Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,044   Online: 1013
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,662
    Images
    14
    Unless I am missing something ... save yourself some magic bullet moments and go with Kodaks recommondation.
    There is a reason for 1:2 or 1: 3
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    Not necessarily 1:8 but I think both 1:7 and 1:9.
    Here on apug itself. 1:9 referencing Ansel and 1:7 as recommendation

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  2. #12
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    Kodak's datasheet indicates that Dektol is good for approximately 32 8x10 sheets per liter at their recommended dilution (1:2)
    So, that would be 32 sheets per .5 liter of stock solution. A liter at 1:8 might be good for as few as 4 8x10 sheets, if I'm doing the math right. Also, at 30C the developer will oxidize faster.
    You may want to mix the working solution with chilled water, or possibly even use the tray in a chilled water bath. Or else dilute less and get used to really fast developing times.

    Reference pdf here;
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...3cp/e103cp.pdf
    Thanks for the link.
    I'll try a water bath, but unlikely to be able to keep water cooler than 25 - would require too much ice. Still might be better.

    At 32 sheets per 330ml of dev(1;2), that would be 1 sheet per 10ml or 8 sheets for 80. 1:8 gives me 110ml so still shouldnt have gotten exhausted - I'm using 5x7 paper and have only gone through about 15 (so 7 of 8x10) of them with this (now discarded) working solution.




    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  3. #13
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    2
    I realised I probably communicated this wrongly, so heres an actual print -




    Taken via my phone (low Res)

    What I realise I meant was that the prints weren't coming out at the right contrast levels.
    Thats what the greys were.

    So, would this be more development or more paper exposure thats required?

    Thanks!

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,412
    Blog Entries
    2
    hi analoguey

    i think you might have misread what people are suggesting using
    dilute dektol ( 1:7 &c ) for ... people typically use those
    dilutions when using dektol to process FILM, not paper .. with paper
    it is usually used as recommended by others in this thread ...
    do you do test strips tofigure your light and exposure ?
    together with stronger developer it might help you get better prints ..

    have fun!
    john

  5. #15
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    2
    Thanks John,

    Yes I did to test prints earlier, and this negative is similar to those.
    Ill probably have to pull up the dektol links, but they're around -recently I think Ralf also mentioned 1:7.
    I did print other images than this one and they came out pretty decently. I'll try a higher mix 1:5 or so with this negative and see how that goes.
    1:3 just blew dev times to under 10s and thats just impossible to work with.



    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,412
    Blog Entries
    2
    hi again ..
    i think i found the thread ...
    that was ralph's response in pdeeh's paper negative thread ?

    i think ralph was talking about using dilute dektol to control contrast with paper negatives
    dilute dektol is less active so the contrast doesn't get so crazy.
    my guess ( maybe i am completely wrong ) is that ralph uses dektol at regular dilutions
    when making a contact print (positive print ) of his paper negatives ... ( maybe not? )

    if you haven't played with paper negatives, its a lot of fun ( and less expensive than film ! )
    if you decide to play a little, you might experiment rating your paper at around iso 6 or 12 or 25 depending on the time of day
    ( its sensitive to blue light, which varies depending on the time of day &c AND open shade is wonderful with paper negatives ) and developing THAT in
    your 1:7 dektol and when you contact print, your paper negative will have longer exposure time when making your contact paper positive
    you can wax your paper to make it more see-through / translucent but it will still require more time ..

    have fun
    john

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,429
    Images
    90
    The exposure should be enough to show as completely black at the film edges just outside of the image area. Ideally, you want just enough exposure to get the edges completely black, and no more.
    This is assuming that you're processing the print in fresh, active developer. Your 1:7 dilution may or may not be active enough to accomplish that.

    Assuming it is, and the image of the area of the print is too dark, it would be an indication that the negative was underexposed in the camera, or possibly under developed. In that case, you may be able to get an acceptable print by reducing the paper exposure, and using a higher grade filter or paper.
    Start with an exposure reduction of 1 stop, and adjust from there. Note that if the underexposure is severe, you may not be able to get a true back at the edges without making the whole image too dark.

  8. #18
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,987
    Images
    33
    Sounds to me like dilution and temperture combined to cause this problem. Dektol does, in fact, oxidise rapidly at temps higher than recommended by Kodak. Making Dektol too dilute exhausts it rapidly as well. Large image areas require a minimum amount of chem to develope a full range of tones. Contact prints from 6x6cm negatives will do well in dilute solution, but an 8x10 inch requires tremendously more. Maybe the OP should change developers to LPD which may be diluted and still retain useful properties even at higher temps.
    IDK, I think maybe there was a reason Kodak developed "tropical" developers for these high temp climates.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  9. #19
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    680
    Images
    2
    Right, I did use this a couple of weeks after I had made the working solution so maybe temperature had effect on oxidation.
    What is the LPD dev that you refer to? would Kodak still be making the tropical developers you refer to?

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  10. #20
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,861
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    Right, I did use this a couple of weeks after I had made the working solution so maybe temperature had effect on oxidation.
    What is the LPD dev that you refer to? would Kodak still be making the tropical developers you refer to?

    Sent from Tap-a-talk
    The developer was not only overly dilute, but two weeks after mixing the working solution you are lucky it had any life left at all. It should be diluted 1+2 or 1+3 IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO USE!
    Try reading the Kodak directions for Dektol rather than items on here referring to using the developer for processes different from those for which it was designed.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

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