Actually--it's more of a laziness thing, come to think of it. I've found that hypo in the developer is not necessary for me to do satisfactory reversal processing. Since it's not necessary, I'm not about to complicate things and add in steps (time, extra work) to my process--each step (measuring, adding another chemical) is also an opportunity for error. So it's a combination of laziness and desire for a very, very robust process with as much "slop" in it as possible. I do admire precision, but precision where it is not necessary is a waste of resources (laziness).
OH...if you want to experiment with the hypo in developer, there is a small book I HIGHLY RECOMMEND called "The Monobath Manual"...it's a VERY good read and will show you the effects of hypo and what to expect in such processes.
I'm using Peter Carter's method of the weak hypo solution so hopefully it'll work out more consistent for me in the Pan-X trials.
I'll try and check out Monobath Manual, too. Regards, Mr Datsun.
Well, not entirely--let me explain a bit better--this "new way" to explain occurred to me:
The film speed for those reversal cine films is not determined for just ANY reversal process, but for those machine processes with very fast acting first developers. Those machine processes are extremely difficult to do with home processing equipment, so there's no point in even trying--not enough "slop" in the process.
That being the case, I decided that I wouldn't even try to compete with the machine or it's tightly controlled process, but, instead, find a process that works with the equipment and time at hand. If "maximum attainable" film speed cannot be achielved, then this is an acceptable trade off--the 2/3 stop or so is not worth the time and expense of buying/maintaing a processing machine that can duplicate the process for which the film was rated.
I tried the hypo and, after reading the monobath book, have determined that hypo processes must be done VERY QUICKLY to keep the hypo "bad effects" from ruining the results. Such short processing times are not worth the bother trying to get them to work--particularly with large sheet films--pretty much impossible to control when you're filling/emptying times are significant compared to the ideal processing times.
Not only that--if you get a process that works for one film using a hypo developer, it likely won't work for another film because of the different effects of different fixing rates. So a more slowly fixed film like tmax will react MUCH differently to a hypo developer than tri-x. However, if a reversal process is based on a first developer with no hypo, then it is more universal in it's application to different films. So you get one process for many films rather than having multiple fussy processes for each different film.
The conclusion I have come to is that hypo in the first developer is just not worth the aggrivation for home processing.
The main point--them reversal film speeds are measured for the MACHINE process--not just ANY reversal process. Hypo is not a "magical ingrediant" that is necessary--it is only necessary for that particular process.
ALSO--hypo first developers generally require the first development to be carried out very quickly for satisfactory results--10 minutes in any hypo first developer will result in way too much silver halide removal-it'll ruin the dmax. So if you can perfect 3 minute first development times, then maybe the hypo first devleoper will work out for you. I don't think any processs which requires hand filling a quart of liquid is going to allow any kind of uniformity/repeatability for a 3 minute process.
You'll see.....it took me years....you'll go throught the same, since you want to learn it yourself, just like I did.
READ THE MONOBATH BOOK.
Johnielvis, I could not have said it better myself.
If I understand, your use of ferricyanide bleach is a way of fixing things if the end image is too dark. But my question is how to get the correct image balance in the first place without resorting to hypo or the use of ferricyanide bleach? I have not got there yet although your observation of keeping the development time to under 10 minutes is one I will take note of. Other factors in getting to the right final image seem to be nebulous. Correct kind of developer, correct dilution, correct temperature and correct dev time. From where I am it still appears to be a trial and error process – especially if as your say there is no single solution for all films! At the moment I can only go on other people's methods - especially those who have shown evidence of success and who have documented their process.
Yes I will try and get to read the Grant Milford Haist book but it is long out of print. Any PDFs around?
Ahhhh there's a few copies of the book in the Harold Washington Library in Chicago....That's where I got mine from.
The bleaching end step is for underexposed film...so with your process, as it is, 200 speed would be underexposed.
The way to get results is to expose for the process--then there is no "post repair" needed. You get 2/3 stop less than 200 with the d-19 at 10 minutes, then that is your speed. you want to maybe push it more...use the developer hotter--either temperature wise or with added "accellerants". You want the box speed, then get the chemicals from Kodak motion picture, and try to use them according to the process...it's on their website--kodak/go/motion I think. It takes some digging, but it's in there. Or you can then try to reverse engineer thier developer or maybe they'll tell you what's in it...check the msds maybe???
Be warned--it's a touchy process and you likely won't meet with much success without a machine.
You seem to think that your results are unacceptable for some reason.
Look what you're doing: you're doing a different process than the kodak machine process and you're expecting to get the same results. This is kind of like einstein's definition of instanity.
Different processes yeild different effective film speeds. There is nothing you can do to make one process give the same results as another. There is nothing wrong with this. People rate their films here at non-box speeds ALL THE TIME.
Look at it this way--you want to drag race, you need a dragster--you ain't gonna get good results with your souped up hot rod street car. Ain't ever gonna happen. sorry to say
You're going to add hypo now and get different results---also different from the kodak process. Well, have at it, I say--it's the only way to learn. Start cookin'.
No, I'm not adding hypo to my Tri-X tests - as I have said here a few times – it was not working for me. It did work for others.
But I'm not complaining as you seem to be implying – I just want to get the best results I can, understand how to do that and learn about the process along the way. I've worked some on Tri-X, enjoyed it, learnt quite a bit and now I am now testing Adox Pan-X with D19 with hypo to see what i can do with that.
And yes, I am adding hypo to Pan-X as the image had a grey veil on top of a strong black image – very unlike the Tri-X thin greyness. The hypo in this case made the image come alive.
Johnielvis, can you explain your "10 min theory" ?
If the problem is that the developer will start to fog at this point, then that's what we want! All that fog will be bleached away and we will get a lighter image in the end. Am I getting it wrong ?