Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,453   Online: 874
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    so it's not yourprocess, it's the film...right....ok

    well, tri-x is done reversal and returns fine results all the time, that's a FACT.

    bleach really doesn't matter as long as it gets the job done...obviously the permananate you're using is diluted to keep it from wrecking the film, which permanganate does since it's nasty strong. If you can't get dichromate because it's a controlled substance then so be it, but it don't matter as long as it can bleach film clear eventually and you leave it in long enough.

    hypo in the first developer will likely be your undoing...leave it out and get your process to work without it--it has proven totally unnecessary for regular tank developing.
    No. I just did not say anything like 'it's not my process, it's the film'. I am saying that I have had no success getting it to work so maybe I should find something that does.

    I have already tried it without hypo. If you read my posts you will see that I said that. As it happens hypo was recommended by other people doing reversal processing as a means of getting better hilights and hence improving contrast. So, obviously there are conflicting opinions.

    It is known to work with D94. With regards other developers, if it is FACT, then I'd like to see the examples and the process that was used, please
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 02-26-2013 at 01:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    no...THAT will be your undoing.

    you need high contrast first deveopment--you're only developing 35mm and super 8...hardly any chemicals used at all and THAT'S too expensive? Then you can't afford to do it, sorry to say.

    Every "smartcookie" macguyver genius out there thinks that the laws of physics will bend for them because they are so brilliant and they don'tWANT to have to spend money like normal "stupid" people.

    good luck with that.
    No, Super 8 takes 1L of developer for each film. You are suggesting that I use Dektol liquid at 1+1. That's a whole bottle of concentrated developer at £10 per bottle per film and 5 times the usual concentration normally used to develop Tri-X to neg state. I don't think it's unreasonable to question such an approach.

    johnielvis, please leave the sarcastic comments out. Your constant patronising use of UPPER case was annoying enough. I'd simply rather you not answer if you cannot be polite.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Kodak recommends using D-94 or D-94A as a first developer. This is a high contrast developer containing 9.1 ml of a solution of sodium thiocyanate. Since thiocyanate is twice as effective as thiosulfate and the solution is ~50% this corresponds to 9 g/l of sodium thiosulfate.

    I would suggest using Dektol 1+1 as the first developer instead of the more dilute solution that you have been using.
    Gerald. So, if I'm using anhydrous that makes my 5g per 330ml into approx 6g per 330ml or 18g/L. So double what Kodak use? I guess that was too much. But then I also tried 1/10 of that and got a washed out positive image that looked like it was 15% reduced in density.

    With regards using Dektol at 1+1. But are you aware that I am using Dektol liquid (Polymax). This is diluted at 1+9 to make the equivalent of 1+2 of stock Dektol made from powder?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    OTOMH, I cannot remember the formula for D94, but I do know that Dektol is a paper developer. As such it is low solvent (Sulfite) and high in restrainer (Bromide) and these two may be your problem. Remember, what you are trying to do has been done by others with success.

    PE
    PE, thanks for the upport. I am finding it hard to work out how those others did it. Someone in Holland (Frank at super8.nl) has used Ilford multigrade, Dokumol and Dokulith. These are all paper developers - but are they different to Dektol?


    Also, remember that mrred has made Dektol work with 5 or 6 B&W negative films (two were 400ASA) with very good success. I have used much the same method on Tri-X with poor results. This is why I start to wonder that Tri-X is resistant to this process.

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    The D94 contains Sodium Hydroxide which ups the pH quite a bit. And the HQ level? Wow! In fact, that formula looks to be in the range of D8 or D19 for activity and contrast. Dektol is anemic compared to that!

    Thanks Jerry.

    PE

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by georgegrosu View Post
    I always use raw chemical for preparations of solutions.
    Reversible process b & w you should read densities of film.
    At least fog density and high density.
    From memory, the Kodak Double X (as reversal process b & w) fog was ~ 0.3 and maximum density was ~ 2.6.
    If you look at the characteristic curve of KODAK TRI-X 7266 is not
    as rich in density curve as a negative film.
    Again, I think better results can be obtained on films with small fog.
    I have not worked with KODAK TRI-X.

    George
    Do you mean that KODAK TRI-X 7266 is lower contrast than a Tri-X negative film? That doesn't make Super 8 Tri-X sound too good from my experiences with Tri-X 35mm.

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    As an added comment, TriX film is quite a normal film and should reverse just fine, and Kodak once sold a universal reversal kit with times for a wide variety of their films. So, one process can cover a multitude of films.

    PE

  8. #28
    Oxleyroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hawthorn Oz. Soon to be MI USA!
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    801
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    7
    I use D19 predominantly with added thiocyanate (or not depending).
    Cheers - Andy C
    ---------------------

    16mm Cine, 35mm, 120, 5x4 & 7x5.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    johnielvis, thanks for the thoughtful response.

    In this blog:

    http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2011/...l-process.html

    you can see that mrred has used powder Dektol at 1+1 and 1+2 on many films with great success (i have seen the results). The Dektol liquid (that i use) is already 5 times the strength of Dektol stock from powder, so I am suing it at 1+9 or at the stronger 1+5 to shorten dev times.

    It's not that I don't want to hear it but rather that if Dektol will only work at 10 times the normal concentration used to successfully reverse develop other films, that maybe it is the wrong one for Tri-X. Then maybe I have nothing to lose except ruling dev concentration out.

    I'm not panicked, just frustrated that I've wasted huge amounts of time trying to re-invent a wheel that someone has already made perfectly well.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 02-26-2013 at 02:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    No one has commented on the fact that the daylight exposed end of the film strip is totally clear. What does that tell us?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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