Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,348   Online: 784
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 77
  1. #31
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,563
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Just one correction of a typo in one of my "questions" (which Mr. Bill has already tried to answer) in case it caused any confusion:

    "Why would the developing time for AH-15 be longer shorter than for AH-1 if the only difference between the two developers is a lower Metol concentration?"

    Obviously it should have read "Why would the developing time for AH-15 be shorter than for AH-1..."
    Michael, PE already answered that question: Metol is a salt from a secondary amine and sulfate, which makes it quite acidic. This means that the dev with more Metol will be lower in pH and less active as a result.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,558
    Yes sorry about repeating the question - I was just highlighting the fact there was a typo in the original question. PE and Mr. Bill understood what I meant regardless of the typo but just in case there are others interested I didn't want the typo to cause any confusion.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ..
    The sharpness is measured by making X-ray and white light exposures with 1000mm, 100mm, 10mm and 1mm apertures ...

    PE
    mm or um?

  4. #34
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,939
    Images
    65
    It may be an unreported pH or buffer difference, or there may be something explained in the redacted text regarding AH-15 and AH-1.

    PE

  5. #35
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,939
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth View Post
    mm or um?
    HUH?

    See my post of microdensitometry. X-Rays are sharper as there is no reflection in the coating, but white light is reflected off grains. There is quite a bit of turbidity in coatings wrt visible light. Look at film. Can you see through it? There are dyes there to reduce internal reflections. If you look at a pure film emulsion, it looks like yellow milk.

    PE

  6. #36
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,939
    Images
    65
    Thanks for the correction. My bad. See the actual units in the post showing the traces read in my post on edge effects. It is marked micro meters. I hastily used mm instead of um or looking up the Greek "mu".

    Sorry and thanks for the heads up. I thought it was a question about X-ray vs visible light.

    PE

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    56
    According to these data, it's impossible to improve the acutance of the (old) Tri-X.
    For this film, AH-2 is (was) the best compromise for a very moderate gain in speed and indiscernable loss in granularity.
    Last edited by Harold33; 12-20-2012 at 07:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #38
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,939
    Images
    65
    Sorry Harold but that is not quite true.

    PE

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,558
    Harold - It would seem to be the case but only within the confines of this particular experiment with these particular developers - and only in comparison to D-76. But one could almost certainly formulate an acutance developer that would have produced higher acutance. Perhaps a Crawley-type Metol-Carbonate or similar developer for example. Or a different developing agent. The developers in this experiment were all based on Beutler. And remember Altman and Henn were trying specifically to evaluate the effects of the Metol concentration and sulfite concentration.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    321
    Regarding the agitation method used during processing:

    Michael had asked about this in his pdf, my reply, per the paper, was "Processing was in the sensitometric machine of Jones, Russell, and Beacham (Jour. SMPE, 28:73 (1937) which gives strong and uniform agitation."

    The first SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering (Woodlief) has a short bit on "sensitometric processing apparatue." One of the systems has the same reference as above (Jones et al), and is characterized as: Type of agitation = paddle, cost = high, and features = Suitable for high-volume high-precision work; holds up to 60 film strips; adapted to automatic sequencing.

    So we know 1) it is not the well-known (?) ANSI processing method used for negative film speed testing, and 2) the cost would be out of range for most enthusiasts.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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