Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,466   Posts: 1,570,715   Online: 1003
      
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101415161718192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 202
  1. #191
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I can't believe this is almost 20 pages by now. Haven't we already debated this same stuff out in 10 other threads before, guys?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #192
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Toffle View Post
    We should not be so quick to shout NO to new or unusual approaches to working with analog processes. When I first tried Caffenol printing in 2007, I was told on this very forum that the idea was a complete waste of time.
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...gan103630.html
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  3. #193
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,590
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Ming Rider - uneven development and/or streaking are often the result of insufficient or non-agitation. The reason is that as development proceeds, by-products of development accumulate. These by-product compounds come from both the developer and the film.
    I also believe (without any chemical knowledge) that this could be the sources of the streaks due to higher concentrations locally.
    But what is the process that's going on:
    1) heavier elements are sinking down, thus causing extra development from the bottom up;
    2) lighter elements float to the suface, thus causing extra development from the top down;
    3) heavier elements are sinking down, thus reducing development from the bottom up;
    4) lighter elements float to the suface, thus reducing development from the top down?

    All four seem theoretically possible, at least to me.
    What are the chemicals that cause the effect and are they heavier or lighter than water?
    Also, do we know if the side with the light streak was on top or at the bottom in the tank?

    So maybe in the next test making a mark in the film (cutting out a sprocket?) to mark the top side?
    And maybe develop a second part of the film under the same conditions, but with some minor agitating, say three or four times, to see what the effect is?
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Nikon S2, Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T, Nikon F4s, Olympus Pen FT, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras.

  4. #194

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    In general, there are many variables. The emulsion releases bromides which can act as restrainers, and other compounds (halides, silver, dyes etc). Different developing agents have differing sensitivities to bromides, and sensitivity depends on pH. Local pH can be affected by development by-products which tend to be acidic, so buffering can come into play. Oxidized forms of some developing agents can be more or less active than the initial compound, and the effect of sulfite on these oxidation products can either increase or decrease the rate of development. Diffusion in different directions within the emulsion. Aerial oxidation. Convection currents. These variables are interrelated.

    Also, these things are dependent on the amount of development taking place locally. More bromides and reaction products build up where there was more exposure and more silver is being developed. So the actual image being developed can have an important effect depending on where the areas of high and low exposure are relative to eachother.

    There is also the risk of unevenness resulting from non-uniform wetting, diffusion etc. at the very beginning of development. This is one of the reasons why a pre-soak is usually recommended with stand methods to help promote uniformity at the beginning of development.

    Put it all together and it becomes obvious why a technique like stand development requires experimentation and practice. With some combinations a full stand procedure may work fine. With others, some amount of minimal agitation may be required.

  5. #195

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,838
    Images
    24
    great thread !

    ming, some caffenol folks ( over on flickr in the palace )
    use salt in their caffenol developer to reduce fog ..
    its fun to see other folks experiment with it ...

    did you get a chance to print any of your experiments ? some
    salty film looks better electrified, some looks better contact printed, and others look best enlarged
    i guess the trick with film is to dovetail the whole chain .. film>dev> what type of print ...

    don't stop having fun and experimenting, its when you get off the main road you see the good-stuff.
    and don't listen to the nay-sayers, sometimes they just enjoy stepping on everyone's buzz ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Toffle View Post
    We should not be so quick to shout NO to new or unusual approaches to working with analog processes. When I first tried Caffenol printing in 2007, I was told on this very forum that the idea was a complete waste of time. I suppose the votes are still out on that, but over the last six years, Caffenol has become my primary paper developer. It is the spirit of experimentation over these years which has allowed me to adjust my formula and process to raise the quality of my Caffenol work above random, haphazard results to controllable, consistent prints. I can and do make "traditional" silver prints on a regular basis, but it is my caffenol work which catches the eye of gallery owners and these are by far the prints in my portfolio which sell. When I first began working with this process it seemed that I was all alone; now there are dozens of fine printers pushing the process beyond anything I imagined when I first began. Had I listened to the nay-sayers when I first posed the question, I would never have experienced the great joy I have in this process.

    Cheers,
    Tom
    couldn't agree more tom !

    john

  6. #196
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,344
    Increase development and print on softer paper to minimize grain.

  7. #197
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    That's a good theory too ic^. Would a soft paper dev also help? Something like this?
    LegacyPro Select Soft Paper Developer to Make 1 Gallon
    Model: 750710
    Manufacturer: LegacyPro
    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/750710...-Make-1-Gallon
    Andy

  8. #198

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    286
    Great thread, imo. That NB23 guy is a little unsavory but overall there has been a lot of great discussion so far. FWIW I stand develop my film about 50% of the time and after getting the recipe down, have had consistent results that I am happy with.

    Michael, correct me if I'm wrong but there are no bromide ions released when using Rodinal thus making bromide drag a non factor?

  9. #199

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by tron_ View Post
    correct me if I'm wrong but there are no bromide ions released when using Rodinal thus making bromide drag a non factor?
    If I might cut in, the bromide ion comes from the film itself it is released during development. Thus during stand development it is concentrated at the surface of the film. This is what causes bromide streaking. Any bromide ion originally present in a developer is evenly concentrated throughout its volume. This is why any agitation is preferable even if it is only intermediate agitation.

    One of the standard ways of minimizing grain is to under develop a film and use a higher contrast paper. This is the method recommended for 35mm film and was advocated by Willi Beutler in his book. Doing the opposite would actually increase grain.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 07-19-2013 at 11:26 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

  10. #200

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by tron_ View Post
    Great thread, imo. That NB23 guy is a little unsavory but overall there has been a lot of great discussion so far. FWIW I stand develop my film about 50% of the time and after getting the recipe down, have had consistent results that I am happy with.

    Michael, correct me if I'm wrong but there are no bromide ions released when using Rodinal thus making bromide drag a non factor?
    tron: as noted in my post bromides (and chlorides/iodides in smaller amounts) are released by the film emulsion.

    In response to Gerald and ic-racer, that has always been an interesting question. The prevailing wisdom is to develop film to a lower CI and increase paper grade. But depending on the film, developer and subjective considerations ic-racer's opposite proposal may or may not work too. The question in any particular case is whether the difference in film granularity from developing the film to a lower or higher CI has a greater, lesser or equal/offsetting effect in comparison to the change in paper contrast.

    I suspect in most cases the increase in graininess associated with higher contrast printing is 'smaller' than the decrease in film granularity resulting from reduced film development (ie you're slightly better off developing film to a lower CI and increasing print contrast) but this could vary. There would however typically be other benefits to developing the film to a slightly lower contrast as decreased granularity can have a beneficial effect on acutance and fine detail (or what has been referred to in the literature as "detectivity").
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 07-19-2013 at 11:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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