SEE. It's insidious. 6 minutes should be the STARTING point. This is why forums take forever to get an answer and if someone's face to face they can say HEY what do you mean 6'...and you can clarify immediately. This is for a good reason--shorter dev times start to make fill/empty times significant--so you need a decent development time mixture for uniformity. Anyways--for TXR super 8, 6 minutes WAS working with NO hypo. Memory does say it was straight d-19--as mixed from the powder--NO HYPO. Maybe it was done at 75 degrees? For sure now 75 degrees f for processing is standard these days since the water temperature in summer goes up and it's difficult to keep 68 degrees in summer. 75 degrees has the effect of longer time at 68 degrees. Perhaps that's what is going on here. It's been 10 like years since last super 8 processing.
Last months experiments with iilford pq universal showed that dilution from 1:9 to 1:4 kept increasing in strength but from 1:4 to 1:3 to 1:2 to 1:1 got progressively weaker in their action for the same development times. D-19 was used though at 1:1 to decent results. If you're getting diluted stuff weaker, then leave it in longer and compare the results--they may be more pleasing.
the main rule is, don't listen to other people's times and exposures--they are only starting points--they have different water and may be using different temperature AND they may be overexposing or you may be underexposing--nobody's meters are the same. Nobody's cameras are the same either. Old super 8 cameras and shutter accuracy--partucluarly for single frame--that's always suspect too.
just don't get skimpy on the exposure--if ei 50 looks good to you then THATS's your speed. Box says 200...that don't mean you're doing something wrong. The 200 could be some test with results you don't find pleasing. You are doing just fine but you keep letting written numbers give you doubt. you SEE your results. too dark, your results say more development time will solve that--or more exposure--why look to what it's 'supposed to be'. You can not do anything new if you strive to get the same results of others--get the look YOU want and do what you have to do in order to get it--not matter how much you feel "cheated" on film speed. Get something that works robustly and repeatedly. Looks like your set here. If you want a more brightness or more "speed" try ferricyanide by inspection rather than hypo in the deveoper in the dark.
And say you send the film out and you're getting good results from the lab at ei 200--well, the process they use in machines cannot be duplicated with a tank easily or at all. Them machines use a fast process with hypo in the deveoper to speed up the process. The machine has WAY more control/precision than you--if you want machine results you need a machine. OR you must practice practice practice...and may never get it to work reliably.
NOTE--when all is said and done, movie film IS best done on a machine specially built to process movie film. You can't beat the machine--nobody can. If you take into consideration your time, you'll see that machine is usually winning out on cost too. BUT, it's understandable--you see others have done it and YOU want to do it. Once you get your process down it starts to turn into real work/drudgery...thatmachine starts too look very attractive--you no longer feel inadequate to have a machine do the work when you KNOW that you can do it if you have to. Still though--the movie film processing rig has not been thrown out....no matter how disused it's been...
Last edited by johnielvis; 03-12-2013 at 06:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.