Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,476   Posts: 1,570,996   Online: 895
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Once upon a time I had a stabilization processor with which I used the Kodak paper and chemicals. The prints were very good. I fixed them before they began to turn brown and still have some. When the stabilization processor broke down, I developed the paper in a solution of washing soda.

    The Kodak paper was FB. Upon occasion, I would use ordinary FB paper and presoak it a few seconds in a very strong developer without the alkali. RC paper did not work well because, I suppose, the base + emulsion did not absorb enough of the first solution.

    A major difference between film and paper is that paper is ordinarily developed to completion. Film seldom is. The second solution can be made quite caustic for paper. With many if not most papers, there is a fair amount of leeway between full development and over development, fog being the limiting factor more than density. I have always found that if I had to "jerk" a print before completion, it was not a good print except for the purpose of telling me to expose less.
    Gadget Gainer

  2. #22
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by kwmullet View Post
    Hrm... I wonder if I could carry the idea of having a divided developer over to the two bath developer arena? Would there be merit in mixing up Ansco 120 (sans carbonate) and using Ansco 130 (same deal) as soft and hard developers, respectively, then using a common "B" bath with them?
    If you'll look back on the first page of this thread you'll see where I've advocated doing exactly this. I used Ansco 120 and 125 (same as Dektol) rather than 130, but the results will be the same. Don't put the paper in both A baths, however. Choose either soft or hard, and then on to the B bath with the carbonate. For graded papers, it's a great way to get intermediate grades. Since I can do that another way with VC papers, I no longer bother with the soft Bath A.

    Hrm.. now that I write it all out, maybe not. Maybe the entire idea behind two bath developing / using a hard and soft developer is to develop by inspection -> distinctly contrary to the one-fixed-level-of-development provided by a divided developer.
    Nope, the whole point of the two-bath is that in Bath B, whatever amount of developer the latent image soaked up in Bath A will develop to completion in Bath B. You will not see a visible image in Bath A, even if you leave it there all day. The latent image will only soak up as much of the developing agent as it needs. In Bath B, it "pops" almost immediately, and develops to completion in less than a minute. There's nothing to inspect. It just happens. That's why it's so easy and so repeatable. Print 10 run through the chemicals will look like Print 1 providing you gave the same exposure under the enlarger.

    Larry

  3. #23
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine-iac View Post
    If you'll look back on the first page of this thread you'll see where I've advocated doing exactly this. I used Ansco 120 and 125 (same as Dektol) rather than 130, but the results will be the same. Don't put the paper in both A baths, however. Choose either soft or hard, and then on to the B bath with the carbonate. For graded papers, it's a great way to get intermediate grades. Since I can do that another way with VC papers, I no longer bother with the soft Bath A.
    Actually, the way I read your post was that you saw that as an OPTION of doing either a soft or a hard. I'm talking about putting a print in one developer for a bit, then when you have the desired effect, putting it in the other. In that situation, I don't see how you could do it with a divided formula, since it requires development by inspection.

    Nope, the whole point of the two-bath is that in Bath B, whatever amount of developer the latent image soaked up in Bath A will develop to completion in Bath B. You will not see a visible image in Bath A, even if you leave it there all day. The latent image will only soak up as much of the developing agent as it needs. In Bath B, it "pops" almost immediately, and develops to completion in less than a minute. There's nothing to inspect. It just happens. That's why it's so easy and so repeatable. Print 10 run through the chemicals will look like Print 1 providing you gave the same exposure under the enlarger.

    Larry
    Actually, Larry, I was using the term "two bath developer" in the sense that Les was using it above, to describe a process where you have a hard developer in one bath, and a soft developer in another.

    I meant that in a wholly different way than DIVIDED DEVELOPER where you've got all of the formula but the carbonate in one tray and the carbonate in another.

    With TWO BATH developing, you have two trays, two developers.
    With DIVIDED developer, you have two trays, one developer (divided between the two trays)
    With TWO BATH DIVIDED developing, you would have potentially three trays, if all but the carbonate for the soft developer was in one tray, all but the carbonate for the hard developer was in a second tray, and the third tray had carbonate.

    The thrust of my post was wondering if a TWO BATH (two developer, one soft, one hard) situation could be used in a DIVIDED (all but carbonate in one tray and carbonate in another) arrangement.

    I doubted that it would be useful, because if you use BOTH the SOFT and the HARD developer on the same print, alternating between the two, it requires that the image come up during inspection so you can pull it at just the right time, not that the emulsion soak up some developing agent which would then be activated by the carbonate to a fixed level of development.

    shoot. I should have never made that post in the first place. Where's that time-reversal knob?

    -KwM-

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by juan View Post
    Ilford MGIV and Kentmere Bromide (both of which have
    incorporated developers) and JandC Polywarmtone
    (which does not have incorporated developers).
    I test papers for incorporated developer. The last two
    tested were Forte Polywarmtone and Kentmere Fineprint.
    Not a trace.

    Have you tested the three papers you've mentioned?
    My method is to expose then develope with a carbonated
    only solution; a certain real world test. A gram in 125ml
    of water will do a 5x7. Dan

  5. #25
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Seeing posts on APUG regarding divided developers for B&W ...
    Does this apply to Tetenal Emofin?
    If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,063
    I used to use two bath developers with film a quite a bit. Everything PE says about them is true, but the variability was less than you might expect. They actually worked quite well. I have only tried them a few times in the past few years, and I can affirm that they do not work as they used to. The last paragraph of PE's original post is probably in effect. Some of the older emulsion types, like EFKE (Adox) may still work, but my attempts with newer Kodak emulsions and some newer Ilford have generally been failures.

    For paper developers, I'm not sure exactly what we are talking about here. The true two bath method does work, and there are some published formulas. I've tried this method a couple of times, and it seems to work well. But why bother? You usually have good enough controls during printing so that there is no advantage, except, perhaps, with color. I did try the old Dignan divided color print system before I had a good temperature control system, and it was excellent. It had some real advantages.

    The other way people talk about "two bath" developers in printing is for mixing up separate developing agent and alkalai solutions so that they keep better. (Then you combine them for a one-bath developer.) I've been using this for a few years now, and I can recommend it highly. The solutions easily last up to a year or so. Generally you mix up the developing agents with a sulfite-bisulfite buffer to keep things neutral to very slightly acid. When you add the carbonate for the working solution, you use enough extra to restore the pH. This scheme of things should work for film developers, too. But be careful here. Film development is a good deal fussier, and aging effects may be more noticeable.

  7. #27
    blackmelas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Corinth, Greece
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    353
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth View Post
    I used to use two bath developers with film a quite a bit. Everything PE says about them is true, but the variability was less than you might expect. They actually worked quite well. I have only tried them a few times in the past few years, and I can affirm that they do not work as they used to. The last paragraph of PE's original post is probably in effect. Some of the older emulsion types, like EFKE (Adox) may still work, but my attempts with newer Kodak emulsions and some newer Ilford have generally been failures.
    Do you or Photo Engineer have any comments on attempting to reformulate two bath developers for modern film. Specifically I wanted to know about Thornton's Two Bath (I just posted it and Stoeckler to the recipe area). I have used it and liked it very much. I guess PE's warning above suggests that films should be tested often. Doesn't Les in his book advocate yearly testing (or perhaps I read that elsewhere). Should we who use 2 bath developers test more often?
    Best regards,
    James

  8. #28
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I read PE's remarks on modern films to mean that we should test each batch number. That makes sense - the product is unlikely to change within one master roll, but there may well be slight differences between master rolls that are not apparent with a "normal" developer.

    Like lith printing and papers, two-bath developers can sometimes show up surprising differences between batches that are nowhere near measurable under normal conditions.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Windsor, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    182
    I have been using Thornton's for some time now, and I've been very happy with the results. I tried a range of films (modern Ilford, and some chinese) and it works exactly as advertised...
    His article indicated that it was a reformulation targeted at modern film...

  10. #30
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,646
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    I test papers for incorporated developer. The last two
    tested were Forte Polywarmtone and Kentmere Fineprint.
    Not a trace.

    Have you tested the three papers you've mentioned?
    My method is to expose then develope with a carbonated
    only solution; a certain real world test. A gram in 125ml
    of water will do a 5x7. Dan
    I have relied on what the manufacturers have said about the papers - for Ilford, the claim of incorporated developers is in their published data, for Kentmere Bromide, the information was in an email to me from the manufacturer.

    For Polywarmtone, the information is available on the JandC website and the Forte website.
    juan

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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