Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,556   Posts: 1,573,178   Online: 943
      
Page 36 of 55 FirstFirst ... 263031323334353637383940414246 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 550
  1. #351

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    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.
    Yes, that would be a good test.
    Gerald Koch pointed out here that such chemicals will eventually dissolve at room-temperature. So the issue is the water that did not get steamed out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    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.
    The chemicals involved are:
    * Propylene glycol, a food-additive (non-toxic).
    * Sodium metaborate, slightly toxic, and at pH 10.5, not particularly caustic.
    * Ascorbic acid (aka vitamin C), non-toxic, and at pH 3, not particularly acidic.
    * Phenidone, almost non-toxic.

    So getting the chemicals on you will be harmless. The temperatures involved are 85C at most, which is well below what's used for cooking. So there's a lower danger of scalding with D316 than with cooking. Also, D316 can be mixed at 65C (I've done it), reducing scald-risk even farther below cooking-risk.

    Overall, I'd say mixing D316 is safer than cooking.

    Mark Overton
    Last edited by albada; 11-24-2012 at 09:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #352

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674

    Tri-X results

    Tri-X developed in D316 for 12.75 minutes looks good. Here are the density-curves of D316 and XTOL:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveTrixXtolD316-12p75.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	50.9 KB 
ID:	60153

    Curves: In the graph, you can see that D316 is close to XTOL, but provides a little more linear gradation as you go from midtones into highlights.

    Grain: In my loupes, grain of D316 ranges from same as XTOL to slightly better than XTOL, depending on density.

    Sharpening: D316 sharpens Tri-X some, but clearly less than XTOL (sharpening of TMY-2 is about the same). If you want high sharpening, D316 with Tri-X is not for you. But lower sharpening is a benefit if the fringes (Mackie lines) from sharpening bother you.

    Overall, I prefer D316 over XTOL due to its nicer grain and better linearity.

    Mark Overton

  3. #353

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674

    Neopan 400 Results

    Neopan 400 works well with D316. Here are curves comparing it with Tri-X. Notice that Neopan 400 compresses highlights less than Tri-X.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveNeopanD316-TrixXtol.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	61.1 KB 
ID:	60722

    Here are the films I've tested with D316 so far, along with their dev-times, which all happen to be a whole number of minutes:

    Tmax-400 ........ 12
    Tri-X ............... 13
    Neopan 400 ...... 14
    FP4+ ............... 16

    I plan to test Tmax-100, Acros and most Ilford films, including Pan F+. Any other ideas?

    Mark Overton

  4. #354
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,783
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    I plan to test Tmax-100, Acros and most Ilford films, including Pan F+. Any other ideas?
    I've tested Delta 3200 with D316 1+1 and negs look great, prints will follow soon. Dev time was 36 minutes (2 times Xtol times for Xtol 1+1 and Delta 3200). This test did not yield a characteristic curve or anything, but shows that higher dilutions of D316 seem feasible (Delta 3200 is usually quite demanding).

    For those mixing fresh: you can use the easier to get Borax instead of Metaborate: replace 2.2 g of Sodium Metaborate Tetrahydrate with 2 g Borax and at the end of mixing adjust pH to 8.0 with Sodium Hydroxide (Sodium Carbonate should also work at this pH). Don't leave out the Propylene Glycol as it is said to influence the behavior of the Borate ion (and as a result buffering and pH).
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  5. #355

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    I've tested Delta 3200 with D316 1+1 and negs look great, prints will follow soon. Dev time was 36 minutes (2 times Xtol times for Xtol 1+1 and Delta 3200). This test did not yield a characteristic curve or anything, but shows that higher dilutions of D316 seem feasible (Delta 3200 is usually quite demanding).

    For those mixing fresh: you can use the easier to get Borax instead of Metaborate: replace 2.2 g of Sodium Metaborate Tetrahydrate with 2 g Borax and at the end of mixing adjust pH to 8.0 with Sodium Hydroxide (Sodium Carbonate should also work at this pH). Don't leave out the Propylene Glycol as it is said to influence the behavior of the Borate ion (and as a result buffering and pH).
    Wow! Thanks for doing this. It's good to know that it will perform well diluted 1+1. And I haven't tried Delta 3200 either, so that's another film to add to the known-to-work list.

    For folks who wish to mix fresh (directly into water), the dev-times should be boosted by 10-15%. That's because a PG-concentrate develops faster than when mixed directly into water. Any idea why? Perhaps the esters formed in the concentrate don't dissociate when dissolved in water? Anyway, I notice that adding PG directly into water slows development, so you could try omitting the PG, resulting in this simple formula:

    Sodium sulfite ........................... 45 g
    Sodium metaborate dihydrate ...... 2.2 g (or 3.0 g of s.m. tetrahydrate)
    Ascorbic acid ........................... 4.5 g
    Phenidone ............................... 0.05 g

    I developed a roll of Acros last night, which looks fine. I hope to take measurements this evening.

    Mark Overton

  6. #356
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    5
    Isn't PG a development accelerator? I know PPG and PEG are. Possibly when mixed in the concentrate it is combing with one of the other components so that it can get into the emulsion and act as an accelerator. But, when mixed directly into water it's ineffective. Just a guess.

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

  7. #357
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,398
    Images
    65
    Polyols are known, in generaal, as development accelerators and are used in emulsion coating as just that along for their other property of being humectants.

    PE

  8. #358

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Polyols are known, in generaal, as development accelerators and are used in emulsion coating as just that along for their other property of being humectants. PE
    The effect of PG on development-speed is interesting. Here are the times for D316 with TMY2:

    Direct to water with No PG ......... 13 min (i.e., the formula I posted 3 postings ago)
    Direct to water with PG ............. 13.75 min
    PG-based concentrate ............... 12 min

    So adding PG to water slows development, but when the PG is in a concentrate, it accelerates development. Weird, isn't it?

    Mark Overton

  9. #359
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,398
    Images
    65
    I certainly cannot explain it.

    PE

  10. #360
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,783
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    So adding PG to water slows development, but when the PG is in a concentrate, it accelerates development. Weird, isn't it?
    This is a wild guess but maybe it inspires more educated guesses: I have read it many times that PG forms an ester with the borate ion, and my little high school chemistry knowledge tells me that esters are more likely to form when water is forcibly removed. If all this is correct, I would assume that PG-Borate ester is formed in the concentrate version, which may have different properties from Borate and PG alone. It would be interesting to know whether different pH adjustments are needed with concentrate or fresh mix.

    Since Mark observed that a given amount of PG has much more pronounced effect on small test clips than on whole rolls of film, it looks like PG somehow interacts with the gelatin or some other part of the emulsion.

    PS: About the 1+1 dilution: I did an 120 roll in 500ml of developer, which means my results may or may not apply to 35mm rolls souped in 250ml.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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