Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,328   Posts: 1,537,021   Online: 1126
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
    Thanks Larry

    My problem is with the bleach for ciba, I would possibly give my right baby toe to learn this formula, I would also possibly give up my left toe if anyone could give me the formula for Champion Nova Lith A B.
    After that I would consider more appendages for formulas, dependent upon how my balance is missing 2 digits.
    Bob, it runs in my mind that someone, somewhere came up with a bleach formula that approximated Ilford's and worked well. I can't remember where, because at the time I was in Paris and didn't have a good source for sulfonic acid, which was one of the main ingredients. There must be someone out there whose memory is functioning better than mine.

    In fact, I believe that the main difference between the P-3 professional bleach and the amateur P-30 (much less caustic and dangerous) bleach was that the P-3 used sulfuric acid, while the P-30 used sulfonic. I used to buy the P-3 stuff because it came in large quantities and made the price a lot lower, but it was pretty caustic and odorific stuff. I don't think I would have tray-developed with it.

    Larry

  2. #12
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Jay,

    Nope, I mean 10 ml of Edwal's liquid Orthazite, which is Benzotriazole, but I'm not sure in what percentage solution. I should have specified that.

    Larry

  3. #13
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    Interesting, this... I've used two-bath developer for film, but never thought of doing it with paper!

    Could you post this in the "Chemistry Recipes" section, please?
    Actually, it works much better with paper than with film. With film, there is definitely a time-consideration in the second bath--usually 3-5 minutes depending on the formula and film. But with paper, it's 30-45 seconds or until completion.

    It's now in the chemistry recipes.

    P.S. I visited your fair city about three years ago. Hiked up the mountain, took lots of photos, drank some beer in an outdoor cafe (It was May), and otherwise thorough enjoyed ourselves.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine-iac
    Replying to both Bob and Tom:

    I mixed only my own developer, although I sometimes used regular Ilford Rapid Fix if I ran out of the fixer in the Ilfochrome kit. Always seemed to work exactly the same.

    The divided development technique is not exactly like the Beers technique. Beers is a two-bath system with each bath being a complete developer--developing agents and activator--one "hard" and one "soft." True divided development separates activator from developing agents.

    While it's true that many developer formulas, separated, would not give as great a contrast control for Ilfos as unsharp masking, I'm not sure that holds true for the formula I was using, which was essentially a slightly modified one that appeared in an article in Photo Techniques about 10 or more years ago. Strikes me in the dim recesses of my memory that the author's name might have been Springer, but I won't swear to that. Before that, I had already been experimenting with various divided formulas for probably 10 years, finding out which ones controlled contrast and which didn't. It was not long after I began using divided development for all of my B&W printing that it dawned on me that it would probably work for Ilfochrome, too. By the time I read Springer's (?) article, I had already worked out that Phenidone was better than Metol because Metol caused a decided shift toward yellow that had to be compensated for by heavier filtration, thus making even longer exposures. With Phenidone-based formulas, I usually needed very little filtration at all.

    Anyway, the formula was inherently lower contrast in that it contained no HQ and did contain a wee bit of sodium thiosulfate. Apparently, Ilford used a bit of hypo in their own developer. Some photographer friends, on seeing my Ilfos, would be convinced that they were really "C" prints because the highlight detail held so well. So I never bothered to learn unsharp masking, so I really can't refute what you say, but can say that I never felt the need for it.

    Larry
    Actually, both the recipes you posted have enough sulfite in them for them to act as developers (like D23) without the "B" bath.

    WRT unsharp masking and Cibachrome, the results speak for themselves. I don't know about Ilfochrome - I've never worked with it.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Enough sulfite? That may be. I don't speak avoirdupois
    or upper or lower spoon. I've more a background in STP;
    standard temperature and pressure, 20 degrees
    centigrade and 760 mm of mercury. Dan

  6. #16
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
    Actually, both the recipes you posted have enough sulfite in them for them to act as developers (like D23) without the "B" bath.

    WRT unsharp masking and Cibachrome, the results speak for themselves. I don't know about Ilfochrome - I've never worked with it.

    Tom, that may be so, but no image has ever appeared in Bath A, regardless of how long I've left it there. Admittedly, I've never tested it beyond 3 minutes, so maybe if I left it in for 15 minutes, an image would eventually appear. But I can't imagine why anyone would, since about 30 seconds is sufficient for the latent image to soak up all the developing agents it needs. The amount of sulfite I gave in the formula is half the amount in the formula recommended in the old Dignan newsletter I originally got it from. I don't know what to make of this except, perhaps, that while D-23 makes a perfectly good film developer, it doesn't do much for paper without a more active accelerator like carbonate.

    Ilfochromes are Cibachromes; the name got changed when Ilford bought out that division of Ciba-Geigy. The processes remained pretty much the same until about 5-10 years after Ilford took it over; then they began making some changes in the chemistry (the P-3 vs. P-30, etc.) and also, a bit later, came out with some different contrast emulsions. I haven't done any since those newer emulsions came out, so that's why I'm not offering any formulas for Ilfos now. But up until about five years ago, when I stopped doing them, the divided formulas I'd been using, worked well with the standard emulsion.

    Larry

  7. #17
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu
    Enough sulfite? That may be. I don't speak avoirdupois
    or upper or lower spoon. I've more a background in STP;
    standard temperature and pressure, 20 degrees
    centigrade and 760 mm of mercury. Dan

    Years ago, Henry Horenstein in Beyond Beginning Photography published a conversion table for all the commonly used darkroom chemicals, from grams into teaspoons and tablespoons, which are standard American kitchen measurements.

    At first, I was leary of it, because it can't be as precise as weighing out chemicals on a scale in grams. But I decided to try it, because I had read an article or two by others suggesting that, in fact, photochemical processes were nowhere near as demanding and touchy as one might suspect.

    I discovered that changing over to teaspoons and tablespoons worked perfectly well, gave me absolutely consistent results (or if inconsistent, to a degree I can't even measure or detect), and was so much more convenient and time-saving, that I never went back to my chemical balance scale.

    I know there are many out there who are horrified at this notion, but all I can say is I've been measuring in this "kitchen" way for about 20 years, and am perfectly happy with my results. To mix up a film developer for use as a one-shot, I fill my liter graduate with water at 70F, add 1/2 teaspoon, Vitamin C powder from the Health Food store, 1 teaspoon of sodium metaborate (or carbonate for some films), and 4 ml. 1% Phenidone solution dissolved either in alcohol or propylene glycol, stir, and pour into my tank, and roughly 6-7 minutes later (plus fixing and wash time, of course), voilá! lovely negatives. The mixing process itself takes maybe all of two minutes, no longer than it would take to mix up stock solutions and dilute them, and certainly much shorter than weighing everything on a balance.

    I'm sure that conversion chart is still available on the net somewhere. Try it, you'll like it.

    Larry

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    D-23, 7.5 grams metol and 100 grams of sodium sulfite, will develop
    fully a print image although it is slow. It's been some time since I
    tested it on paper but I'm quite sure an image will appear
    within a minutes processing. I'll give it another testing.

    My Acculab 200 gram capacity .01 gram resolution digital scale
    allows me to accurately compound sub-liter quantities for
    experimentation. Dan

  9. #19
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244

    "Cookbook" chemical measurement

    Quote Originally Posted by Maine-iac
    Years ago, Henry Horenstein in Beyond Beginning Photography published a conversion table for all the commonly used darkroom chemicals, from grams into teaspoons and tablespoons, which are standard American kitchen measurements.
    This is still copyrighted, and I think still in print, so I won't post it here. My 1977 second printing of the first edition of Beyond Basic Photography (corrected Beginning to Basic) has the tables for 21 chemicals, with gram equivalents for volumes from 1/8th teaspoon to 1 tablespoon on page 67.

    Horenstein says the equivalents were worked out by Zone V Inc., a chemical supply house in Brookline, Mass. I'm not sure they're still around. I remember them, but I can't locate them now, and I think I remember hearing of their demise many years ago.

    Lee

  10. #20
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    [QUOTE=Lee L]This is still copyrighted, and I think still in print, so I won't post it here. My 1977 second printing of the first edition of Beyond Basic Photography (corrected Beginning to Basic) has the tables for 21 chemicals, with gram equivalents for volumes from 1/8th teaspoon to 1 tablespoon on page 67.

    Horenstein says the equivalents were worked out by Zone V Inc., a chemical supply house in Brookline, Mass. I'm not sure they're still around. I remember them, but I can't locate them now, and I think I remember hearing of their demise many years ago.


    I believe you're right, Lee, that this conversion chart is copyrighted. I first encountered this, not in Horenstein's book, but in an old issue of 35mm Photography Summer 1979, in which Horenstein had an article. So it might be possible to find this chart on the web somewhere.

    Larry

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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