Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,745   Posts: 1,515,608   Online: 963
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,163
    Images
    148
    As Kodak used to suggest the D76 times for D23, then what your saying Brad is 100% applicable

    Ian

  2. #32
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I can see a problem with well aged Rodinal. You can't see the part that is submerged. I guess the agitation wold have to consist of dipping and removing.
    Gadget Gainer

  3. #33
    pcyco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near vienna
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    429
    Images
    74
    hallo
    my newest d-23 experiences:
    no theoretical formulas etc. test in the field with tri-x 400 pushed at 1600 in d23 1+3 for 45 minutes (d76 20 min multiplicated with 2.25 for puh 2) continous agiating for the first minute then 3 times all one minute.
    works well->printable negatives (so far i can see, because no darkroom at this time (scans are ok)

    little troubles in the shadows (not all pics)

    and there i think is the problem that there are different lightning situations and so on.
    the combination works well for the one but not for the next.
    --------------------------------------------------
    vfdkv (259)

  4. #34
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I did try the method with FP4+ and EDU 400 Ultra. I found that the part under the surface IS initially lighter than the part above. It does darken, of course. The time at which the match occurs required a little anticipation as the change was accelerating. I found a factor of 17 to work pretty well with both accurately measured D-76 and a personal PQ formula that I used years ago and measured by the spoons. I had forgotten my developing times, so needed a starting point. I hit both of them dead on for a straight print at normal paper grade. I jumped the gun in this post, as I meant to see if the film was lighter in plain water than dry. I'll go back into the dungeon and let you know, or you can test it for yourself.
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #35
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    It appears to be something in the developer that causes the initial lighter cast of the submerged part. Both contained sulfite and hydroquinone. Anyway, I'll keep using the method until it fails. I have a bountiful sufficiency of sulfite-free developers.
    Gadget Gainer

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