question like that would be a poor PR move.

    In that case it really does look like solarisation, I must admit. Pity we don't know why, as it could be a tool for somebody wanting the effect. (which is not unpleasant, unless you 'don't' want it!)

    Sorry I can't help more
    Murray

    http://www.apug.org/forums/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif
    :sad:
     
  17. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2008
  18. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanx! If the RLC contains the same ingredients as the DC than most likely I'm dealing with the Phenidone issue here. That would be nice because than at least I know where it came from and it should not be too hard to reproduce when desired. Next batch will be the conclusive answer I guess.
     
  19. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
  20. Wishy

    Wishy Member

    Messages:
    189
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    So how much should I be agregating this film / Dev combo? And what timings did people use as a starting point?
     
  21. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The list below is from the official datasheet of the ATP on the Rollei site:

    "Important processing references:

    * No pre-soaking of the film!

    * Fundamentally important, the developer is to be set with destilled water only!

    * No stopping bath!

    * Fixing bath, 2x more diluted, e.g. Agefix 1+15!

    * Wetting agent, 3 x diluted, e.g. RWA 1+3.000!

    * Developer temperature affects the grain size. Attempts with 17°C (all bathes!) and alternatively with 25°C resulted in different grain sizes.
    The reference that „all bathes“ refers that the developer + fixing bath must have in principle the identical temperature!

    * It was identified that the film spoul and developing tanks must be very clean. In no case, remaining silver and/or wetting agents may adhere! Therefore: A more thorough cleaning than normal is hardly recommended!"

    I talked to Rovo a bit about the development and he said skipping the stop bath is not necessary.
    The dillution as mentioned on the bottle of developer is 1+4. I thought this was a little too heavy and later on found out that I wasn't the only one with this assumption. Therfore they advised a dillution of 1+5 or even 1+6, depending on personal preferences of course and desired results.

    Agitating, the first 30 seconds continuously and after that 5 every 30 seconds.

    This is the way I'm gonna do my second batch of ATP in RLC. I'll report back when I have finished it (will not be today but hopefully somewhere this week).
     
  22. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Well, finished the second batch and the problem is still there. I'm really dissapointed as to I don't know what to change with the next session. Berlin is in one and a half week and I'm not really looking forward "screwing up" the rest of the films too.
    I'll post an example pic, don't take the photo seriously as the negs are underexposed due to a failed experiment....
    [​IMG]

    I dilluted the developer with demi-water this time. Treated them in a room with hardly any light. Agitated continuously the entire first minute as I forget the first 10 seconds and after that 5 every 30. Kept the dillution 1+4 as I expected my negs to be underexposed in order to compensate a little.
    No stop used again as advised on the datasheet, which I'm gonna do next time as that's the only thing I normally do and didn't do now.
    Dilluted the fixer 2x more than normal.
    I'm really clueless and sad my experiment failed.

    I just sent Rollei an email to see if they can help me out. I really hope so. I would like to get this film to work properly as it does look really promising.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2008
  23. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,514
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    It's strange,you seem to be following the instructions and these are pretty similar to tech pan in technidol,see under processing here:
    www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtml
    All I can suggest while waiting to hear from Rollei is to try continuous agitation for the entire time,inverting the tank every 10s. Works for me with Copex Rapid in H&W Control.
     
  24. Murray Kelly

    Murray Kelly Member

    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I must say it's disturbing that you can't get any help from the supplier.
    It 'does' look like a phenidone thing and the advice to agitate more frequently makes sense - but then, why don't they say so?

    Most strange.
    Murray
     
  25. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Who do you mean by supplier?

    I emailed Hans from Rollei and he said I should send him some negatives so he could take a look for himself. He said the last films were developed according to the guidelines...so..I'm still not sure what went wrong. I agitated a whole lot more than the first time so I'm really wondering if that was the problem in the first case...He replied real quickly though. Sent the mail at night and the next morning I got an email back. At least that's good :wink:
    I hope that monday I will get around to sending him the negatives and I'll just take it from there.
    I'll take the ATP to Berlin but will develop them in HC110. That way I know I'll get good negatives.
     
  26. Contrastique

    Contrastique Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Well, Rollei kind of confuses me. I'll post the letter I sent them last week and the email I got from them, I assume responding to that letter as I haven't mentioned the HC110 to them before.

    My letter:

    "Dear sir / madame,

    I recently sent you an email about my problems with the developing of the ATP-V1 film in the Rollei RLC developer.You asked me to send some negatives to you so you could have a look for yourself. They are included with this letter.

    The issue that occured is that the films look "solarized" especially in the unsharp parts. People I talked to about it on APUG mentioned it could be a side effect of Phenidone when agitated too little. I could not find any information on whether this specific chemical is in the developer or not. I tried to rule that out by agitating more the second development, with no succes.

    I'll describe as good as I can what exactly I did.

    Filmstrip 1:
    Shot with the Nikon F100 with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Treated as a 40 ASA film.
    Developed in RLC for 6 minutes, dillution 1+4. Developer mixed with normal water.
    Agitated 5 every 30 seconds.
    No stopbath used.
    Normal fixing dillution, Amaloco X89.
    Rinsed for more than half an hour.
    Agepon normal dillution.
    Temperature 20 degrees for all baths.

    Filmstrip 2:
    Shot with Nikon F100 with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Treated as 32 ASA film.
    Treated in low-light conditions.
    Developed in RLC for 6 minutes, dillution 1+4. Developer mixed with demi-water.
    Agitated continuously the entire first minute, after that 5 every 30 seconds.
    No stopbath used.
    Fixer 2 times more dilluted as recommended on datasheet, Amaloco X89.
    Rinsed for more than half an hour.
    Agepon 3 times more dilluted as recommended on datasheet.
    Temperature 20 degrees for all baths.

    The results of both films are the same concerning the "solarizing effect" although the second filmstrip is a bit underexposed.
    I also have to add that I had the same results with the Kodak Technical Pan in the RLC and that both the Kodak and ATP came out fine when developed in the Kodak HC110 so that makes me really think this problem has something to do with the developer or the way I used it.
    I really hope you can help me out as I really would like this developer to work properly because the film looks really promising.

    If you have any questions feel free to contact me.

    Thank you again in advance for your time.

    Best regards,

    Indra Moonen"

    The email I got back:

    "Hi Indra,
    the Rollei RLC developer is since more than 25 years at the market,
    special designed for high contrast films.
    The Kodak HC110 was never ever a special filmdeveloper to create lower grades for
    technical pan films. This is the Kodak Low Contrast Developer.
    I do not understand that you do not complete the informations to me.
    Hence, at moment I am not able to assist!

    Best regards, Hartmuth"

    I'm like WTF??? Is my letter that unclear?? If they can't provide me with a decent answer I'm really clueless...
    I already emailed them back telling them that the negatives that I sent them are developed in the RLC developer and the ONLY reason I mentioned the HC110 was that the OTHER ATP's developed in it came out fine. I'm really not sure what information is missing at this point..