Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,232   Online: 839
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    So I went back on my word. I just finished the 16 minute test before I do the Pan-X. Just to call it a wrap.

    Tri-X Reversal. D19 1+0 , 16 minutes 1st / 8 minutes 2nd.

    Here's the news. Nothing to be gained between 12 and 16 minutes. 100 ASA is still the best result but probably not as good as 12. More contrast and tones crunched.

    But then there was only little improvement/difference to the 100ASA exposure between 8 mins and 12 mins so I was kind of expecting it.

    200ASA more usable but the bottom 3 zones are more or less combined flat black.

    I'll post the scans next week.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 03-16-2013 at 02:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    I think I might try johnielvis' suggestion of the weaker solution when I get the time. I reckon take the 8min version as a plateau and run it diluted at 1+1 for 16m.

    In the meantime Pan-X tests have started and are moving into the silver solvent stage next. I feel happier having two emulsions under test as one is more likely to yield results and that will take me into production sooner.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 03-17-2013 at 06:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13

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

    D19:
    in agreement with your comment - after my Pan-X test - I too was beginning to think that D19 is just not active enough. I've got a good image starting (after using hypo to clear the base silver) but only at 50ASA with 12mins of development. The 100 ASA exposure is unusable.

    (With regards your 10 minutes rule - I absolutely could not get noticeable fogging with Tri-X. Pan-X is another story.)

    I was loath to start using higher temperatures but I might give it a shot.

    Hypo/Silver Solvent:
    Working out the right relationship between developer strength/time and hypo qty does look slightly like trial and error. But I got nothing useable in Pax-X until I added it.

    Even though it did not seem to suit Tri-X specifically, I'm not sure why you say hypo should be avoided though, as even Kodak put it in their d94a. It's also what what i can see in every reversal recipe in the literature.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 03-18-2013 at 05:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.datsun View Post
    Even though it did not seem to suit Tri-X specifically, I'm not sure why you say hypo should be avoided though, as even Kodak put it in their d94a. It's also what what i can see in every reversal recipe in the literature.
    I'd pay attention to what PE one said on Apug.org about the neccessity of using a silver halide solvent. He's very expert at anything that is chemical related!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    Like I said before--those formulae are for tightly controlled machines--VERY SHORT processing times...a couple of minutes max. In my experience, I could never get the silver solvent in the developer to work reliably. Maybe you can, but I've stopped trying (at least until I get or build a film processing machine)--right now I'm doing hand processing/tubes. So for my processing methods, I've found silver solvent in developer is not a sufficiently repeatable process for me. I have found that when I screw up exposure and get a transparency that is "too dark", that I can fix it with ferricyanide bleach (if it isn't too bad). I go for "old reliable" methods that you can not do for a couple of months and start right in and process without screwing up because you're "out of practice". This IS a hobby for me, after all....

    Actually--it's more of a laziness thing, come to think of it. I've found that hypo in the developer is not necessary for me to do satisfactory reversal processing. Since it's not necessary, I'm not about to complicate things and add in steps (time, extra work) to my process--each step (measuring, adding another chemical) is also an opportunity for error. So it's a combination of laziness and desire for a very, very robust process with as much "slop" in it as possible. I do admire precision, but precision where it is not necessary is a waste of resources (laziness).

    OH...if you want to experiment with the hypo in developer, there is a small book I HIGHLY RECOMMEND called "The Monobath Manual"...it's a VERY good read and will show you the effects of hypo and what to expect in such processes.
    Ok. I get it, thank-you. It's better to understand reasons advice then one can choose to follow or not with more confidence.

    I'm using Peter Carter's method of the weak hypo solution so hopefully it'll work out more consistent for me in the Pan-X trials.

    I'll try and check out Monobath Manual, too. Regards, Mr Datsun.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    I'd pay attention to what PE one said on Apug.org about the neccessity of using a silver halide solvent. He's very expert at anything that is chemical related!
    Yes, seems like for johnielvis, is it mainly preference/practicality decision.

  7. #17
    Oxleyroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hawthorn Oz.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    773
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    7
    Johnielvis, I could not have said it better myself.
    Cheers - Andy C
    ---------------------

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

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    Well, not entirely--let me explain a bit better--this "new way" to explain occurred to me:
    You'll see.....it took me years....you'll go throught the same, since you want to learn it yourself, just like I did.

    READ THE MONOBATH BOOK.
    No, I don't want to take years and I'm very happy to learn from others who have done these things before. Of course, now I have been exposed to two versions of the reversal process – one advocating hypo and one the opposite – and so choosing one requires a certain leap of faith to someone who like me is a reversal neophyte. So i have to take things slowly and try one thing at a time.

    If I understand, your use of ferricyanide bleach is a way of fixing things if the end image is too dark. But my question is how to get the correct image balance in the first place without resorting to hypo or the use of ferricyanide bleach? I have not got there yet although your observation of keeping the development time to under 10 minutes is one I will take note of. Other factors in getting to the right final image seem to be nebulous. Correct kind of developer, correct dilution, correct temperature and correct dev time. From where I am it still appears to be a trial and error process – especially if as your say there is no single solution for all films! At the moment I can only go on other people's methods - especially those who have shown evidence of success and who have documented their process.

    Yes I will try and get to read the Grant Milford Haist book but it is long out of print. Any PDFs around?
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 03-19-2013 at 08:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The End of the World
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    242
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post

    You seem to think that your results are unacceptable for some reason.

    Look what you're doing: you're doing a different process than the kodak machine process and you're expecting to get the same results. This is kind of like einstein's definition of instanity.

    Different processes yeild different effective film speeds. There is nothing you can do to make one process give the same results as another. There is nothing wrong with this. People rate their films here at non-box speeds ALL THE TIME.

    Look at it this way--you want to drag race, you need a dragster--you ain't gonna get good results with your souped up hot rod street car. Ain't ever gonna happen. sorry to say

    You're going to add hypo now and get different results---also different from the kodak process. Well, have at it, I say--it's the only way to learn. Start cookin'.
    My Tri-X results were OK at 100ASA but not great. And no, I am not comparing them with factory results and I am not expecting the same – what I am doing is comparing them with what others have got developing themselves with Dektol or D19, for example plus hypo. I've simply seen better than what I am getting with similar process and trying to understand why.

    No, I'm not adding hypo to my Tri-X tests - as I have said here a few times – it was not working for me. It did work for others.

    But I'm not complaining as you seem to be implying – I just want to get the best results I can, understand how to do that and learn about the process along the way. I've worked some on Tri-X, enjoyed it, learnt quite a bit and now I am now testing Adox Pan-X with D19 with hypo to see what i can do with that.

    And yes, I am adding hypo to Pan-X as the image had a grey veil on top of a strong black image – very unlike the Tri-X thin greyness. The hypo in this case made the image come alive.
    Last edited by mr.datsun; 03-19-2013 at 11:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    70
    Johnielvis, can you explain your "10 min theory" ?
    If the problem is that the developer will start to fog at this point, then that's what we want! All that fog will be bleached away and we will get a lighter image in the end. Am I getting it wrong ?

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