Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,199   Posts: 1,531,467   Online: 853
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    fingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    298
    Images
    4
    Hi Kevin,
    From my experiance using Diafine, don't presoak your film in water. The whole point of the two baths is for the part A to absorb into your film. Then the bart B is added to activate the A stored in the film. Once all the part A is exhosted in the film development stops. That is why it works at any temperature. Part A by itself does nothing. Part B alone also does nothing (useful anyway).

    If you presoak your film in water it will inhibit the absorbtion of the first bath into the emultion. The rusults that I got when I presoaked before using diafine was a mottled look, probably caused by uneven absorbtion of Part A (ie: some areas exhosted before others)

    Other than when using Diafine I presoak everything also, but learned the hard way not to do it with Diafine.
    Scott Stadler

  2. #22
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by fingel
    Hi Kevin,
    [...]
    Other than when using Diafine I presoak everything also, but learned the hard way not to do it with Diafine.
    Hrm.. that makes sense. This is one of the reasons why I closed up shop and am returning to get my BA (followed by MA, if I can pull it off) in photography -- so I can have a much better command of process (and art, but that's another topic) than I do now, and knowing just what's going on when I separate a developer, how to charge into sensitometric tests and make best use of my time and materials to quickly find out what I need to know and get on with taking pictuers and, ultimately, make the print in my hand reflect the image in my mind.

    Not pre-soaking on separated developers makes a lot more sense to me now.

    Thanks!

    -KwM-

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by kwmullet
    I know ansco/PF 130 makes a good split developer for paper.
    I also know several folks here use ansco 130 (well... two or three)
    for film. Does anyone have any experience using ansco 130 as a
    split developer?
    Hear is another split. Perhaps it's been mentioned, the Ansel
    Adams split where the hydroquinone portion is a second solution
    and added to the metol + glycin portion to increase contrast.

    Interestingly Ansel's A solution is very similar to Crawley's FX-2.
    Likely Ansel's A will make a good film developer just as he has
    compounded it and FX-2 will make a good paper developer.
    Of course correct dilutions would need be made.

    For panthermic processing use a mild alkali for the HQ bath. Say!
    That may be a good idea! Remember, I thought of it first. Dan

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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