View Full Version : A Christmas Cookie from Santa

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Ray Rogers
03-11-2011, 02:48 AM
ALL books on actual emulsion making have been square wheels!

Could you describe in what way your book "rounds the square"?

03-11-2011, 09:04 AM
About what? I'm on the moon taking one small step and standing in a vacuum and you are sorry? How. :D

Oops....my bad; I thought you meant you were being left out of the immediate commentary.....

Photo Engineer
03-11-2011, 11:18 AM
Could you describe in what way your book "rounds the square"?


I am covering every aspect of modern emulsion making and comparing it to the "facts" in those old books. I am doing my best to leave nothing out and nothing ambiguous, and I have made every emulsion in the book! Contrast this to all other texts.


03-11-2011, 12:07 PM
I think it might be important to point out the errors and misrepresentations present in past books on emulsion making. It sounds like this is information that you have discovered through private communications, unpublished sources, etc., no?

Your book can be the almighty cleanse of bad emulsion literature in the past.

Random side note; I hear that E.J. Wall and F.E. Ives had some bad blood between them. Ives writes about it in his autobiography. Wall seems to have been the perpetrator... at least according to Ives.

Photo Engineer
03-11-2011, 12:10 PM
Wall and Eder did not get along well either from what I hear.

But yes, I am trying to clarify the record.


Ray Rogers
03-11-2011, 01:32 PM
I agree with Chris.
If you know of specific errors or what have you, why don't you just point them out.


Photo Engineer
03-11-2011, 02:36 PM
I am not going through each book with specifics directed to each formula. For example, it is sufficient to say that Wall quite consistently omits addition times of Silver Nitrate to Salt + Gelatn. He omits reactant temperatures in most places, and he omits gelatin type (hard, medium and slow or low ripening). Thats enough said.


03-11-2011, 04:21 PM
Wall and Eder did not get along well either from what I hear.

From Wall: "Eder has given a long dissertation on various additions that have been made at various times to emulsions, but nine-tenths of these are merely of historical interest and either utterly useless or even prejudicial in practice."

Doesn't sound like best-buddies to me. :)

03-11-2011, 04:34 PM
Haha, that's hilarious. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Wall was the jerk... this could make a great thesis topic at some point.

03-11-2011, 05:09 PM
Lol, drama Llamas. Nothing's changed with humanity.

Sirius Glass
03-11-2011, 06:18 PM
Photographs will examples of common mistakes would let the user realized that they are not alone and headed toward the right path.


Photo Engineer
03-11-2011, 06:20 PM
I had not intended to do that. Believe it or not, it would take a lot of time and space in the book! :D There are too many ways to do things wrong!


Ray Rogers
03-12-2011, 05:01 AM
I don't think any of this is unusual.
Teachers are often threatened by the progress of good students,
and many students often assume an aire of 'superiority'.

Has anyone missed this even here in our own little forum? ;)

Eder did a lot of early very detailed research ... and reported it.
The fact that Wall did not find a need for all those tidbits
says more about the progress of the field than anything else.

I have read Eder's work and I think I understand what Wall means.
On the other hand, Eder's work (and the BJOP for that matter) was their "internet".
For someone wanting a "cookie cutter", Eder has a lot of useless grains,
but for the researcher set on designing a different kind of cookie,
Eders work was like an encylopedia or todays internet...

While cookie cutting immitators may complain,
who is to say what will turn out to be of value to the creator thinking out of the box?

Wall has a point, but Eder was greater scientist and teacher.

Ray Rogers
03-12-2011, 05:58 AM
I am not going through each book with specifics directed to each formula... Thats enough said.


Ah, yes, but I suggest that there is a good reason for that.
In the context of history, I don't think those men were so (fill in the correct word).

It is only natural for you to improve upon 50-80 year old texts.
However, I doubt you can live up to your claim and the appearent expectation of many on this fourm, of adaquately covering "modern" emulsion manufacture without stepping on Kodaks tail.

Anything Kodak OK's will not likely be new nor critical to their POV.

Or course, new to whom is the question.

Least you think I am being negative--- not at all.
I cannot think of anyone back here on Earth
more egar to see what you have to say
about your walk on the moon.

Best Wishes


03-12-2011, 12:23 PM
I had not intended to do that. Believe it or not, it would take a lot of time and space in the book! :D There are too many ways to do things wrong!


One could just get some of the other emulsion making books? Assuming they have photos.. :)

Photo Engineer
03-12-2011, 12:42 PM
Interestingly enough, none of the other texts I have been able to get show photos made with any of the emulsions. Mine will probably be a first where I show the emulsion formula, the grains, the sensitometry, the spectral sensitivity, and then show pictures compared to a commercial product.


Ray Rogers
03-12-2011, 01:39 PM
I think that will be new and unique.

What do you see as the difference between the DIY product and the commercial product?
Do such products have no meaningful commercial edge?

I would think Ilford and others need as much support as they can get,
if we want them to be around much longer....

Photo Engineer
03-12-2011, 01:57 PM

Commercial products have the potential for much higher overall quality. About 10% of all hand coatings using doctor blades usually have some defect of some sort, the remainder being of production quality. The defects can vary from small pinholes (retouchable) to non-uniform areas (non-retoucahble). Some are there but cannot be seen in the print. So, variability might be the bottom line here differentiating home coatings from production coatings.

You must remember though that Jim Browning made production quality coatings at home, albeit with a pricey machine, but it did work and did give excellent 30x40 sheets. And, we walked into his darkroom, started things up, melted gelatin and made a perfect film coating the first time. We did the same with paper after a day of experimentation as well.

So, high quality is possible.


Ray Rogers
03-12-2011, 02:16 PM
I know.

But on the other hand, Jim ended up selling the machine to PF.
The machine appears not to have been put to much use,
and might even be up for sale again,
judging from posts I have seen on apug.

(BTW anyone know if there was a second or third commercial coating?
Jim mentioned it was about time in 2008 or so IIRC)

Photo Engineer
03-12-2011, 02:20 PM

You are missing a point here.

A device that works on a personal basis will still work on a commercial basis, but if you consider the latter, you must consider the costs involved and the profits involved. In other words, the danged thing better pay off! If it is too labor intensive in a down market this does not mean it is a "bad machine" or even "up for sale". That is not for me to say anyhow. What I am saying is that it works but even so, the market may not exist at the current price/cost ratio. Just consider the cost of Silver Nitrate today!