Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
my original posted question was " what happens"
you and frank that it was "good for nothing" and "unusable" ...
i took those terms to suggest there was nothing
on the film, no negative, nothing ( any image on film is useful ).
what i said was i used caffenol c and i got promising results,
the film was not too dense, and had nice grain ..
i never said there wasn't a yellow hue.
when did i say i got "nothing" ??
i am used to "fog" from using caffenol C
so the film had a yellow cast through it, much
like ektachrome has when unfiltered.
your suggestion that things are good for nothing are kind of funny.
there is always a use for things like this, maybe not what you would use them for
but there is always a use.
there are many people that believe using coffee based developers
are " good for nothing" and " useless " and i find this funny as well.
What I like about John's work is his desire to push the possibilities. I think telling him something is useless, or impossible, just pushes his buttons... He seems to find a way to make unique images where others won't tread. It's one of the reasons I look forward to seeing his gallery images.
I got confused with the OP. Someone else had posted that they got nothing and I confused your post and that one. I did not go back and look at your OP. My bad again.
A process such as this... Any B&W developer/Any tail end involving rinse, stop, fix, wash of any sort, will give a foggy yellow negative. The fog is due to the way reversal emulsions are made to force speed and clear out the dmin. The yellow is due to the yellow absorbing interlayer in the film.
Marco, OTOH, has shown me something I did not know and that is the ability to improve the result by additional process steps. This gave him a super result! I learned something, but that does not mean that I would do it myself. Kind of expensive and time consuming.
It was also pointed out that you could use a hybrid work flow. Of course, I knew that but avoided the issue for the sake of APUG and merely commented on it from a fully analog POV.
This created the ambiguity in my answer and the misconceptions it caused. By all means, try it as an art form. It will undoubtedly give you some unusual, and perhaps usable results. The film will form a negative yellow image, no question that the developer, any developer will work. It involves a matter of finding the right time for the developer.
no prob ron ..
i just find that people may read " useless" and never bother
to see for themselves if it really IS useless.
photography, like everything else is experimentation,
if we don't experiment we don't ever learn.
thanks eddie !
i hate that mistaken identity thing :whistle:
Yes, I'm forgetting that in my old age I guess. The key is "experiment" even if the initial results are of dubious use.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I recently accidentally processed a roll of Kodak Portra 160NC in divided Pyrocat HD. Silly me for not looking closely at the label. The results scanned beautifully and hold great detail in shadows and highlights. That's all I'll say about it on this fully analog site. I'd post my image, but it doesn't belong here. All said, I'll not be repeating this process intentionally in the future.
As someone has pointed out to me, this is not a simple problem.
Some films use a CLS (Yellow Silver) filter layer and others use yellow dye layers. Both are intended to be removed by the color process in one way or another. B&W processes may or may not remove the dyes, and generally never remove a CLS layer.
So, I cannot give a simple answer on the yellow color. It will depend on your process and your film. Sometimes you will get the yellow color and sometimes you will not. I cannot predict this event in advance, and so when I say you will get a yellow negative, I was choosing worst case!
Sorry for any confusion it may have caused.
Correction to last post of improved E6 slide developed in D76
I now realized I actually made a big mistake in describing what I did to improve the E6 negative, it was some time ago and I'd forgotten the details.
Instead of doing a single bleach / redevelop in a ferricyanide / thiourea toner, I did a bleach / redevelop in ferricyanide / B&W Ilford multigrade paper developer, and that in a couple of cycles (two or three).
Successive cycles of bleach and redevelop removed much of the dark brown cast, and made the negative printable, although the negative keeps looking a nice sepia brown, but the latter tone has nothing to do with thiourea sepia toning. Of course, if desired, the negative could be toned with a thiourea or selenium toner as a final treatment to either improve permanence or contrast, it is still regular silver in the image after the successive bleach / redevelop cycles in ferri/multigrade paper developer.
Here are the texts in another thread I started describing it, and also the before and after images of the negative. Note the vast improvement in printability due to removing much of the cast.
TEXT FROM OTHER THREAD:
"OK, since I don't have chlorine bleach, I have attempted to use a ferricyanide bleach as used with my sepia toner. Interestingly, the image did lighten up over all and became more transparent, however, still far from colorless (more like a yellow filter).
I than redeveloped it in plain B&W paper developer. The sheet very much turned back to it's original form, however still lighter (so probably quite a bit easier to print). Some of the cast thus was lost.
Overall, the effect of bleaching and redeveloping thus confirm that at least part of the cast is indeed colloidal silver. I don't know about the remaining color, it might be a dye that is not released in any of the common chemicals."
"As I wrote before, I have cut up one of the chromes for some experimentation. I have know bleached and redeveloped (in paper developer) the chrome twice. See the attached image.
The upper part is the unmodified transparency as it came out of the D76. The lower part is the bleached and redeveloped transparency. Notice it has considerable more transparency and contrast.
It might be worthwhile to do the same to the other transparency and see if I can print something. I don't expect any great results, but it is fun to try out."
Sorry for any possible confusion. The full thread I started back then is here:
Chrome developed in D76 (oops!)
Last edited by Marco B; 08-16-2010 at 06:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true.
" - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White.
" - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?