I used Uranium toner in my youth and it worked well (and wasn't radiocative), gives a very red negative.
Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg
Copper toner/intensifier might work but the resulting negative is unstable. A Chromium intensifier works well but redeveloping in a Pyro staining developer adds even more intensification, I use IT-8 an Ilford print toner ocassionally and that's essentially a chrome based intensifying bleach and a Pyrocatechin re-developer.
I'm getting a lot of mixed messages.
To respond, the bottle doesn't have any instructions, as you can see the label is only held on by the elastic band and it's just the label, there are no instructions on the back.
It seems this can be used on both film and paper? but then staining is mentioned in the comments, is that referring to just with paper? as staining a negative would just cause it to have "fogging" issues no?
Unstable seems to be mentioned a lot as well, does this mean it's sort of no good to use because I'll have some image failure after a brief time and have blank negatives if I use it?
Is it used mostly with already developed films that need intensification, or with adding it to the development step to give some effect, or should I just wait until I do my own printing and use it for that purpose?
That article sort of was beyond me, it wasn't very clear to me in that I don't mix my own chems so I don't know what the other components mentioned are for or even where to obtain them and the article sort of lost me in describing the color, are they talking about the color of the solution or the film staining or what?
Plates are also mentioned, so is this for wet plate work?
Sorry it's just a little bit confusing for me, as I said I don't mix my own chems, I buy store bought stuff like Rodinal, and I don't do wet plate nor my own printing YET so should I just save it for that time and then re-visit this? Or is there some advantage to normal B&W negatives?
Stone- I think the wet plate reference is because the book was written in 1909.
While it may work as a toner, I think it's primarily meant as a negative intensifier. Give it a try with a processed neg you have which needs intensification.
* Forgot to mention that chromium involves a bleach step. My guess is this does, too. And, then, redevelopment. Ian recommends a pyro developer. I seem to recall using dektol when I did it, but it was probably about 30 years ago, and only a couple of times, so I may be misremembering. *
Hmm, I've never done a secondary step, I actually have never done a bleach step independently, I don't even know which kind of beach to use (since there seem to be different kinds) but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks.
Originally Posted by eddie
Hi Stone. Here's the instructions for Johnsons Pactum copper intensifier and toner. I inherited a single packet of this, and I haven't tried it yet. I guess it's probably similar stuff. My packet weighs 15g and is a terracotta coloured powder.
Thanks, those are much simpler instructions and understandable. However there's no mention of bleaching which everyone else seems to have mentioned here, and also it mentions that you can do it by visible inspection with no mention of whether you are using a red safelight or daylight view, or some other color safelight, do you know? It also says just to use this chemistry and makes no mention of mixing it with anything else. If this is true why have others mentioned that it needs to be mixed with normal developer after a bleaching step? Again thanks this seems fairly straightforward, if it had been posted first, but because of the other mentions of additional instructions I'm curious which is more on target. Thanks!
Originally Posted by mr rusty
Stone- Based on the instructions Mr. Rusty posted, it doesn't look like redevelopment is needed. Negative intensification can be done with lights on.
Do you have negatives which could use some intensification? If so, I wouldn't rely on the old copper you have. When I've needed a slight boost, I've used selenium at about 1:4. I think Photographer's Formulary sells a chromium intensifier, too.
Bleach/redevelopment in sepia probably gives the most increase.
Well I'm sure I have a test image that I can start with that isn't important and so I can test this old stuff on it. So... my question is... being really dumb... or rather, ignorant of photography ... when someone says a negative is thin vs dense... is it opposite speak? as in, like because it's a negative and not a positive, when someone says dense, do they mean the negative looks very dark (which would make it over exposed in a positive) or does dense actually mean that when printed as a positive the image would be dark?
Originally Posted by eddie
So is intensifier for making thin negatives thicker making a lighter image, and reducer for making dark negatives that look black to be thinned out so the image is darker? Hope i'm making sense.
I think copper intensifier is a completely different animal than copper toner. Copper intensifier appears to be mostly Copper II Bromide which works as a rehalogenating bleach. After bleaching one can intensify in Silver Nitrate, or some staining developer. There is nothing inherently unstable about the resulting negatives.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Assuming that the mysterious bottle indeed contains CuBr2 I would assume it still works and can be used.
Yep - you use intensifier to make an underdeveloped negative "thicker", so it will print with brighter highlights, while still giving dark and detailed shadows in the print.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
And you use reducer to thin out a negative, so it will print with darker shadows when the highlights look good in the print.
No opposites involved though - intensifier makes the negative itself look thicker (less transparent), while reducer makes the negative itself look thinner (more transparent).