Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,568   Online: 1058
      
Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 422
  1. #31
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    I have not used an acid stop bath in at least 25 years and have never experienced the problem you describe. However, I do know one of the causes of this problem.

    If you put the reels in PHoto FLo youwill get the increased density along the edge because Photo FLo acts as a catalyst to the developer.
    In order to remove traces of Photo Flo from the reels it is necessaryto scrub them in hot water with a toothbrush.
    Jim, this is a very good point.

    Photo Flo 200 contains an ingredient which is a mild developer accelerator. It can do its thing along the edges or more if not cleaned away well.

    I should add that this is not true of all emulsions. It is unreactive with many types of emulsions. I have personally tested this and can attest to the activity/non activity depending on emulsion.

    PE

  2. #32
    djkloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Erie, Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    641
    Images
    55

    photoflo accident!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    I have not used an acid stop bath in at least 25 years and have never experienced the problem you describe. However, I do know one of the causes of this problem.

    If you put the reels in PHoto FLo youwill get the increased density along the edge because Photo FLo acts as a catalyst to the developer.
    In order to remove traces of Photo Flo from the reels it is necessaryto scrub them in hot water with a toothbrush.
    I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput? Is it going to be dead in the developer? I remembered about this thread and the problems with photoflo. I was planning on a 1 hour stand development. I suppose it's too late to save it? :o Boy do I feel stupid!

  3. #33
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,428
    Images
    44
    SNIP
    Quote Originally Posted by djkloss View Post
    I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput?
    ...end snip
    And I would think so is your beaker.... I never put anything in fotoflo except loose film. I have a glass baking pan for sheet film and a large glass jar for roll film. I don't allow fotoflo, even diluted, near any tank or reel period. It is wonderful stuff for film but a disaster for all else.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    My tap water is as alkaline as some developers I've used.
    It's not the pH of the tap water that is important but rather it's buffer capacity. Any tap water that could effect photographic solutions by virtue of its alkalinity would not be safe to drink.

  5. #35
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    241
    my experience is different than Ronald's. I had serious surge marks with good SS reels. I finally tamed them by oh so slow and careful torus agitation. And since I've switched to minimal agitation with only 2 v-e-r-y s-l-o-w torus rotations every 2 minutes during development. No more surge marks.


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,909
    Quote Originally Posted by djkloss View Post
    I can't believe this! I just measured my rodinal in the same beaker that I measured my photo flo in! It looked really BAD and so I thought it was from the marbles. Then I realized what I did. So is my whole roll kaput? Is it going to be dead in the developer? I remembered about this thread and the problems with photoflo. I was planning on a 1 hour stand development. I suppose it's too late to save it? :o Boy do I feel stupid!
    Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

    Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

    Presumably we are talking about a tiny amount of dregs of photo-flo compared with maybe 300ccs of Rodinal. If photo-flo at these dilutions is damaging enough to render your film as good as useless, then it's certainly lethal stuff and needs a very large warning on the label.

    If it is this lethal you'd think that the maker would have been good enough to draw users' attention to it.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  7. #37
    djkloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Erie, Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    641
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

    Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

    Presumably we are talking about a tiny amount of dregs of photo-flo compared with maybe 300ccs of Rodinal. If photo-flo at these dilutions is damaging enough to render your film as good as useless, then it's certainly lethal stuff and needs a very large warning on the label.

    If it is this lethal you'd think that the maker would have been good enough to draw users' attention to it.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

    It really wasn't so bad after all. I saw the foam and paniced (sp?). When using such a small amount of rodinal, and trying so hard to get it just right, and not knowing the end result...well...and Rodinal is sooo precious...I just don't like screwing things up.

    There wasn't that much in the beaker. Only left over from mixing. The beaker only holds 10 ml, so what ever was on the sides.

    Thank you for your support and understanding.

    Dorothy

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,212
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post
    Oh another one who thinks surge marks exist. They don`t.
    Remember, it's puff, puff, pass

  9. #39
    djkloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Erie, Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    641
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Sorry about what is predicted to be a disaster. I take it that the rodinal dev,contaminated with phot-flo is already in the tank, developing correctly or not as the case may be, the film.

    Please lets us know how things turned out. It'll certainly help anybody who may do the same to know at least the extent of the damage he can expect.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser
    Here is a scan from one of the negatives. It may not be what was expected, but it wasn't that bad of an error, IMO.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Boats_and_Sky.jpg  

  10. #40

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,909
    Quote Originally Posted by djkloss View Post
    Here is a scan from one of the negatives. It may not be what was expected, but it wasn't that bad of an error, IMO.
    Thanks for thumbnail. Your're right it's far from a disaster. To be honest I'd have been surprised if it had been the total disaster that at least one reply was forecasting and I notice that a number of other replies on another thread on the photo-flo accident said as much.

    It may well be that the respondent indicating disaster has had just such an experience but if so then at least that person should have indicated as accurately as possible the exact circumstances to enable you to judge.

    Otherwise we end up with a site where alarm and despondency is spread unnecessarily. This may not be a problem for those who "know better" but for others and I'd include myself in that group here who have to rely on what is stated as being "considered opinion" from experienced users it is disconcerting.

    Had you been inclined to take things at face value you may flushed the developer down the drain and thrown the film away while in despair.


    Once we become a site where " caveat inquirer" becomes the norm then the site becomes devalued especially for newcomers who are less able to take care of themselves which is why they are here in the first place.

    pentaxuser

Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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