Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,654   Posts: 1,481,369   Online: 1093
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    ZoneIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    247
    Images
    35
    Roger,

    As you know by now, I have sent a response to your 2nd comment directly to you. I hope we have this cleared up and can enjoy a friendly dialog in the future. But I want to post here a Reader's Digest version of my message to you:

    Your original reply to my question clearly does indicate that you misinterpreted my question and, in fact, I see you have included stuff in your 2nd response that was not in your message to me so that's another reason I want to respond here.

    Not only did you misinterpret my original question, but your response included absolutely no useful information at all. In fact, it was insulting. And I have no idea where you got the idea that I didn't want to spend ANY money.

    Ironically, you say you re-read my original question again and say that you would answer it exactly the same way if you had it to do over again and yet in your second response, you provided useful information. Why didn't you simply do that in the first response instead of replying in an insulting manner and without any useful information to add? In short, if you don't have anything positive to add to a thread, why respond at all. As I mentioned in my message to you, you have done this in other photographers' forums and not it was not just directed to me. And, as I said, you are curmudgeon. But that's not a bad thing! I'm an old curmudgeon myself. LOL Us old curmudgeons should stick together and we certainly shouldn't insult each other.

    I also pointed that I am not careless as you implied. I have been a photographer for 40 years now and I make at least 2/3rds of my income through my photography. (The rest comes from a pension as a retired engineer.) I am a large format photographer and I am not in the habit of being careless by any stretch of the imagination. As I explained in my original question, like most working photographers, I always sent my E6 work to a nearby pro lab because it made sense. But I don't have a nearby E6 lab and I have found myself passing up shots lately because I can't send out a couple sheets of film. So I have decided to do my own E6 processing. (I do all my own b/w processing and printing and my darkroom. In the past I did all my own color printing as well but I rarely print color anymore. I send it out.)

    Anyway, I have found APUG to be a friendly and supportive forum. The people here are great. In fact, you gave me a warm welcome when I joined APUG. When you did, I thought, "Wow! Roger must be getting mellow in his old age." But your response to my original question here was un-called for and of no practical value.

    I see that you have now gotten onto a tangent about photographer's priorities. The only logical conclusion I can make about that is that you are now implying that I have my priorities wrong and an a cheapskate. Roger, once again, I have to remind you that I never said that I wouldn't spend money on E6 processing equipment. In fact, after my experiments today, I have come to the conclusion that I am definitely going to get a processor. In my original question, I merely explained what I already had and asked for advice on various ways to process E6 in a home lab from people who do it. That's all.

    Anyway, Roger, you have so much to offer photographers here and we are lucky to have you. We can use your help. But we don't need to be insulted. From what you said in your message to me it's clear that you have jumped to all kinds of incorrect conclusions. Also, I have no idea why you felt it necessary to be so negative. I don't know what triggered that. You're a better man than that and I hope we have a friendly and productive dialog in the future.

    BTW, I am going to post a question about E6 processors in a new thread. I would appreciate any advice you can provide.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Tom,

    I have already replied by PM. The simple truth seems to be that in this sort of written communication, we inadvertently get one anothers' backs up. That we both do it seems to argue a fundamental mismatch of world-pictures, or at least of styles of writing, which is unfortunate, but not worth pursuing, especially at length and in public.

    Thanks for the kind words about my modest expertise.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Free Photography Information on My Website
    http://www.rogerandfrances.com

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    132

    See the Wikipedia entry

    I've been massaging the <a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process" target = "_blank">E-6 Process article on Wikipedia</a>: Check it out as it will answer many of your questions, especially about allowable process time and temp tolerances. </p>

    <p>Cheers!<br>
    Dan Schwartz</p>

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    132
    I've been massaging the E-6 Process article on Wikipedia: Check it out as it will answer many of your questions, especially about allowable process time and temp tolerances.

    Cheers!
    Dan Schwartz

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Discpad View Post
    I've been massaging the E-6 Process article on Wikipedia: Check it out as it will answer many of your questions, especially about allowable process time and temp tolerances.

    Cheers!
    Dan Schwartz
    Hi Dan,
    The Wiki article looks good - only a couple of comments.
    1) I believe the first developer temperature is 100.4 F == exactly 38C
    2) Jobo's directions for E-6 processing with a Jobo specifies 6:30 first developer time for Kodak films and 7:30 for Fuji films. I think this is due to the continuous agitation.

    Dan

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Hi Dan,
    The Wiki article looks good - only a couple of comments.
    1) I believe the first developer temperature is 100.4 F == exactly 38C
    2) Jobo's directions for E-6 processing with a Jobo specifies 6:30 first developer time for Kodak films and 7:30 for Fuji films. I think this is due to the continuous agitation.

    Dan
    Hi Dan!

    If you go to my Home Page and scroll down, you'll find the complete Kodak E6 Q-LAB Process Control Handbook Z-6 (which I recompiled into a single handy PDF volume): It's from this extensive manual, as well as Z-99 & Z-119 that I based the article on. If Kodak says 100.0F, then that's what I copied.

    In any case, two things come to mind:

    1) If anything, the first developer time in a Jobo would tend to be a hair shorter, not longer, due to the very vigorous agitation. I use the 75 speed on my ATL-3 for both C-41 & E-6;

    2) There's somewhat of a divergence in one of the Fuji chrome films -- I **think** it was Provia 100F -- where the Process CR56 1st dev time is reduced from the standard 6:00 down to 5:00.

    >>> Photo Engineer will have to chime in here...

    When developing E-6, I (almost) always aim low: What you suggest by increasing the temp from 100.0 to 100.4 and 1st dev time from 6:00 to 6:30 will have the cumulative effect of unintentionally pushing the film 1/2 to 2/3 stop, which is the same as overexposing by that amount... With concomitant blown highlights.

    Also, when developing E-6 in a rotary tube processor, as compared to a leader card or dip & dunk processor, you have the issue of the first developer not "stopping" quite as quickly, again adding to cumulative, unintentional pushing. Originally, E-6 used a stop bath after the first dev; but it was changed to a slightly less active P-Q developer bath with a water stop accomplished in the first wash.

    Hope this helps!
    Dan

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Discpad View Post
    Hi Dan!

    If you go to my Home Page and scroll down, you'll find the complete Kodak E6 Q-LAB Process Control Handbook Z-6 (which I recompiled into a single handy PDF volume): It's from this extensive manual, as well as Z-99 & Z-119 that I based the article on. If Kodak says 100.0F, then that's what I copied.

    In any case, two things come to mind:

    1) If anything, the first developer time in a Jobo would tend to be a hair shorter, not longer, due to the very vigorous agitation. I use the 75 speed on my ATL-3 for both C-41 & E-6;

    2) There's somewhat of a divergence in one of the Fuji chrome films -- I **think** it was Provia 100F -- where the Process CR56 1st dev time is reduced from the standard 6:00 down to 5:00.

    >>> Photo Engineer will have to chime in here...

    When developing E-6, I (almost) always aim low: What you suggest by increasing the temp from 100.0 to 100.4 and 1st dev time from 6:00 to 6:30 will have the cumulative effect of unintentionally pushing the film 1/2 to 2/3 stop, which is the same as overexposing by that amount... With concomitant blown highlights.

    Also, when developing E-6 in a rotary tube processor, as compared to a leader card or dip & dunk processor, you have the issue of the first developer not "stopping" quite as quickly, again adding to cumulative, unintentional pushing. Originally, E-6 used a stop bath after the first dev; but it was changed to a slightly less active P-Q developer bath with a water stop accomplished in the first wash.

    Hope this helps!
    Dan
    Hi Dan,

    1) The 100.4 temp comes straight from Kodak's Z-119 pdf on the Kodak site for rotary processing (http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...s/z119-10.pdf). That same Kodak manual gives a first dev time of 7:00 min, so the Jobo directions are actually a reduction from Kodak's.
    2) The Jobo instructions state 7:30 min for all Fuji films. Kodak, of course has nothing to say about Fuji films .
    I have been processing Fuji Velvia and Kodak E100VS for a year or 2 nor in a Jobo CPE-2 following the Jobo instructions. I rate my film at box speed, place my highlights on zone 7 and have not had any problems with blown highlights.

    At the very least, I think you should mention that the first dev time can be varied from 5 to 8.5 minutes per Kodak's Z-119.

    Also, I just noticed you have the color dev time at 6:00 minutes - I think it is supposed to be 4:00 minutes.


    Dan

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Discpad View Post

    1) If anything, the first developer time in a Jobo would tend to be a hair shorter, not longer, due to the very vigorous agitation. I use the 75 speed on my ATL-3 for both C-41 & E-6
    Actually, Jobo has always recommended 6:30 as a normal time for rotary with Kodak films. They are not sure why this is so, but they suspect that it has to do with the increased oxidation of the developer and/or the small volume of chemicals. Fuji Velvia and old Provia 100 require a 16% increase to the FD if exposed at box speed. Astia/Sensia & Provia 100F require an 8% increase to the FD time.

    My own processing has also been in line with these Jobo findings.

    When developing E-6, I (almost) always aim low: What you suggest by increasing the temp from 100.0 to 100.4 and 1st dev time from 6:00 to 6:30 will have the cumulative effect of unintentionally pushing the film 1/2 to 2/3 stop, which is the same as overexposing by that amount... With concomitant blown highlights.
    Kodak lists 38.0 C or 100.4 F as normal temp for the FD, but 100.0 is within the 0.5 F limit for error. For time, a 30 sec. increase is only 1/4 stop push, 60 sec. is 1/2 stop. It takes 2 full minutes for a full stop push.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Landry View Post
    Actually, Jobo has always recommended 6:30 as a normal time for rotary with Kodak films. They are not sure why this is so, but they suspect that it has to do with the increased oxidation of the developer and/or the small volume of chemicals. (cut).
    Hmmm, I didn't consider exhaustion from the small volume of first dev solution: I run a replenished line, so I always have the volume set to the limit of what the drum holds.

    [Even when I run D-76 1:1 as single shot, I always use plenty extra: Developer is cheap, in comparison to the cost of film.]

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ukraine
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    231
    Tom and Roger,

    I've read this thread with great interest - especially the parts not directly related to the amount of time the film is spent in the developer. Sorry to see the friction, but at the same time - thanks!

    After leaving photography aside for a while to develop my writing/editing business, I've found some time and money (simultaneously!) to work on it again, and spent last night setting up a quite small darkroom in a closet. I was pondering E-6 processing, especially given my desire to tinker/'see if I can do it this way'.

    Your exchanges (from both sides) brought home to me that there is a time and a place for such things, but also that I need to balance cost/quality/tinkering (chose two?). So no E-6 tray developing, and no screwing around building enlargers out of scrap Voigtlander 6x9 folders. I've got enough projects to keep me busy as it is.

    Once again,
    Thanks!

    Jim

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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