At least this problem is solved, as I explained above, hinting at the omission of the word "inverting" in the English section.
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
The other issues of course are not solved...
I got fed up with waiting for a reply from Tetenal so I made a decision and went ahead using the JOBO timings which seemed to be the most straight forward, but with fingers crossed! Well they are perfect even if I say so myself. 2 lots of transparencies hanging up to dry. 1 x Fuji Sensia and 1 x CR200 which I believe is a re-hash of an Agfa film, but made in Belgium.
I modified the timings slightly, from the JOBO recommendations. I Washed between stages longer than the JOBO = 5 x 30 second instead of 4. and colour developed for 6 mins instead of 4. Otherwise it was as per the JOBO times Both films were as good as I have ever done in the past. That is what I will use from now on.
The CR200 is on an Estar base just like the Technical Pan film from Kodak used to be. (I think that's what it is called.) You cannot tear or snap it so it has to be cut. Nice clean natural colours and not OTT with saturation and seemingly quite a bit of latitude.
This film is really cheap in UK with 2 cassettes for £7. I will be using it again.
This film from Agfa has the same emulsion as a late Agfa consumer reversal film but is coated on PET base for aerial camera use. Rebranded available as type 135 conversion.
Originally Posted by BMbikerider
So no issue with plastic tanks either, I presume? Tetenal's whole approach is liable to produce the same outcome for its business that Gerald Ratner's speech at the Conservative Party Conference did way back in I think Maggie Thatch's days when he described how he could sell his stuff for bargain prices because it was "tat"
pentaxuser. No problem with the tanks as you surmised. I think these 'warnings' are given out as a possible defence against being sued if things go wrong. But the use of 'plastic is so vague and no plastic is specifically highlighted that use as a defence would not really be adequate. I have no proof of course but you get used to reading between the lines in this day and age.
Last edited by BMbikerider; 11-02-2012 at 06:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Processing Velvia 100
Just to make another assessment after processing a cassette of Velvia 100 with the Tetenal 1 ltr kit. (Previously I only tried it on CR200) The 7.5 minute 1st developer does seem to be a little long, so for the next time I will reduce it by 15 seconds. Whilst the resulting Transparencies had a good black, the highlights were a little thin, more so than I would have expected even with Velvia with its inherent higher contrast. I will be able make a better judgement once they are mounted and projected.
No extended FD time for Fuji films in Tetenal
Mr BMbikerider, sorry I missed your thread, or, as a user of Tetenal E6 kit with Jobo processor, I would have reacted earlier.
We discussed rather extensively the inconsistancy problem of First developer Time with Tetenal 3 bath kit in the past, an interesting thread is here :
Read in particular the third page, where I made a little test using 6:30 and 7:30 times for First Developer with Provia 100F.
My conclusion was in the opposite of what I believed first: don't use extended time for Fuji films !
One can say that the difference is rather narrow, but I my conclusion is that the "pro"-line of Fuji film is rather forgiving concerning an extra minute of development.
Things are different when processing "consumer-grade" film like Sensia 200 : I learned it the hard way when I got blown highlight and a green cast on Sensia processed 7:30 in FD.
Hope this helps,