Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,220   Posts: 1,532,307   Online: 895
      
Page 35 of 55 FirstFirst ... 252930313233343536373839404145 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 550
  1. #341
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Mark, can you photograph a resolution chart and compare the two developers?

    Thanks.

    PE

  2. #342
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    696
    Images
    5

    Some feedback!

    On Wednesday evening I finally threw out the dead XTOL and got around to making some D316 concentrate and have processed one 35mm film. It worked! The film is drying so I have not yet scanned or printed anything. The negatives look normal, but dark, see info below. Some comments:

    The quantity concentrate I made was for 5 liters. 5 liters required 0.25 grams phenidone which was the smallest amount I felt I could accurately measure.

    1) I started with 17ml PG per liter, so 80ml total. I should have ended up with 110ml of finished concentrate, but instead ended up with 120ml. Now I used 8 mol Sodium Metaborate (3g/L so 15g total). Possibly this made the difference? Would starting with, say, 15ml PG per liter pose a problem?

    2) Mix temp was 85C. Absolutely no problem dissolving anything and no signs of crystallization.

    2) One liter of working solution was prepared using 22ml of concentrate as directed and 45g sulfite.

    3) Resulting pH was 8.3. This was adjusted down to ~8.2 using dilute (5%) acetic acid.

    4) The film processed turned out to be ORWO UN-54. I had thought it was Legacy Pro 100 (aka Acros) as that is what was marked on the casette. According to the Massive Dev Chart iPhone app, Acros in stock XTOL is processed for 8:00 min, which has worked well for me in the past. Multiplying by 1.9 (as given about IIRC) gives 15.2 minutes but I rounded and used 15. The processed UN-54 looks 1.5 to 2 stops pushed so it's a bit dark.

    5) My time for UN-54 in stock XTOL is 6:30. Multiplied by 1.9 gives about 12:20, which judging from the results I would guess is about right.

    So, there is some user feedback for you. I'll post a bit more once I have printed/scanned some.

    -- Jason
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  3. #343

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Mark, can you photograph a resolution chart and compare the two developers?
    Did you know that I have a 4-day weekend and thus have time to run more tests?

    I ran XTOL-vs-D316 resolution tests on TMY-2, using a 50mm lens 30 focal-lengths away from the target at f/5.6 for best sharpness. But the negatives resolve a little past my scanner's Nyquist-limit of 57 lp/mm. Scanning won't work for this, so I used my 100X microscope. The numbers:

    TMY-2 in XTOL resolves 65 lp/mm.
    TMY-2 in D316 struggles to resolve 65 lp/mm, but the prior tile of 59 lp/mm was fine. So let's call it about 62 lp/mm.

    Comments about these results?

    Mark Overton
    Last edited by albada; 11-24-2012 at 12:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #344

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by kb3lms View Post
    On Wednesday evening I finally threw out the dead XTOL and got around to making some D316 concentrate and have processed one 35mm film. It worked!
    Jason, congratulations on getting it to work! Let's take a look at the high pH.

    Quote Originally Posted by kb3lms View Post
    1) I started with 17ml PG per liter, so 80ml total. I should have ended up with 110ml of finished concentrate, but instead ended up with 120ml.
    Assuming all water was steamed out, the chemicals should increase the volume of solution by about 4 ml/L. So 16 ml of PG yields 20 ml of concentrate. You got 120 ml, and assuming it was hot long enough to steam-out all the water, you must have started with (120/5)-4 = 20 ml of PG. Do you think that's possible?

    Regardless of what happened, you got 120 ml, so you should use 120/5 = 24 ml/L of concentrate. You used 22 ml, which is not enough and would cause the pH to rise a little (concentrate pulls down the pH). But I doubt that lack is enough to bring it up to 8.3. Is your pH-meter calibrated? I've found that they soon go way out of cal. Anyway, it sounds like you're close enough. You might try it without adding acetic acid and using 24 ml/L, and then dial-in the correct time.

    The 1.9 factor is a reasonable starting-point. Today I'm dialing in the time for Tri-X, and a roll that's now drying should tell me how close I got.

    Oh, the 4-mol vs 8-mol should make no difference. You correctly used 3*5 g of 8-mol, which is fine. OTOH, I haven't actually tested 8-mol, so I'm only going on theory here.

    Anyway, once you get the time figured out, I'd like to see scans of what you get.

    Mark Overton

  5. #345

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    654

    Tri-X with D316

    Here's the comparison of XTOL and D316 for Tri-X. These are 36-shot rolls, not test-strips:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveTrixXtolD316-13p5.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	61.7 KB 
ID:	60096

    The density-curves match almost exactly up to X=2.3. But an interesting thing happens after X=2.3: XTOL's slope suddenly drops, but D316's slope stays unchanged, causing the curves to diverge. If you ask me, XTOL's curve will cause worse gradation in highlights than D316, because D316 remains more linear through the highlights. If I were a user of Tri-X/XTOL, I'd be annoyed at the worse gradation in clouds, snow and white clothing. D316's curve is better.

    That sudden slope-drop in XTOL is odd. Any idea of the cause of that drop or the lack of drop in D316? Did I overdevelop D316? Or is the better buffering in D316 causing highlights to stay on track better?

    Mark Overton

    EDIT:

    It gets stranger. Here are plots of D316 at 13 and 13.5 minutes:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveTrixD316-13vs13p5.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	60.4 KB 
ID:	60098

    They look almost the same! But grain is definitely better at 13 minutes, matching XTOL in my loupes. It seems that increasing time boosted grain but not density. Maybe I'll try 12.5 minutes for the fun of it.
    Last edited by albada; 11-24-2012 at 02:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #346
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Mark;

    It looks like you have nailed it pretty much on the nose.

    PE

  7. #347
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    696
    Images
    5
    Mark,

    Your results sound very encouraging! I don't have a densitometer so I cannot measure any densities. Something to put on my list!

    Assuming all water was steamed out, the chemicals should increase the volume of solution by about 4 ml/L. So 16 ml of PG yields 20 ml of concentrate. You got 120 ml, and assuming it was hot long enough to steam-out all the water, you must have started with (120/5)-4 = 20 ml of PG. Do you think that's possible?
    I made a typo in my posting above, 17ml*5 is 85ml. Anyway, 85ml is the amount of PG I started with. Now, wrt steaming out water, I cannot say. The beaker was heated in a water bath but I doubt I have gotten 20ml extra water from that. I calibrated the pH meter right before measuring but I am starting to question it's accuracy as I leaned a few months ago I had been storing it incorrectly. It's stored properly now, though.

    -- Jason
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  8. #348

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    It looks like you have nailed it pretty much on the nose.
    @PE: BTW, I posted numbers from a resolution-chart a few postings ago (XTOL=65, D316=62 lp/mm for TMY2). Would you say those are good/bad/indifferent?

    @kb3lms: Regardless of what happened, you've got 120 ml now. So using 120/5 = 24 ml/L should work, and I think you'll be fine. The chemistry won't be exactly the same as D316, but close enough. My worry would be if some water got in, longevity will be worse. I suggest storing the D316 in the freezer.

    Mark Overton

  9. #349
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,593
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    My worry would be if some water got in, longevity will be worse. I suggest storing the D316 in the freezer.
    Since the issue with water in your concentrate has been bugging you for many months now, some volunteer should finally set up a quantity of your concentrate, split it in half and mix one half with some amount of deionized water. With repeated activity tests every 1-3 months we could learn whether traces of water are likely going to reduce the shelf life of this concentrate.

    Note that quite a few people will be reluctant to heat toxic and caustic chemicals close to 100°C, so it would be quite helpful to learn if a concentrate with reasonable shelf life could be made without steaming out the water.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  10. #350

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,606
    I'd suggest doing more repeats and averaging the results. I'm not an engineer, but my two cents as a printer: on the first graph I'd call the difference in highlight gradation slight at most. Contrast with XTOL is a little lower between x=2.3 and x~2.7, but after that contrast is essentially identical to D316. So I'd be surprised if the divergence at x=2.3 has anything to do with buffering. One would expect less buffering to reduce highlight densities/contrast, but the difference between the curves should keep increasing (at least that's what I'd expect). To me it looks like the occasionally kinked curves I've gotten with XTOL. On the second graph while I'm not surprised the curves are the same for a ~4% change in development time (within normal margin of error in my opinion), I am somewhat surprised you found such a marked increase in grain with such a small difference in development time, and without an apparent increase in density.

    Regards
    Michael

    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    Here's the comparison of XTOL and D316 for Tri-X. These are 36-shot rolls, not test-strips:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveTrixXtolD316-13p5.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	61.7 KB 
ID:	60096

    The density-curves match almost exactly up to X=2.3. But an interesting thing happens after X=2.3: XTOL's slope suddenly drops, but D316's slope stays unchanged, causing the curves to diverge. If you ask me, XTOL's curve will cause worse gradation in highlights than D316, because D316 remains more linear through the highlights. If I were a user of Tri-X/XTOL, I'd be annoyed at the worse gradation in clouds, snow and white clothing. D316's curve is better.

    That sudden slope-drop in XTOL is odd. Any idea of the cause of that drop or the lack of drop in D316? Did I overdevelop D316? Or is the better buffering in D316 causing highlights to stay on track better?

    Mark Overton

    EDIT:

    It gets stranger. Here are plots of D316 at 13 and 13.5 minutes:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveTrixD316-13vs13p5.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	60.4 KB 
ID:	60098

    They look almost the same! But grain is definitely better at 13 minutes, matching XTOL in my loupes. It seems that increasing time boosted grain but not density. Maybe I'll try 12.5 minutes for the fun of it.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin