Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,691   Posts: 1,548,941   Online: 802
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    Some people have complained that the permanganate bleach causes softening of the emulsion. For this reason I would not go above 20C.
    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. #42
    georgegrosu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    162
    I found the tests that I made last year with Aviaphot Pan 400 S PE 1.
    The test strips exposed like Kodak Double X.
    High densities I could not read properly and I did not past.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2112144...ream/lightbox/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2112144...ream/lightbox/

    George

  3. #43
    Oxleyroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hawthorn Oz. Soon to be MI USA!
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    788
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Some people have complained that the permanganate bleach causes softening of the emulsion. For this reason I would not go above 20C.
    I am one those who frequently had the emulsion soften with shanghai gp3 and Foma films, and found I needed to process at no higher than 14degC to avoid damage to the film.

    Why do I process at higher temps? Convenience for me because 1. I use tank water and in the summer its temp is nominally 25degC, in the winter it is nominally 17degC. As my darkroom is not airconditioned & I rely on drawing air in from outside with the ventilation fans it can easily be 32degC in the darkroom on a summer day. So I typically run all my development at around 22degC sometimes a little higher or lower as it is easier to warm chemistry up, than to cool it down for extended periods. 2. I ultimately want to build a cine film processor capable of running 400ft lengths, so development times need to be short.

    I am sure there are ways to adjust the development times to suit 20degC, and at least give you a starting point.
    Cheers - Andy C
    ---------------------

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

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxleyroad View Post
    I am one those who frequently had the emulsion soften with shanghai gp3 and Foma films, and found I needed to process at no higher than 14degC to avoid damage to the film.

    Why do I process at higher temps? Convenience for me because 1. I use tank water and in the summer its temp is nominally 25degC, in the winter it is nominally 17degC. As my darkroom is not airconditioned & I rely on drawing air in from outside with the ventilation fans it can easily be 32degC in the darkroom on a summer day. So I typically run all my development at around 22degC sometimes a little higher or lower as it is easier to warm chemistry up, than to cool it down for extended periods. 2. I ultimately want to build a cine film processor capable of running 400ft lengths, so development times need to be short.

    I am sure there are ways to adjust the development times to suit 20degC, and at least give you a starting point.
    I guessed it would be your climate and I will adjust your times to 20degC. Thankfully, I haven't yet had a problem with the permanganate but have added hardener to the fix bath to cover my bases.

    Good luck with the cine film processor. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would look forward to hearing more about it when you have built it.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,055
    Looks like my Tri-X reversal attempts. Although there is no reason it shouldn't work, Tri-X just doesn't seem to reverse well. Not only have I had failures, but generally the comments from others have been equally disappointing.

  6. #46
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth View Post
    Looks like my Tri-X reversal attempts. Although there is no reason it shouldn't work, Tri-X just doesn't seem to reverse well. Not only have I had failures, but generally the comments from others have been equally disappointing.
    I'm disappointed too, and I'm not even invested in this, it's a lot of arguing with very little (but two) examples of success with a lot of "I know what I"m talking about" but no proof...

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    One must be careful not to confuse Tri-X 7266 with the still film Tri-X (400TX) of the same name. All they have in common is the name "Tri-X." They are two very different films. Kodak 7266 is designed for reversal processing and the still film is not.

    This thread deals with processing 7266. What needs to done is to start with 7266 that has been exposed correctly in camera. Failure to do so will lead to endless frustration. The reversal process depends on a number of factors in order to work. This variable must be eliminated. So there is no value in "practicing" with any other film. Posts that deal with any other film other than 7266 are really of no value and only confuse things.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 02-28-2013 at 09:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    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. #48
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,067
    Images
    65
    Jerry;

    Both films will reversal process with success. Remember that the old Kodak reversal kit was made for Super XX, Plus X and TriX. However, the reversal process is tricky as you indicate.

    TriX 7266 has an antistatic backing to prevent charge building up in an MP camera, and it has provision for a sound track among other features.

    PE

  9. #49
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    More Tri-X reversal failures - analysis please.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    To all the dissappointed:

    It seems that everybody who is wants a robust method that works the first time, every time. well, those do exist....the kodak kit for direct reversal of tmax....the formulary kit for tmax reversal....and that foma???? kit? what ever that foreign one is. maybe the kodak one is not still available new...but the formulary one for sure is out there.

    anyways--these are out there and it seems that NObody wants to buy them. Everybody wants to do it all on their own because they consider it beneath them to pay money when they're smart enough to do it "on the cheap". Besides, other people are doing it with homebrew recipes and dammit them people don't seem so smart. so it's like humiliating to have to buy a kit--it's like an admission that some people out there ain't so dumb after all, and a total lack of hipster 'on the cheap' kool. pure ego.

    Has anybody having problems doing reversal actually TRIED to use one of these kits FIRST? From what's been posted, it appears not.

    here's a thought: if you use a robust, tested process, like kit, you can LEARN....then start substituting your own chemicals for the kit ones...one by one....next thing, you got your own process...then you can just TELL everybody you cooked it up yourself from scratch and it worked the first time...you'll get chicks then.
    Sounds like john's gots sum edumication ther... I reckon


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #50
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,067
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    To all the dissappointed:

    It seems that everybody who is wants a robust method that works the first time, every time. well, those do exist....the kodak kit for direct reversal of tmax....the formulary kit for tmax reversal....and that foma???? kit? what ever that foreign one is. maybe the kodak one is not still available new...but the formulary one for sure is out there.

    anyways--these are out there and it seems that NObody wants to buy them. Everybody wants to do it all on their own because they consider it beneath them to pay money when they're smart enough to do it "on the cheap". Besides, other people are doing it with homebrew recipes and dammit them people don't seem so smart. so it's like humiliating to have to buy a kit--it's like an admission that some people out there ain't so dumb after all, and a total lack of hipster 'on the cheap' kool. pure ego.

    Has anybody having problems doing reversal actually TRIED to use one of these kits FIRST? From what's been posted, it appears not.

    here's a thought: if you use a robust, tested process, like kit, you can LEARN....then start substituting your own chemicals for the kit ones...one by one....next thing, you got your own process...then you can just TELL everybody you cooked it up yourself from scratch and it worked the first time...you'll get chicks then.
    And the current Kodak kit and the current Formulary kit is for Tmax. This is about TriX! There i a difference you know. Small but real!

    The older kits were generic with times adjusted for the films.

    PE

Page 5 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