Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,232   Posts: 1,532,896   Online: 949
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    The Beutler formula produces beautiful results. However it also demands close attention to film exposure and development. If you are sloppy with time and temperature this developer is not for you.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #12
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    Well I am going to make my first Beutler Formula today. Funny.
    David what I would like to know from you is what agitation do you recomend for Thornton's 2 Bath. I am considering what 2 Bath to mix and often wonder about the agitation. Some say continious agitation in the second bath. Although this is a paradox for me if a 2Bath is supposed to be a compensating developer.
    Regarding Stoeckler's formula I would thing developing longer in the first bath would increase contrast.
    Not really knowing since I have never used it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,132
    If it is wanted to make Beutler using metol dissolved in Propylene Glycol, it must first be reacted with TEA to remove the ionic sulfate group whereupon it becomes soluble in Glycol. See the method of reacting Metol with TEA and water described in the section on Pyrocat-MC here:
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum224/...irections.html
    The other ingredients of Beutler, sulfite and carbonate, will not dissolve in Propylene Glycol so a 2 part mix would still have to be used.
    Sulfite reacts with air but in full sealed bottles the stuff would keep for a very long time.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Invest in a decent scale then you won't need the glycol or TEA. Part A for the Beutler developer keeps for months.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15
    David Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    394
    Hi Andreas,

    My processing sequence is:

    • 2 minutes pre-soak with constant agitation
    • 5 minutes in Bath A with continuous inversions for first 30 seconds (with me this works out at 4 inversions) followed by one inversion every 30 seconds. Each inversion is followed by a hard tap on the bottom of the tank to dislodge any possible air bubbles.
    • 5 minutes in Bath B with continuous inversions for first 30 seconds (with me this works out at 4 inversions) followed by one inversion every 30 seconds. Each inversion is followed by a hard tap on the bottom of the tank to dislodge any possible air bubbles.
    • 1 minute water stop bath.
    • 2 minutes in Ilford Hypam at 1 + 4
    • Remove film and place in large jug, constant agitation changing water every minute until pink dye is removed.
    • Replace in tank with fixer and fix for a further 2 minutes.
    • Remove film and place in a large jug with plain water.
    • Empty fix out of tank.
    • Wash tank thoroughly and then fill with plain water.
    • Replace film and secure lid and invert 10 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 10 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 20 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 20 times.
    • Remove film from tank and place in a large jug filled with distilled water and a few drops of wetting agent.
    • Leave film for a minimum of 3 minutes.
    • Remove film from reel and (with a bucket underneath) pour the contents of the jug down both sides of the film.
    • Hang to dry with no squegeeing or fingers on film.



    Hope this calrifies everything,

    David
    www.dsallen.de

  6. #16
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    Hi Andreas,

    My processing sequence is:

    • 2 minutes pre-soak with constant agitation
    • 5 minutes in Bath A with continuous inversions for first 30 seconds (with me this works out at 4 inversions) followed by one inversion every 30 seconds. Each inversion is followed by a hard tap on the bottom of the tank to dislodge any possible air bubbles.
    • 5 minutes in Bath B with continuous inversions for first 30 seconds (with me this works out at 4 inversions) followed by one inversion every 30 seconds. Each inversion is followed by a hard tap on the bottom of the tank to dislodge any possible air bubbles.
    • 1 minute water stop bath.
    • 2 minutes in Ilford Hypam at 1 + 4
    • Remove film and place in large jug, constant agitation changing water every minute until pink dye is removed.
    • Replace in tank with fixer and fix for a further 2 minutes.
    • Remove film and place in a large jug with plain water.
    • Empty fix out of tank.
    • Wash tank thoroughly and then fill with plain water.
    • Replace film and secure lid and invert 10 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 10 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 20 times.
    • Empty water and refill with plain water and invert 20 times.
    • Remove film from tank and place in a large jug filled with distilled water and a few drops of wetting agent.
    • Leave film for a minimum of 3 minutes.
    • Remove film from reel and (with a bucket underneath) pour the contents of the jug down both sides of the film.
    • Hang to dry with no squegeeing or fingers on film.



    Hope this calrifies everything,

    David
    www.dsallen.de
    Thanks David,
    maybe I will mix some I will do bit of thinking about that.
    Can you change the contrast by changing the development time?
    Could you also write how well the speed is used. I myself use Emofin a bit and tend to compare 2 Bath devlopers with it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    A presoak is not recommended when using two bath developers for two reasons. It interferes with the uptake of developing agents from bath A and it dilutes bath A each time you do it. If you have ever used Diafine this caveat would be in the directions. In fact both Kodak and Ilford DO NOT recommend a presoak for their BW films.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #18
    David Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    A presoak is not recommended when using two bath developers for two reasons. It interferes with the uptake of developing agents from bath A and it dilutes bath A each time you do it. If you have ever used Diafine this caveat would be in the directions. In fact both Kodak and Ilford DO NOT recommend a presoak for their BW films.
    Hi Gerald,

    I am afraid that I disagree. A pre-soak facilitates the uptake of developing agents from bath A by expanding the emulsion. The amount of residual water left in a film after the pre-soak has been drained off is so minimal that it has no significant dilution affect on Bath A of the developer.

    Most significantly, the use of a pre-soak eliminates many common processing faults. I have never had anyone that I have taught subsequently come to me with processing streaks, etc. I have had many friends and colleagues come to me with problems - such as streaking from the sprocket holes on 35mm - and the introduction of a pre-soak has solved the problem every time.

    Hi Andreas,

    Varying the development time has very little effect on the contrast but more on the overall density of the negative. Generally, the lower the iso of the film, the shorter the development time (3 - 4 mins) and the higher the iso (in my case Delta 400 rated at 200) the longer the development time (4.5 - 6 minutes).

    To reduce contrast, Thornton suggested that you can Change Bath B from 12g of Sodium Metaborate to 7g of Sodium Metaborate (however, I have NEVER ever had a negative that was too contrasty using Bath B with 12g of Sodium Metaborate).

    To increase contrast, Thornton suggested you can Change Bath B from 12g of Sodium Metaborate to 20g of Sodium Metaborate. This I have only actually tried ONCE (as I generally like to photograph in bright conditions it is not normally necessary) when photographing an extremely flat scene for a client (it could only be shot then with no chance of returning). I shot using two backs. The first roll I processed in standard Thornton developer and this gave printable negatives but needed Grade 4.5 and the mid-tones were not to my liking. The second roll I processed with Bath B made up of 20g of Sodium Metaborate. These negatives printed on Grade 3.5 with very good mid-tones. However, I must emphasise that I have only done this the one time.

    I am afraid that I can't comment on Emofin as I have never used it. For many years I standardised on HC110 Dilution B and this always gave me an effective iso of half the box speed. Then for nearly 20 years I used a two-bath designed for replenishment (which also gave me an effective iso of half the box speed) and then for the past 12 years I have only used Thornton's two-bath (which also gives me an effective iso of half the box speed).

    Of course it should be clearly stated that, when I test for effective iso of a film/developer I am seeking full detail in the dark shadows. I know many people who use Thornton's Two-Bath and find box speed is fine. It just depends upon the result that you want to achieve.

    Best,

    David
    www.dsallen.de

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    Hi Gerald,

    I am afraid that I disagree. A pre-soak facilitates the uptake of developing agents from bath A by expanding the emulsion. The amount of residual water left in a film after the pre-soak has been drained off is so minimal that it has no significant dilution affect on Bath A of the developer.www.dsallen.de
    The recommended time in bath A for most two bath developers is usually 3 to 4 minutes. This is more than enough time for the emulsion to be hydrated and absorb the necessary developing agents. As I said Diafine is most specific about not using a presoak. Since this product has been used to decades I take their word that they understand what happens in two bath developers.

    The problem is not with the water in the film it is with the residual water in the tank. I use SS tanks and find that it is impossible to empty them completely. Usually a ml or two always remains. I doubt that plastic ones are any better. Most people process many rolls through bath A and the total amount of water transfered would be a consideration. I have developed lots of film during the 60 years that I have been doing photography. I have never used a presoak for any BW developer and have never experienced any problems. No uneven development, streaks nor anything else. Still what works for you, works for you.

    Jerry
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20
    David Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    394
    Hi Jerry,

    As you say what works for you . . . and, just for clarity for other people reading this thread, there are many ways of working and what works for someone may not work for someone else. My comments were, as with all of us here, based on my own personal experience and specifically here about the use of Barry Thornton's version of a two-bath developer and in answer to Andreas' questions.

    One of your original points about pre-soak was that it would inhibit the take up of the developing agents and this is clearly not the case.

    With residual water in the tank, I process a maximum of 30 rolls in Bath A. If 1ml of pre-soak per process remained in the tank then it would result in 0.03% dilution of the Bath A - which is not a significant amount.

    To use a pre-soak or not is each individual photographer's choice and if you don't need it then fine. I can only repeat that friends and colleagues who have had problems with their processing have solved the problem by using a pre-soak. Maybe its the type of water? - I have no idea as I am no chemist. I only know what I have seen to have worked successfully.

    All of my comments are specifically about Barry Thornton's Two-Bath and, as I have not personally used Diafine, I can't comment on this.

    Best,

    David
    www.dsallen.de

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