Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,171   Online: 1054
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    Check these out. Same thing as you are describing but a hell of a lot more expensive. Click on Film Tubes

    http://www.filmholders.com/

    Once again the hardware store (welding store) proves a good and cheap place to get photo equipment
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  2. #22
    Silverpixels5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    594
    Images
    15
    Mark:

    Those seem to be the EXACT same tubes as the ones mike and I have, except that they are black and don't have the brand name of the tubes on them. Its really funny how the same product varies in price depending on the market.
    RL Foley

  3. #23
    Silverpixels5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    594
    Images
    15
    Well I just developed my first negs with these tubes, with a few bumps in the road. I decided to try semi-stand developement for one hour with agitation at the begining and at 30 mins. The first mistake I made was forgetting to have some PCat HD mixed up, which is my preferred developer for this technique. I didnt' feel like waiting for the chemicals to dissolve so I went with Rodinal, which I keep on hand for both film and paper. My dilution was 1:100, which I hoped would provide a compensating effect in my highlights, while still being strong enough for my 1 hour development. At first glance upon washing, the negative has very even development, but there seems to be a bit more fog than i'm used to with Rodinal. This could be due to the long development, or the fact that my Rodinal is a bit old...not really sure at this point. The negative has also been sitting in the holder for about a month, so that could possibly be the source of the fog as well. The main problem I had was with scratches. I had a number of scratches on the base side, which comes into contact with the tube wall. This probably happened when I was inverting the tube during the presoak, as that was the only time where there was enough force to move the negative around in the tube. I couldnt' see anyting in the tube that would cause the scatches, but I imagine that a wet base could be scratched by the smallest particle on the wall. Next time I will not invert the tube at all, but rather spin it upright in the container, so that there isn't sufficent momentum to move the neg. If that doesnt' solve the problem, then I'll also try it with a fiberglass screen lining, such as Don uses. This way the screeen moves against the wall with any motion and not the neg. Time and further testing will tell, but I do like these tubes a lot. All I have to do is refine my technique to make these work.
    RL Foley

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    While this doesn't address the tubes that you all are working with, it does speak to minimal agitation.

    I developed 3 4X5 Efke PL 100 negs tonight using minimal agitation. These negs are obviously for enlarging. I used Pyrocat at 1-1-150 dilution and used the fiberglass screens on the base side of the film. I noted no scratches on this film. I did have scratches on an 8X10 Classic 200 the other day with minimal agitation. The difference between these two aside from the film size was that I did not invert the tube during agitation this time. I gently laid the tube on it's side and rolled it in the water bath for 15 seconds and then set it upright again.

    My water presoak is done with the tube open on one end and laid on it's side in the tempered water bath. I use the tempered water as the presoak water.

    I haven't had time to read the density on these negatives but my times were 19 minutes (SBR 7) and 23 min (SBR 6). The negatives are certainly printable but may need to adjust development time from the times I used.

    I will post the density of these negatives as soon as they are dry for those who may want to use this technique with Efke film for enlarging.

  5. #25
    Silverpixels5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    594
    Images
    15
    Don:

    When you say minimal agitation, at what interveals are you agitating at? The film I used this evening was PL100 rated at 50. I imagine it was better I used rodinal, as I know pcat would have resulted in an overexposed neg with semi-stand dev. I will see if the scratches are still present once the film dries. Sometimes I have found that they disappear upon drying, and so don't show up during printing. I will also post the image once I finally do some long awaited printing...something I havn't had a chance to do in about 2 mos.
    RL Foley

  6. #26
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Don, are you still using DBI with the tubes or running strictly by time.

    Good invention Mike. I like your tube idea a lot. Good move taking out the aluminum liner. It would certainly have some sort of reaction with the chemicals I would think.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Ron,

    On minimal agitation I presoak for 5 minutes. I then add developer and agitate for 1 and one half minutes. Thereafter I agitate for 15 seconds at 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 of total development time. The information that I have received indicates that minimal agitation will make the film expose at a higher speed then the box speed. In the case of the Efke that I developed I rated it at 100. I will know more when I read the density of the film how much the speed needs to be adjusted. I would guess that a truer speed for Efke in minimal agitation would be 125 or even 150.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley
    Don, are you still using DBI with the tubes or running strictly by time.

    Good invention Mike. I like your tube idea a lot. Good move taking out the aluminum liner. It would certainly have some sort of reaction with the chemicals I would think.
    Alex,

    I am strictly developing by time and temperature. I have found that this gives me more consistant negative density range then DBI.

  9. #29
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Thanks Don. I was thinking DBI would be too cumbersome with tubes. Too much fumbling potential.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Alex,

    Yes I agree. Other then the one sheet of 8X10 damaged, I have not experienced any damage to 4X5 on either gentle or minimal agitation. The 8X10 was probably the sharpest negative that I have ever experienced from my efforts.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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