Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,481   Posts: 1,571,146   Online: 1168
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth
    I suspect the main affect of increased UV absorption in the base will be more reliable scanning and printing. Kodak is already pretty good at that, but improvements are always welcome. Since the sensitive layers are coated on top of the base, camera exposure would be affected little if any. Aromatic groups absorb strongly in the UV, so a change to a base with high aromatic content or (and) a suitable absortive dye in the base would do the trick. BTW, the antistatic properties of the new base are great. The dust just falls off!

    Said what?

    Have you considered this effect on alternative process printing where long exposures and UV light sources are the norm?
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  2. #12
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    Okay. I am almost afraid to ask. Has anyone printed platinum using a negative from the just-delivered batch of Kodak TMAX400 ULF film? If they changed bases for this run, I just wasted a lot of money....
    I just want to feel nostalgic like I used to.


    http://www.clayharmon.net - turnip extraordinaire

  3. #13
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth
    I suspect the main affect of increased UV absorption in the base will be more reliable scanning and printing.
    It'll be more reliable, all right...reliably bad. As I said above, TMax 100 negatives are unprintable on Azo. Any film to which they do this will be ruined for many of us. Not an adjustment to our process, not an inconvenience. Ruined!

  4. #14
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    Alan;

    I have no idea whatsoever.

    I don't know what products currently contain this new ingredient either.

    PE
    Ron:

    Can you try to find out through your contacts at Kodak? This is really important.

    Thanks for all your informative posts, BTW.

    Jim Shanesy

  5. #15
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth
    I suspect the main affect of increased UV absorption in the base will be more reliable scanning and printing. Kodak is already pretty good at that, but improvements are always welcome. Since the sensitive layers are coated on top of the base, camera exposure would be affected little if any. Aromatic groups absorb strongly in the UV, so a change to a base with high aromatic content or (and) a suitable absortive dye in the base would do the trick. BTW, the antistatic properties of the new base are great. The dust just falls off!
    I suspect quite a number of color films have this as well, but guess that wouldn't affect you guys.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by clay
    Okay. I am almost afraid to ask. Has anyone printed platinum using a negative from the just-delivered batch of Kodak TMAX400 ULF film? If they changed bases for this run, I just wasted a lot of money....
    Clay,

    That issue came up last year before production of the film and Michael Kadillak verified with Kodak that the new batch of TMAX-400 would be on the same base that has been used in the past. He mentioned this fact in a thread that appeared on the LF forum sometime late last year.

    Sandy

  7. #17
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    I remember the thread, but with the attention to detail that Kodak exhibited in boxing up 10 sheets of 7x17 film in a 16x20/25 sheet box, the whole thing has me a little spooked. I am going to load up some holders and do some test shots to see what we were delivered. It may be a week before I get around to the printing part, but I will let everyone know.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Clay,

    That issue came up last year before production of the film and Michael Kadillak verified with Kodak that the new batch of TMAX-400 would be on the same base that has been used in the past. He mentioned this fact in a thread that appeared on the LF forum sometime late last year.

    Sandy
    I just want to feel nostalgic like I used to.


    http://www.clayharmon.net - turnip extraordinaire

  8. #18
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    Ron:

    Can you try to find out through your contacts at Kodak? This is really important.

    Thanks for all your informative posts, BTW.

    Jim Shanesy

    Jim;

    Just getting the information I reported here was a bit of a pain. And, it took way too long from my point of view. I think that EK should shoulder this responsibility and report the changes to the consumer.

    I'll do the best I can, but for the information of those using Azo, I understand their pain, but OTOH, I scan my analog negatives and slides and make LF digital negatives for contact prints. So, I actually never ran into the problem.

    And, for those who think it a 'sin' to print from digital LF negatives, well, I don't have an 8x10 camera. So, that is the only way I can take a 35mm or even a 4x5 negative and make an 8x10 cyanotype or Azo print.

    Otherwise, I make enlargements and UV sensitivity with enlarging paper emulsions is not an issue.

    PE

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Said what?

    Have you considered this effect on alternative process printing where long exposures and UV light sources are the norm?
    I don't think it really applies, or at least I don't think it applies yet. For alternative processes, we use very large negatives, which are usually still triacetate based. The new UV opaque bases may make making interpositives and enlarged negatives a bit easier. If you ever do get into alternative printing with film on a base with a short UV cutoff (e.g polynaphthalate or polystyrene), all may not be lost. There is usually still significant transmission from about 380nm through the visible with these plastics, and the alternative processes have very significant sensitivity in the blue, violet, and very near ultraviolet regions. (This is why 360BL lamps are better than BLB lamps.) Exposures will be longer, but probably not excessively so.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by nworth
    There is usually still significant transmission from about 380nm through the visible with these plastics, and the alternative processes have very significant sensitivity in the blue, violet, and very near ultraviolet regions. (This is why 360BL lamps are better than BLB lamps.) Exposures will be longer, but probably not excessively so.
    If the new UV support base is anything like the base of the new TMAX-100 your speculation is entirely wrong. I tested the new TMAX-100 film with various light sources, including BL and BLB tubes, and with a NuArc 261K that produced a lot of radiation in the visible spectrum. In evey case the end result was a loss of printing speed of about three full stops compared to other films.

    Sandy

Page 2 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