Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,770   Posts: 1,484,223   Online: 930
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    164
    Images
    16
    DannL I'm not sure why you are removing one side of the emulsion? Was there a defect or some other issue? So far I've had excellent results with a double sided film like konica ppg and kodak t/mat l-ra, also the density range of these negatives are perfect for pt/pd. I have printed on silver gelatin as well and sharpness has never been lacking, even on palladium which tends to look less sharp than silver.
    Why go to all the trouble and risk damaging the negative? Does this help in an enlarged neg in some fashion?

    Here is an example of an 8x10 x-ray neg printed with palladium.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails katekarenpd.jpg  

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    That's an excellent photo, Brian. I can see you have devised a method that odviously works great.

    As far as defects, yes. I've tried both tray and drum developing, and in either case one side of the emulsion ends up damaged. I prefer drum processing, but it is hard on the soft emulsion layer that is facing the inner drum wall. It can also leave bromide drag marks on that side of the film where the developer cannot circulate. But then it dawned on me . . . I have no need for emulsion on both sides of this film. Nor can I see the advantage to printing through a "double negative". So, I'm removing one negative layer, the layer that was originally facing away from the taking lens, and utilizing the remaining negative as a normal single-sided negative. So far it has worked like a champ. The day it causes me any grief, I'll make notice.
    "Lo único de lo que el mundo no se cansará nunca es de exageración." Salvador Dalí

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    164
    Images
    16
    Thanks for the compliment and also for the insight on your process.
    Scratches can be a concern, I have only tray developed 11x14 (8x10 in hangers and tank)but I did find that if I used a larger piece of film to cover the bottom of the tray my scratches were pretty much eliminated. Of course anything smooth to cover the bottom would work just as well.

    I imagine drum processing would be near impossible with 2 sided film.Are you using straight bleach?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoBulley View Post
    . . .
    I imagine drum processing would be near impossible with 2 sided film.Are you using straight bleach?
    Clorox bleach, straight from the bottle. It doesn't take as much as one would imagine. Probably less than 1/8 oz.
    "Lo único de lo que el mundo no se cansará nunca es de exageración." Salvador Dalí

  5. #25
    davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    toronto, ontario canada
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    458
    Images
    17

    following up

    hello

    I ran across this thread accidently and realized that I had never followed up with my results with MI-DUP. I had promised! oops.
    I tried HC-110 dilution 1:14 stock and was getting nowhere fast. I ended up with dektol straight (which is what we used to use in school with lith film). This film needs a strong developer and agitation. It also needs long exposures. I am shooting almost wide open at around 6 or 7 minutes!! CRAZY! Of course, I was enlarging from a colour negative, which I'm sure added to the time.
    However the results are extremely inspiring! It makes sense that this film needs so much exposure and development as it is made for dentists/doctors to make dupes and therefore it shouldn't be finicky to process. I would be much easier to use as a straight dupe film in a contact frame in daylight; I need to boost up my enlarger head with a stronger light source! Any ideas?
    This film is such a refreshing change from lith film, which can be exacerbating to say the least!! I will definately be using this more in the future. I might even try it in camera (my new 8x10) though it might prove to be too low contrast.

    david

  6. #26
    nick mulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,204
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    Common, inexpensive X-ray film is coated on both sides with emulsion. Theoretically this would limit resolution, as the image from a camera would only be focused on the one side, but in practice, the X-ray images are plenty sharp. If you normally shoot your images with your lens stopped down a couple of stops, the depth-of-field of the lens would compensate and would render both sides "in-focus".
    I was thinking however that in the contact print, especially with diffuse banks of UV lights that the top emulsion side being one film thickness away from the paper would cast a diffuse shadow - better than a sharp but off axis one though huh...

    Would be nice if you could develop one side in Neg and the other as a weak positive ... kind of a bastard unsharp mask, using the effect of the distance as the 'blur' that you'd usually have in the mask.

    Maybe I have my negs and positives the wrong way round, but you get the picture ?
    Cleared the bowel problem, working on the consonants...

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