Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,297   Online: 914
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Martin, I cannot disagree with anything you say.

    If it works, it works. I only wished to point out possible pitfalls. There is a review nearly 10 years old now, showing characteristic curves of one type of color negative film in 6 developer formulas, and the results are strikingly different. The results would vary but only direct comparison would highlight the errors introduced by the developers.

    I say that if the developer works, use it. If you are happy with it, use it.

    The formula I have is totally different than the one you have above, but since I don't wish to lose any negatives, I refrain from hand mixing color developers, so this formula remains untested. It may be a current mutation or an old variant. It might be one only used in research for testing. IDK. Since I turned in all of the formulas I had, my only resources are memory and patents.

    I do know that KI and two additional ingredients for sequestering and stabilizing the developer are present in the real developer formulation. The Kodak MSDS lists some of these ingredients and a possible concentration range, but I have not looked at them for a year or more.

    That is about all I can add.

    PE

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    I do know that KI and two additional ingredients for sequestering and stabilizing the developer are present in the real developer formulation. The Kodak MSDS lists some of these ingredients and a possible concentration range, but I have not looked at them for a year or more.

    Most people that mix thier own are using it one shot and mixing with distilled water. Kodak faces much tougher requirements then we do.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Althoff
    In that sense, if you could look at this formula (source early in this thread) and a) make suggestions as what to add, remove or modify b) and, this is in line with my original intent of this thread, because Hydroxylamine Sulfate is considered too unhealthy and therefore difficult to get, how that can be substituted.
    I'm not the person you're addressing, but on the issue of hydroxylamine sulfate, have a look at Dignan's NCF-41 developer. It lacks hydroxylamine sulfate. It also lacks any form of iodide, unless I've overlooked something, so if you wanted to follow PE's advice on this, you might want to experiment with adding a bit of it. NCF-41 is certainly not a "correct" developer in the sense that PE seems to be using the term, but it does produce color negatives that I've been able to scan. (I've not yet progressed to conventional color printing, though.)

    I've just started with color processing, and I've tried both NCF-41 and Paterson Photocolor II developer. I've not done enough to be really confident of which one works better, although I've very tentatively identified some patterns: NCF-41 might be producing some color shifts in Konica-Minolta film, but not (or not as strongly) in Fuji or Agfa film. (My Konica-Minolta rolls happened to be tricky subjects, though, which might have thrown off VueScan's color tuning.) The one roll of Ilford XP2 Super (chromogenic B&W) I ran through NCF-41 also came out very thin, so either I screwed up badly and didn't realize it or these two aren't a good match. Maybe extending development time would help; at least you wouldn't need to worry about color shifts with XP2 Super. Photocolor II hasn't done anything suspicious, but I've run fewer rolls through it (and none of XP2 Super, as of yet). I'm going to run at least a few more rolls through both NCF-41 and Photocolor II; neither developer has yet done anything bad enough to make me want to pour it down the drain, although I don't think I'll be doing more XP2 Super in NCF-41.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Newport, Gwent, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    PE: Thanks! I should add that all C-41 work is done on test shots. I have a reel of important material sitting here. I would not process that in any C-41, homebrew, brandname, whatever, until I know I can produce stable, calculateable results in my setup and way of working. With B&W I would be a bit more risky simply because its is not as sensitive and I am much more aquainted with it.

    Nick: Just mixed up a new batch of chemistry (Fotospeed) with destilled water, demineralized actually, and seem to have lost one 'effect'. The shadows in some, not all, -2 exposed shots had a slight magenta cast. Though I am not to sure on really attributing that to the cleaner water.

    srs5694: Great that you jumped in. Thanks for your experiences. Good to know. I have to start writing up mine with Fotospeed. I am new to C-41 self processing myself. Pushing a roll through a minilab I don't think counts

    After my first film was completely bad - all the mids and shadows were green (completely underprocessed) - I went for systematic testing. I have done about 8 runs just with water to see how the temperature drop (from ca. 40C to 38C after about 20..30sec). Next were runs the cheapest film I could find and done test exposures. Initially they went from -3..+3, now I am back to -1..+1. I would do a series of test charts and 'real' situations where I would take notes on spotmeter readings of the scene. Suggestion for testing: take the same shot sequences 3x over, cut the film into thirds and process each part under different conditions. Promised, more details in a new thread on Fotospeed

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Newport, Gwent, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    For the record: Claire from jdphotochem.com has replied! They'll mail it all to the UK! And yes the postage is a bad. About 3.5kg, slow option US$47 (up to 8wks), quick US$ 87. Order volume US$ 87.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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