Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,433   Online: 837
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
  1. #21
    marktweedie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Coventry UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    92
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Check out
    Retrophotographic
    as well.
    Thanks Dave, their prices seem identical within a couple of pence but I have discovered a fault in my maths and have now come up with a per sheet cost of 3.5p homebrewed vs 32p using Prescycol. For me using 225ml of solution in a vertical homemade BTZS tube per sheet means that a saving of £7 per box 25 sheets of 5x4 film is possible. This can make a real contribution to the cost of new lenses, paper, tripods, lighting gear, beer... the list goes on...

    I think I'm with Leon on this one with the one proviso that I can accurately reproduce my formulation with each new mix.

    I also notice on ebay,seller olympiceyewear has jewellers/medical weighing scales of various types available from the US for about half the cost of buying in the UK (inc P&P) . Can anyone vouch for their accuracy?
    http://www.marktweedie.co.uk

  2. #22
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    If you use a Paterson Orbital processer then you will only need to use 60ml per 4 sheets of film.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  3. #23
    marktweedie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Coventry UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    92
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    If you use a Paterson Orbital processer then you will only need to use 60ml per 4 sheets of film.
    How does that work with partial stand? Surely this would need continuous agiatation?
    http://www.marktweedie.co.uk

  4. #24
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    That's correct. I only use partial stand because I'm lazy. I have a motorbase for the orbital processor.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  5. #25
    Blighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lancaster, N.W. England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    876
    Images
    68
    I've seen Pete Hogans Prescysol developers and was quite interested in them. I've only ever used Barry Thornton's Dixactol and Exactol Lux developers. How do the Prescysol devs compare to these? My experience of Dixactol showed it to be very forgiving in terms of exposure (errors?) with very high acutance and useful edge effects. This was (IMO) at the expense of grain, which at 35mm was quite obtrusive, obviously less so in 120 format. One 'problem' I found with Dixactol was it produced a very long tonal scale and I needed to print hard to get a reasonable amount of 'snap' into my photo. This produced an unwelcome increase in apparent grain in the print. Anyway, to get back to my original point; how do they compare?
    Norman is an island.Time and tide wait for Norman.

  6. #26
    marktweedie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Coventry UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    92
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    That's correct. I only use partial stand because I'm lazy. I have a motorbase for the orbital processor.
    Dave, does that mean that you haven't seen any difference in acutance using partial stand? Or perhaps high acutance is not something which you look for in your negs?
    http://www.marktweedie.co.uk

  7. #27
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by marktweedie
    Dave, does that mean that you haven't seen any difference in acutance using partial stand? Or perhaps high acutance is not something which you look for in your negs?
    I think I can see an improvement in my negatives by using partial stand development, that and my stated aversion to acting like a cocktail waiter for 8 minutes encourages me towards that method of development. Another thought is that the smaller the print negative size ratio is, the less any such effects will be noticeable on the finished print.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  8. #28
    craigclu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NW Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    I experimented with this when I tried my one batch of Prescysol and felt that the semi-stand method gave me the nicest results (easiest to print, too). There were noticeable edge effects and I also appreciated the ease of the method. Some of the principles aren't absolutely the same with tanning/staining developers vs non-staining but I find that after experimenting with many developers over the years, it seems that I inevitably end up at some point of moderated, gentle inversion, semi-stand scenario to get negatives that behave with my equipment and materials with less struggle. I try not to think of it as a rut I'm in but it seems I just don't have issues with uneven skies, etc after getting into this habit 20+ years back with roll films and D76 1:1 and FG7 1:15, my normal developers then.
    Craig Schroeder

  9. #29
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by marktweedie
    Leon, you have nearly won me over to the idea of homebrew! When my batch of Prescysol is finished I will give it a go. I have looked at Silverprint for chemical prices but didn't manage to get to the 3p a shot figure. Where do you buy your raw materials?
    Hi Mark - I worked the 3p per film calculation based on silverprints raw chems prices and me using 600ml working strength developer for 2 x 120 rolls on one paterson type reel in my developing tank. I've started to only mix the part a in advance, I just add the correct amount of potasium carbonate to my working strength developer as I go - and, to get back on track for this thread, I add a little more to extend the tonal range a bit. this is all quite haphazard for me though, I'm not a densito. addict or anything.

  10. #30
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by marktweedie
    I also notice on ebay,seller olympiceyewear has jewellers/medical weighing scales of various types available from the US for about half the cost of buying in the UK (inc P&P) . Can anyone vouch for their accuracy?
    There was recently a thread regarding scales for measuring chemicals and I found that the same type of scales were available in the UK at, what I thought, was a reasonable price. The scales were on the "Salter" web pages and the particular model carried the number 1250. They were diet scales and, if I remember correctly, went down to .01 of a gram and had a tare facility for zeroing the scales when adding chemicals cumulatively. I have a set of balance scales bought from Rayco some while ago but I think the digital system is much easier and quicker to use.
    Roy Groombridge.

    Cogito, ergo sum.
    (Descartes)

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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