Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,447   Online: 1014
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,641
    Images
    4
    I'm coming to this thread late - Ole, did you try these TMX plates? I have access to some old TMX film and tried development by inspection. I couldn't see a thing because of the dyes in the emulsion.

    I'm still trying to figure out how to develop this stuff - as has been said, the mid-tones are just dead. Maybe I'll try some minimal agitation scheme in Rodinal. Rodinal is supposed to clear the dye better.
    juan

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    I'll tack on to the end of this thread with a related question:

    I have been avoiding T-max for years because my very limited experience with it didn't give me the results I like (I like FP4+ in Ilfosol-S, APX100 in pyrocat-HD, and EFKE in Neofin Blau). But now I've got a chance to buy some relatively cheap outdated 13x18cm T-max 100 glass plates, and the oppurtunity is just too rare to pass up.

    So I need help: How do I get the contrast I like without blowing out the highlights? Mind that these plates will most likely be printed on alternative processes - but maybe not all on POP...
    Excuse me for asking, but TMax glass plates?...when did Kodak make those available? Are you sure that this is Tmax emulsion? Tmax came out in the mid 1980's as I recall and I have never seen anyone mention Tmax glass plates.

  3. #33
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Kodak made TMX glass plates, 4x5 size only, from shortly after the introduction of the T-Max 100 emulsion until discontinuing glass plate production (TMX was the last emulsion they coated on glass) in 2002. The main market was astronomers, who preferred glass for its dimensional stability and exceptional flatness compared to film; it dried up when astronomy switched to digital capture (and those astronomers who couldn't afford $50k for a chilled digital sensor camera were forced to switch to sheet film, or will be when they run out of plates).

    Ole, there is no way those TMX plates can be old enough to be seriously compromised; it may take you processing a dozen or so to completely nail the process, but if the price is good, go for it! I know you have holders they'll fit...

    BTW, for those trying to develop T-Max films by inspection, a presoak in 2% sodium sulfite solution with 1 tsp. per quart of sodium carbonate (and possibly 2-3 changes of this solution -- in daylight, I've had to use 2 changes for a roll of 120 with a large amount of dye left in) should remove the dye(s) in the film to allow you to see the image under the inspection light; I've been using this bath for a while to remove residual dye after developing in tubes with the base side of the film in contact with the tube bore. Pre-alkalizing the film will defeat divided developers, of course, but you wouldn't be using those for DBI anyway; it will also pre-swell the gelatine, and may require a small change to your developing time, but that's why you're inspecting to begin with, right?
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Kodak made TMX glass plates, 4x5 size only, from shortly after the introduction of the T-Max 100 emulsion until discontinuing glass plate production (TMX was the last emulsion they coated on glass) in 2002. The main market was astronomers, who preferred glass for its dimensional stability and exceptional flatness compared to film; it dried up when astronomy switched to digital capture (and those astronomers who couldn't afford $50k for a chilled digital sensor camera were forced to switch to sheet film, or will be when they run out of plates).

    Ole, there is no way those TMX plates can be old enough to be seriously compromised; it may take you processing a dozen or so to completely nail the process, but if the price is good, go for it! I know you have holders they'll fit...
    Excuse me for asking...but am I understanding you to say that 13X18 cm glass plates were or were not TMax? I have difficulty in reconciling your statements.

  5. #35
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Sorry -- they likely did make T-Max plates available in other sizes, especially in metric sizes for European sale, at some point during their tenure. Clearly did, if Ole has plates that are in original packaging and so marked. They were available only in 4x5 just before they were discontinued in 2002, and the astronomy market was the reason 4x5 survived as long as it did.

    Ole's 13x18 cm plates were most likely originally sold to astronomers, but there are very, very few astrocameras that use plates larger than 4x5 inches -- I'd have said none, but glass plates in the 1980s and 1990s had effectively no other market; I just can't picture enough pictorial photographers buying them (at plural dollars per plate, even 25 years ago) to justify Kodak cutting them in those sizes unless there was a scientific market that would consume them in some volume. Can't have been more than a dozen places on Earth, by then, that would have used 13x18 cm glass plates, so they might well have been a special cutting, where one customer bought the whole lot.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  6. #36
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    There is a long tradition for 13x18cm in Europe; even longer than for 4x5" in the USA. Looking at very old camera gear it is evident that 13x18 was the most common size before WWII, and was dominant even after until slowly being forced out - not by 5x7", but by 4x5".

    So "can't have been more than a dozen places on Earth, by then, that would have used 13x18 cm glass plates" could be taken to mean "Would have been about a dozen places in Germany still using 13x18cm glass plates".

    The plates are certainly "newish" - they're newer than most of my stock of film. Thanks to a particularly dreadful summer I haven't tried them yet, but I hope for some nice weather this fall.

    And yes, I have holders: Old wooden book type, as well as Linhof Universal holders.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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