Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,695   Posts: 1,482,501   Online: 1006
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    rjr
    rjr is offline
    rjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Mosel, SW Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    409
    Images
    4
    Ed,

    you do know that _all_ film has a silver emulsion, including C41 and E6, no? Thats where a silver residue would come from in case of improper bleaching/fixing. ;-)
    Tschüss,
    Roman

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    I thought i'd show some of my results - I don't have a full darkroom yet and had my negatives scanned - the set that these images came from were very dense, yet when held to light there was a lot of detail present so I didn't bother the fix them again (previously i had tried this on other sets with success tho).

    thanks again to you guys (and gal) who helped with my questions! Oh yeah i should mention that these are cross processed negs (XP was the whole reason i got interested in developing cos it was getting too pricey at labs!), and they were taken using a lomo lc-a, on fugi superia 20 film.






  3. #13
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by rjr
    Ed,

    you do know that _all_ film has a silver emulsion, including C41 and E6, no? Thats where a silver residue would come from in case of improper bleaching/fixing. ;-)
    Your post read: "I have read elsewhere that blixes are not the best because they can leave a silver residue/ grain on the film..."

    This could be a problems in semantics - I read this as, "The blixes themselves leave additional silver residues/ grains ON the film".

    Improper bleaching and fixing would be something different - to me: NOT removing "that which SHOULD have been removed" from the interior (rather than "on") of the film.

    Improper bleach-fixing presents more problems that those - distinct color shift/ density and time stability, to name a few.

    I have been processing color for some time, now, ~ 15 years (!!) and I have never used chemistry with separate bleach and fix - so I really cannot comment about the desirability of one method over the other. I will say that the results I've obtained are totally acceptable to me -- and In My Humble Opinion - FAR better han those obtained from the BEST commercial processing labs - I won't even mention the "one-hour" garbage.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #14
    rjr
    rjr is offline
    rjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Mosel, SW Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    409
    Images
    4
    Ed,

    there is a good aspect in the "one hour garbage" - it makes chemicals cheap and plenty for all of us. Without them there would be no Rodinal (same plant, same process line, same staff chained to the filling line), no cheap odorless fixer, no stabilizer for my prints. :-)

    Yep, semantics. The Blix doesn´t clean it up, so it leaves something behind - thats obviously a language problem, not an actual one...

    Recently I was quite pleased - a friend used a 1999 Colortec C41 kit to process a roll of XP2S, with decent results (Tetenal uses a simple scheme in their Charge number system: XYY1234 means X the year in the last decade, YY the week of the year) . No greening (as I suffered from with one hour labs. :-(), decent negatives.
    Tschüss,
    Roman

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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