Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,209   Posts: 1,531,964   Online: 1147
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown
    Back in the "day" (actually, the 1980's), I spent several years maintaining film surveilence (sp?) cameras in banks. The company I worked for had hundreds of them. All were loaded with 100 ft rolls of Tri-x and I used two developers. For the cameras that were not in bright enough areas for ISO 400, I set them for ISO 1000 and developed the film in Acufine.

    The negs were fine for our purposes (our purposes being the FBI prosecuting felons) but were contrastier and grainier than the negs souped in D76.

    YMMV, of course :rolleyes:

    Alas, those days are gone. Long before d******, banks were switching to videotape ... Videotape looked like crap compared to film.

    David

    What a cool story. I wonder what happened to all those orphaned "real film" surveillance cameras...

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez
    Thom, Diafine is not temp/time sensitive (to a great degree, at least). Acufine, to the best of my knowledge, IS. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
    You are correct.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I have used Diafine at 90 degrees at 3 mints with Tri X, Plu X and HP5 in the same tank standard 3mints per bath. Until I make a chiller I used Diafine every summer because my tap water is so warm.

  4. #14
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,278
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS
    What a cool story. I wonder what happened to all those orphaned "real film" surveillance cameras...
    My guess is that they are all long gone. (Although I did actually see one on Ebay a few years back.) Their usefulness would be marginal.

    They were big, metal boxes, about 8 x 8 x 16 inches. They had a generic 35mm (focal length) slr lens. The film was in a cartridge about the size of a cigar box. The rest of the space in the housing was the motor, which advanced the film and the shutter. The "focal plane" shutter was a rotating disk with a slit - only one shutter speed - I think (IIRC) circa 1/125th.

    There was no (repeat, no) viewing or framing ability. We "aimed them" using a cardboard sportfinder thing that just sat on top of the camera. Then you took test pictures to see if you had aimed - and guess focused - well enough.

    The camera was tripped by a momentary closure, such as a button under a teller cage, or by the alarm being tripped - which locked down and would run whatever was left of the 100' of film out.

    Hey, it was a job ...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard
    You are correct.
    Cool, I just wanted to make sure.

    Thom, Diafine is a 2 bath developer, with Hidroquinone and Phenidone in bath A, but the activating chemicals on bath B. That means that only so much developer can be present when the activators (or whatever you call them) come into to play.

    Acufine, however, is a more traditional developer, with everything mixed in one bath. Therefore, overdeveloping is as possible as with D-76 or Rodinal, for example.

    Hope this helps, and good luck with your work.

    André

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,209
    Images
    296
    I understand now that Diafine is the way to go. I usually have two different types of film going at once, most often FP4+, but will run Tri-X, APX100, Efke through the camera, and it would be a lot easier logistically if they could be mixed all in one developing tank.
    I can't wait to see the results with various films.

    - Thom
    "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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I suggest that you test each film for its true ASA with your camera. I rate Tri X at 1200, Tri X professional at 650. I also print higher contrast, grade 4, with negatives developed in Dinafine. My local photo shops no longer carry Dinafine so I have not used it in a few years. When I was a working photojournalist I always traveled with a 1 quart kit along with a can of fix, a SS tank and reel for emergancies.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    The ratings published for Acufine represent a speed for each film which will produce the thinnest possible negative with good shadow detail. Such a negative will show the least amount of grain. However, the average user will likely be more comfortable with a denser negative and will want to expose at a lower EI.

    Since Diafine is a two bath developer the film speed and contrast for a particular film are "built in" and cannot be adjusted. Attempting to pull a film in Bath A will not produce acceptable results. Neither will extending the time in Bath A cause much, if any, speed increase.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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