Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,412   Posts: 1,596,520   Online: 1116
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,058
    Developing film means precision and repeatability. This offers neither. The photos are not bad, but the prints border on terrible. Sorry my opinion.

  2. #22
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    397
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I bet it did. My mind is locked too heavily in roll film washers and Ilford rinsing techniques.
    What's an Ilford rinsing technique? Are there more than one?

  3. #23
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,630
    Images
    289

    Robert Adams' roll film developing technique

    Quote Originally Posted by mfohl View Post
    What's an Ilford rinsing technique? Are there more than one?
    http://bit.ly/16PKIxt

    First search result. Page 10, Figure 13.
    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 08-28-2013 at 08:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #24
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,630
    Images
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post
    Developing film means precision and repeatability. This offers neither. The photos are not bad, but the prints border on terrible. Sorry my opinion.
    Why do you consider this method imprecise and not repeatable? If you think about it, it is very similar to develop sheet film in trays. What is the difference?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,211
    Agreed. I do find it "risky" in the sense there is a lot of manual handling/manipulation, and rather cumbersome. But with practice and proper temperatures/timing, I don't see why it would be any less precise or repeatable than any other method.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Why do you consider this method imprecise and not repeatable? If you think about it, it is very similar to develop sheet film in trays. What is the difference?
    Not to speak for Ronald, but sheet film is easily submerged and you only have to worry about 2 dimensions, not 3. With this "see-saw" method, one part of the film could be left in the soup for a longer or shorter time than the rest. I see too many possible errors with this method, but to each their own.

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,630
    Images
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    Not to speak for Ronald, but sheet film is easily submerged and you only have to worry about 2 dimensions, not 3. With this "see-saw" method, one part of the film could be left in the soup for a longer or shorter time than the rest. I see too many possible errors with this method, but to each their own.
    I'll give you that one, about 2 dimensions and 3 dimensions. But it doesn't seem that Adams had any problems with uniform development either.

    There are risks with reels too. On more than one occasion parts of the film has come off the reel and adhered to the layer of film beneath it on the reel. That would not happen with this method. You also wouldn't have any delay, like when chemicals are poured into the developing tank. That, to me, presents a much greater risk for uneven development than the see-saw method.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,081
    Yup, you've got good points. If it works for Adams, cool. If it's repeatable for him, go. Yeah, I use tanks and pour the chems in thru the top and there is that time gap. Some folks fill the tank to the brim with chemstry and dunk the loaded reel into in the dark and then put the lid on. Makes sense that way. That's how Kodak suggested you dev Tech Pan.

  9. #29
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    858
    Submitted for your consideration:

    http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/...tent=27Jul2013

    d

  10. #30
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    397
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    Yup, you've got good points. If it works for Adams, cool. If it's repeatable for him, go. Yeah, I use tanks and pour the chems in thru the top and there is that time gap. Some folks fill the tank to the brim with chemstry and dunk the loaded reel into in the dark and then put the lid on. Makes sense that way. That's how Kodak suggested you dev Tech Pan.
    I've been thinking about this for a while, and here is my conclusion. On the one hand, when you pour developer into the tank, the bottom part has more time in the developer as the level rises. However, after you empty out the developer and pour in the stop bath, the stop bath starts from the bottom also. So the top of the film has a little extra time before the developer is stopped.

    Having said all that, I use D-76 1:1, and my development times are almost never less than 9 minutes, so the few seconds of unevenness are small, percentage wise.

    Just my .02,

    -- Mark

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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