Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,296   Posts: 1,535,707   Online: 919
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Or print them to the same density, or scan them and just modify density only.

    PE

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Dev A is on the left.
    Visa versa on my screen.

    Metol is quite acidic. Ten grams of it will affect
    the ph in a much reduced sulfite developer. And
    once more, borax has a ph more than a little lower
    than sulfite's. What is your reason for adding borax?
    A lower ph equals longer processing.

    I think metol might be better used with intermittent
    agitation using a tray or tank. Dan

  3. #33
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS
    Dev A is on the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    Visa versa on my screen.
    In both examples the negative that scanned lighter overall was developed in Dev A. The negs done in Dev A (with 100 g sulfite) are noticeably more dense all over. Again, I made no attempt to "fix" these in photo shop or whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    Metol is quite acidic. Ten grams of it will affect
    the ph in a much reduced sulfite developer. And
    once more, borax has a ph more than a little lower
    than sulfite's. What is your reason for adding borax?
    A lower ph equals longer processing.
    Well, chemistry has never been my strong point. I think I have learned more chemisty by reading informally these past few years than I ever did in that first year of General Chem I had in college...long ago.

    Actually, the 10 grams of Metol was a mistake but, since I had already weighed it out and disolved it, I decided to go forward. I guess I kind forgot the part that Sodium sulfite in solution has a pH of nearly 10 whereas Borax is closer to 9.25...and I didn't even think about the effect the Metol would have on the pH.

    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    I think metol might be better used with intermittent agitation using a tray or tank. Dan
    Yeah, you mentioned that previously....but, there's no way I'm going back to trays. Inversion processing one-at-a-time in a tank is ok when I have only a few sheets but, it's not very practical when there are more than about four sheets to process. Deep tanks would be great...but, it's the Jobo drum for now.

  4. #34
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Since the formulas are the same except for sulfite and pH, there are two comments I would have. First, the pH difference has obscured the results and second the question remaining is ''what would happen if the prints were made optimally for the development of the film?"
    Yes. Exactly what I was thinking except that from a practical standpoint, the development time or exposure index or both, I suppose, would need to be adjusted for Dev. B as the shadows are completely unacceptable in the contrasty light case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    But, basically you see the change. Kodak films are released by testing in D76. (At least they were when I was there.) Changes from this 'center point' of developer formulation will change the results rather strongly. This is true of all B&W and Color films and papers.

    PE
    Yes, I was surprised to see just how different the results are... and I guess in that sense, the experiment is somewhat successful.

  5. #35
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Brad;

    This is why there are so many different opinions, and the most prevalent one is that there is a 'magic bullet'. There really is not. Grain is grain, etc and all of these variables can only be manipulated within narrow margins.

    PE

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    803

    Why so much sulfite?

    If you want to cut down on the cost of sodium sulfite, just make up some PC-TEA. It contains no sodium sulfite at all. The cost per roll is very low, the keeping qualities are excellent and PC-TEA is far less toxic than many of the other film developers mentioned in this forum. If you don't want to bother making up PC-TEA then HC-110 is also very economical.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Dev A is on the left.
    I did make a mistake. On reviewing I can now
    see that the two images are positives; white teeth,
    black hair. If the A negative is the most dense I'd
    not have been confused had it been displayed at
    the same density as B. Also B's lose of shadow
    density would have been evident.

    It might be argued that full strength 100 gram D-23
    is D-23. If you are after savings and use developer
    one-shot then a metol sulfite developer can be
    used at very low concentration. Dan

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