Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,706   Posts: 1,482,845   Online: 996
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Pot Bromide 10%

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Would that not be short for what it said immediately before, i.e. you need to insert, mentally, "to water and make up" between "10g" and "to 100ml".

  2. #32
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,953
    Images
    148
    They don't use English like the rest of the world in the US yes the making up to 100ml was implicit

    Ian

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    They don't use English like the rest of the world in the US

    Ian
    Not since Noah Webster, thank God.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #34
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith View Post
    Ian, Sorry to quibble, but you said " . . . or 10g to 100ml water." That will not give you a 10% solution. If you add 10g to 90ml of water and then, after it is dissolved, add water to make 100ml, then you will have a 10% solution.

    If you add 10g to 100ml of water the end result will be a solution that is more than 100ml and you will have a slightly less than 10% solution.

    In practice, especially with only 10g, the actual percentage of the solution may not matter, but if we give advice here, we ought to be accurate.

    Michael A. Smith
    Pretty sure I said something similar to what you just said. This is what I said:

    "Any typical 10% solution in water is based off of the fact that 1ml water weighs 1g. So targeting a 1L 10% solution, ~900 ml water, 100g of whatever, add water to hit 1L if it isn't already."
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    Ian and Dayne may know the proper way to make a 10% solution, but their explication of it was not clear. At least it was not clear to me. Clarity of language in these things is important, at least it is to me.

    Michael A. Smith

  6. #36
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Sure, but considering the OP had no idea what a 10% solution even was, getting him 98% of the way there is better than 0.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #37
    Vlad Soare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    248
    I'm astonished that so many photographers prefer a non T-grain film. T-grain seems to me to be quite the superior technology.
    I can't speak for others, but personally I gave up TMY-2 because I couldn't develop it by inspection. Because of its magenta dye it looks totally black under the green light.
    OK, I know I could use infrared goggles, but those are expensive, and uncomfortable to say the least.

    My idea of a perfect film is one with the reciprocity behaviour and the characteristic curve of TMY-2, the base of TXP, and no magenta dye. But there isn't any.
    Last edited by Vlad Soare; 10-19-2010 at 07:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #38
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    If you really want to develop by inspection, why not develop to a reasonable time, process as normal, then bleach back fully and redevelop under room light?

    Even then I can't see why this is absolutely necessary just to *use* a film. Do you develop all of your film by inspection? Why is that necessary?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #39
    Vlad Soare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    248
    It's not really necessary. It's just a developing method I happen to like. I find it very liberating, not having to make tests, to keep my eyes on the clock and thermometer, to mess with temperature control baths, to carefully measure the contrast each time I take a picture and decide beforehand how long to develop each sheet (a decision based on countless tests made in advance), and so on. I just expose for the shadows, put all negatives in the developer tray, then remove each sheet when it looks finished. It's freedom.
    Indeed, it's not necessary. It's just a matter of convenience.
    Besides, in the near future I'm going to move up to 8x10", for which I have no daylight developing gear at hand. So I'll have to develop it in trays, and tray development without inspection scares me.

    I still use TMY-2 in small and medium formats, and probably always will. But in large format I just happen to prefer the convenience of DBI over the straight curve of TMY-2. In fact, in the upper part of the curve ABC Pyro seems to me to give good separation even with "normal" films, while a little overexposure - placing significant shadows in zone IV - takes care of the lower part of the curve. So overall I'm not so sure that the straight curve of TMY-2 is so important as it may seem at first glance. Its reciprocity behaviour is indeed great, but if I have to trade it for the convenience of DBI, so be it.

    Anyway, my prints are not that great yet, and I still have much to learn and to practice before reaching a level where the subtle difference between the curve of TMY and that of other films will be visible in the print.
    Last edited by Vlad Soare; 10-20-2010 at 04:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #40
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,137
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by VladSoare View Post
    It's not really necessary. It's just a developing method I happen to like.
    I agree, and the inability to do DBI with TMY is the only thing about it I don't like. So, I use time and temperature. I suggest you do likewise. Kodak films are so well QC'd that your results will always be dependably repeatable.
    Jim

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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