Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
B&W film developing questions
Re: B&W film developing questions
On Jan 7, 11:30 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme,com > wrote:v
>
> Print, load in drum, fill with developer, agitate, empty developer,
> fill with stop and agitate, empty, fill with fixer and agitate, empty.
> Then hypo clear, wash, and dry?
>
> Would the last paragraph be considered the one tray method?
> Thanks, Greg
>
One tray, one tank. Very similar. Big difference; tray with
safelights on. Nice to see what is going on which is very easy
when using Graded paper. A high level of yellow-ish orange
safelighting can be used. Emergence times are impossible
to measure if a tank is used and developing to completion
less certain.
Single tray processing takes some more solution volume
than does the tank; a quarter liter or a little more.doing
8x10s. I use developer and fixer one-shot very dilute
and as with film, mentioned in an earlier post,
needs no stop; develop, fix. Saves a lot of
space and cleanup time. Dan
On Jan 7, 11:30 am, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme,com > wrote:v
>
> Print, load in drum, fill with developer, agitate, empty developer,
> fill with stop and agitate, empty, fill with fixer and agitate, empty.
> Then hypo clear, wash, and dry?
>
> Would the last paragraph be considered the one tray method?
> Thanks, Greg
>
One tray, one tank. Very similar. Big difference; tray with
safelights on. Nice to see what is going on which is very easy
when using Graded paper. A high level of yellow-ish orange
safelighting can be used. Emergence times are impossible
to measure if a tank is used and developing to completion
less certain.
Single tray processing takes some more solution volume
than does the tank; a quarter liter or a little more.doing
8x10s. I use developer and fixer one-shot very dilute
and as with film, mentioned in an earlier post,
needs no stop; develop, fix. Saves a lot of
space and cleanup time. Dan
Re: B&W film developing questions
Ken Hart wrote:
> As for not being able to print at home, there are many people who make do
> with printing in a bathroom.
This company makes vertical print processing equipment. You can develop
prints in a very small space with one.
If you are handy with plexiglass and glue, you could probably make a
cheap one from an aquarium. Without a lot of effort, you would have
to lift it up and turn it upside down to empty it, but it may be
good enough.
http :// www .novadarkroom,com /cat/31/Print_Processors.html
When I was a teenager, I had to work in a windowless bathroom.
The trays went in the tub, and the enlarger sat on the toilet.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson,com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http :// geoffstechno.livejournal,com /
Ken Hart wrote:
> As for not being able to print at home, there are many people who make do
> with printing in a bathroom.
This company makes vertical print processing equipment. You can develop
prints in a very small space with one.
If you are handy with plexiglass and glue, you could probably make a
cheap one from an aquarium. Without a lot of effort, you would have
to lift it up and turn it upside down to empty it, but it may be
good enough.
http :// www .novadarkroom,com /cat/31/Print_Processors.html
When I was a teenager, I had to work in a windowless bathroom.
The trays went in the tub, and the enlarger sat on the toilet.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson,com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http :// geoffstechno.livejournal,com /
Re: B&W film developing questions
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>
> When I was a teenager, I had to work in a windowless bathroom.
> The trays went in the tub, and the enlarger sat on the toilet.
My first darkroom in Vancouver, Canada was the same; a windowless
bathroom. I would place two rubber padded 2x4s on the bathtub, and put
the enlarger on it. The trays (11x14 was biggest size i could do) would
sit on the counter by the sink. To do exposures i would sit on the
toilet lid facing the bathtub/enlarger. I second the idea of using a
drum plus motor base. You can easily make your own drum(s) from 4 inch
black drain pipe and develop/stop/fix/wash prints that way. Use a large
O-ring in the center of the drum to stop it from rolling itself off the
base.
--
Regards / JCH
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>
> When I was a teenager, I had to work in a windowless bathroom.
> The trays went in the tub, and the enlarger sat on the toilet.
My first darkroom in Vancouver, Canada was the same; a windowless
bathroom. I would place two rubber padded 2x4s on the bathtub, and put
the enlarger on it. The trays (11x14 was biggest size i could do) would
sit on the counter by the sink. To do exposures i would sit on the
toilet lid facing the bathtub/enlarger. I second the idea of using a
drum plus motor base. You can easily make your own drum(s) from 4 inch
black drain pipe and develop/stop/fix/wash prints that way. Use a large
O-ring in the center of the drum to stop it from rolling itself off the
base.
--
Regards / JCH
Re: B&W film developing questions
On 1/6/2008 9:13 PM Ken Hart spake thus:
> Back in the 'good old days' when prints were actually paper and not
> resin-coated plastic stuff, the paper print would soak up a lot of
> chemicals. You needed to wash a print for perhaps an hour or so to remove
> all the fixer from the porous paper. (Ricard K., please feel free to jump in
> and correct me or elaborate-- I'm certain you are far more knowledgeable on
> this!). A hypo clearing agent would neutralize the hypo (or fixer), so that
> a shorter wash time (perhaps 30 minutes?) would suffice.
Just a small nit: HCA doesn't "neutralize" fixer, it sets up conditions
that make it easier to remove it. As you said, Richard K. can supply all
the gory details.
On 1/6/2008 9:13 PM Ken Hart spake thus:
> Back in the 'good old days' when prints were actually paper and not
> resin-coated plastic stuff, the paper print would soak up a lot of
> chemicals. You needed to wash a print for perhaps an hour or so to remove
> all the fixer from the porous paper. (Ricard K., please feel free to jump in
> and correct me or elaborate-- I'm certain you are far more knowledgeable on
> this!). A hypo clearing agent would neutralize the hypo (or fixer), so that
> a shorter wash time (perhaps 30 minutes?) would suffice.
Just a small nit: HCA doesn't "neutralize" fixer, it sets up conditions
that make it easier to remove it. As you said, Richard K. can supply all
the gory details.
Re: B&W film developing questions
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:13:06 -0500, "Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com >
wrote:
[---]
>There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray' processing.
>I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for the temporary darkroom, it may
>be the answer.
That would be Lloyd Erlick:
< http :// www .heylloyd,com /technicl/single.htm>
The rest of his site is also well worth a visit.
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:13:06 -0500, "Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com >
wrote:
[---]
>There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray' processing.
>I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for the temporary darkroom, it may
>be the answer.
That would be Lloyd Erlick:
< http :// www .heylloyd,com /technicl/single.htm>
The rest of his site is also well worth a visit.
Re: B&W film developing questions
"Andrew Price" <ajprice@free,fr > wrote in message
news:5r55o3t99nbjfppbtja1rdh28nh9mpif74@4ax,com ...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:13:06 -0500, "Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com >
> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray' processing.
>>I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for the temporary darkroom, it may
>>be the answer.
>
> That would be Lloyd Erlick:
>
> < http :// www .heylloyd,com /technicl/single.htm>
>
> The rest of his site is also well worth a visit.
That would be the gentleman I was thinking of (Sorry, Mr Erlick!). His site
is very worthwhile, and the OP may find some tips to help his 'lack of
space' dilemma.
"Andrew Price" <ajprice@free,fr > wrote in message
news:5r55o3t99nbjfppbtja1rdh28nh9mpif74@4ax,com ...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:13:06 -0500, "Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com >
> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>>There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray' processing.
>>I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for the temporary darkroom, it may
>>be the answer.
>
> That would be Lloyd Erlick:
>
> < http :// www .heylloyd,com /technicl/single.htm>
>
> The rest of his site is also well worth a visit.
That would be the gentleman I was thinking of (Sorry, Mr Erlick!). His site
is very worthwhile, and the OP may find some tips to help his 'lack of
space' dilemma.
Re: B&W film developing questions
"Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com > wrote in message
news:flscha$pqm$1@aioe.org...
>
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
> news:13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com ...
> snip
>> So in this workflow it would be develop, stop, fix, hypo,
>> wash, and wetting agent? In class we washed prints in
>> hypo but not film.
>>
> Just for the record. "fixer" and "hypo" are basically the
> same thing. I realize that when you say "hypo", you mean
> "hypo clearing agent"(sometimes called "HCA"). The purpose
> of the hypo clearing agent is to remove the hypo or fixer
> from the film or print.
>
> Back in the 'good old days' when prints were actually
> paper and not resin-coated plastic stuff, the paper print
> would soak up a lot of chemicals. You needed to wash a
> print for perhaps an hour or so to remove all the fixer
> from the porous paper. (Ricard K., please feel free to
> jump in and correct me or elaborate-- I'm certain you are
> far more knowledgeable on this!). A hypo clearing agent
> would neutralize the hypo (or fixer), so that a shorter
> wash time (perhaps 30 minutes?) would suffice.
>
> Film, being a non-porous material (or certainly less
> porous than fiber-based prints) doesn't soak up as much
> chemistry, so a hypo clearing agent is not as important.
> If it's critical to you that your negatives last to the
> next millenia, than you may want to use it anyway...!
>
> As for not being able to print at home, there are many
> people who make do with printing in a bathroom. Some use a
> cart (Rubbermaid? Check office supply or food service
> supply companies.) to hold their enlarger and store their
> chems, trays, and stuff so they can wheel everything into
> the bathroom for a session, then wheel it all into a
> closet for storage. You can put velcro around the window
> frame and stick a piece of faric or cardboard over the
> window. There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray'
> processing. I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for
> the temporary darkroom, it may be the answer. Maybe
> someone here can supply the link to his website, or to
> websites for temporary darkrooms. Using the kitchen is
> also a possibility, but some people don't like that idea
> because of the possibility of food being contaminated--
> but for darkroom work, cleanliness is important, so wipe
> up those chem spills!
> For me, you can take away my permanent darkrooms when you
> can pry the staticmaster brush from my cold, dead fingers!
>
My darkroom pretends that is a kitchen much of the time.
Quite small but Peter Gowland, in one of his books, says
that a darkroom can be too big. I agree with this, it must
be small enough so that things are within easy reach.
Fiber prints (the support should really be called
unprotected paper) does soak up hypo. The use of a wash aid
helps to dislodge it from the paper but the washing is not
by simple diffusion as it is for the emulsion because some
of the hypo gets bound up with the paper fibers mechanically
(Ilford points this out in their paper on accelerated
washing). As a result wash times are much extended.
Actually, the emulsion will wash out as fast as RC paper but
the support does not. Also, the "baryta" layer under the
emulsion tends to bind hypo as well. A sulfite wash aid will
break the bonding of hypo and fixer reaction products to the
emulsion and the baryta layer and, to some degree, with the
paper fibers but it is not as effective with the fibers as
with the emulsion and baryta layer. So, even with a wash aid
treatment fiber prints take 10 to 30 minutes to wash out. RC
paper even when fixed in acid hardening fixer will wash out
in about 4 minutes. Because a very small residue of hypo has
been found to stabilize the image silver against oxidation
wash times for RC should not exceed the recommended 4 or so
minutes and times for fiber paper or film treated with wash
aid should not be extended. Of course toning provides much
more effective protection and should be applied to prints
especially but, nonetheless, one can wash too much.
The substrate of RC paper is also plastic. In fiber
paper the substrate is one or more layers of very hard
gelatin with a suspension of barium sulfate (baryta) in it.
Barium sulfate is one of he most reflective materials around
which is why it was chosen. The substrate of RC paper is
plastic with a suspension of titanium dioxide in it. TiO is
even more reflective than barium sulfate. Because the TiO
tends to emmit an oxidizing gas which attacks both the image
and the plastic layer RC papers have had problems with
having short lives in the past. However, for at least ten
years all RC papers have been made with anti-oxidants and
oxidizer scavengers built in so they no longer have this
problem. The scavengers are supposed to be self-regenerating
so the protection should last as long as the print is
intact.
The difference in the substrate may have something to do
with the difference in appearance of the two types of paper
although I find that when other than glossy surfaces are
used its very difficult to tell them apart.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
"Ken Hart" <kwhart@fullnet,com > wrote in message
news:flscha$pqm$1@aioe.org...
>
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
> news:13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com ...
> snip
>> So in this workflow it would be develop, stop, fix, hypo,
>> wash, and wetting agent? In class we washed prints in
>> hypo but not film.
>>
> Just for the record. "fixer" and "hypo" are basically the
> same thing. I realize that when you say "hypo", you mean
> "hypo clearing agent"(sometimes called "HCA"). The purpose
> of the hypo clearing agent is to remove the hypo or fixer
> from the film or print.
>
> Back in the 'good old days' when prints were actually
> paper and not resin-coated plastic stuff, the paper print
> would soak up a lot of chemicals. You needed to wash a
> print for perhaps an hour or so to remove all the fixer
> from the porous paper. (Ricard K., please feel free to
> jump in and correct me or elaborate-- I'm certain you are
> far more knowledgeable on this!). A hypo clearing agent
> would neutralize the hypo (or fixer), so that a shorter
> wash time (perhaps 30 minutes?) would suffice.
>
> Film, being a non-porous material (or certainly less
> porous than fiber-based prints) doesn't soak up as much
> chemistry, so a hypo clearing agent is not as important.
> If it's critical to you that your negatives last to the
> next millenia, than you may want to use it anyway...!
>
> As for not being able to print at home, there are many
> people who make do with printing in a bathroom. Some use a
> cart (Rubbermaid? Check office supply or food service
> supply companies.) to hold their enlarger and store their
> chems, trays, and stuff so they can wheel everything into
> the bathroom for a session, then wheel it all into a
> closet for storage. You can put velcro around the window
> frame and stick a piece of faric or cardboard over the
> window. There is also a gentleman who espouses 'one-tray'
> processing. I've never tried it myself, but perhaps for
> the temporary darkroom, it may be the answer. Maybe
> someone here can supply the link to his website, or to
> websites for temporary darkrooms. Using the kitchen is
> also a possibility, but some people don't like that idea
> because of the possibility of food being contaminated--
> but for darkroom work, cleanliness is important, so wipe
> up those chem spills!
> For me, you can take away my permanent darkrooms when you
> can pry the staticmaster brush from my cold, dead fingers!
>
My darkroom pretends that is a kitchen much of the time.
Quite small but Peter Gowland, in one of his books, says
that a darkroom can be too big. I agree with this, it must
be small enough so that things are within easy reach.
Fiber prints (the support should really be called
unprotected paper) does soak up hypo. The use of a wash aid
helps to dislodge it from the paper but the washing is not
by simple diffusion as it is for the emulsion because some
of the hypo gets bound up with the paper fibers mechanically
(Ilford points this out in their paper on accelerated
washing). As a result wash times are much extended.
Actually, the emulsion will wash out as fast as RC paper but
the support does not. Also, the "baryta" layer under the
emulsion tends to bind hypo as well. A sulfite wash aid will
break the bonding of hypo and fixer reaction products to the
emulsion and the baryta layer and, to some degree, with the
paper fibers but it is not as effective with the fibers as
with the emulsion and baryta layer. So, even with a wash aid
treatment fiber prints take 10 to 30 minutes to wash out. RC
paper even when fixed in acid hardening fixer will wash out
in about 4 minutes. Because a very small residue of hypo has
been found to stabilize the image silver against oxidation
wash times for RC should not exceed the recommended 4 or so
minutes and times for fiber paper or film treated with wash
aid should not be extended. Of course toning provides much
more effective protection and should be applied to prints
especially but, nonetheless, one can wash too much.
The substrate of RC paper is also plastic. In fiber
paper the substrate is one or more layers of very hard
gelatin with a suspension of barium sulfate (baryta) in it.
Barium sulfate is one of he most reflective materials around
which is why it was chosen. The substrate of RC paper is
plastic with a suspension of titanium dioxide in it. TiO is
even more reflective than barium sulfate. Because the TiO
tends to emmit an oxidizing gas which attacks both the image
and the plastic layer RC papers have had problems with
having short lives in the past. However, for at least ten
years all RC papers have been made with anti-oxidants and
oxidizer scavengers built in so they no longer have this
problem. The scavengers are supposed to be self-regenerating
so the protection should last as long as the print is
intact.
The difference in the substrate may have something to do
with the difference in appearance of the two types of paper
although I find that when other than glossy surfaces are
used its very difficult to tell them apart.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: B&W film developing questions
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
news:13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com ...
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>> Fixer has relatively low capacity for complete fixing
>> and complete fixing is important to the lifetime of the
>> developed film. The rule of thumb is to discard the fixer
>> when _clearing_ time has doubled but IMO this is
>> stretching things a bit. Clearing time is measured by
>> fixing out a scrap of the film you are working with. Soak
>> the sample in water for a couple of minutes before
>> testing it because wet film fixes at a different rate
>> than dry film. Test a sample when the fixer is first
>> mixed and before its used. Note the time it takes for the
>> film to become completely clear. The rule of thumb is to
>> fix for twice this time and to discard the bath than the
>> clearing time doubles.
>
> Thanks Richard. I'll have to do this. I was just using
> the times suggested on the fixer bottle.
>
> From reading your post and Lawrence's I can test by
> snipping off the leader of a 35mm roll? Just drop it in
> some fixer and time how long it takes to clear?
>
> I also have a roll of 120 Tri-X 400 that I opened just to
> practice loading a reel with.
>
Just take a small scrap of the film and soak it in
water for perhaps 2 minutes. Then drop in some of the fixer
and swirl it around. Measure the time it takes to be
visually clear.
>>
>> Unless you work with very small quantities of film its
>> best to use two successive fixing baths. The film or
>> paper is fixed in each bath for half the normal fixing
>> time. The first bath does most of the work leaving the
>> second bath relatively fresh so it can clean up any
>> unfixed halide. After the first bath becomes exhausted
>> its dumped. The second bath then becomes the first bath
>> and a new second bath is mixed. Kodak has full
>> instructions about this in their Darkroom Dataguide
>> booklet.
>>
>> In addition to your processing method outlined above
>> I would add the use of a wash aid. I prefer Kodak Hypo
>> Clearing Agent because Kodak has published the details of
>> its contents and experimental evidence that it works. I
>> believe that Ilford's wash aid is essentially identical.
>> Teh wash aid will reduce film washing time from about 30
>> minutes to about 5 minutes. The wash aid can also remove
>> some otherwise insoluble fixer reaction products.
>>
>> Use the wetting agent after washing as you are doing.
>> Because the wetting agent can collect gelatin from the
>> film and will support mold it should not be saved between
>> sessions. It can be used for more than one roll of film
>> but should be discarded after you finish working.
>
> So in this workflow it would be develop, stop, fix, hypo,
> wash, and wetting agent? In class we washed prints in
> hypo but not film.
>
> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested
> that I use Xtol for now. But during class he told us that
> we'll get larger, more noticeable grain if we using
> something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why I'm currently
> playing with it.
>
> The bigger issue is that I'm getting used to developing at
> home but there is no way I'm going to be able to print at
> home. Does anyone have any current suggestions on finding
> a rental darkroom in LA these days? I'm currently signed
> up for another B&W class in Burbank, but I'm not going to
> have time to these next few months to actually do any
> assignments, I just want to print stuff from the last 4
> months.
>
> I was thinking about calling up Translight Colors. Anyone
> heard good or bad?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
What is the problem with setting up to print? There may
be a way around this. It is much more satisfactory to do
your own printing so its worth exploring ways to accomplish
it.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
news:13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com ...
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>> Fixer has relatively low capacity for complete fixing
>> and complete fixing is important to the lifetime of the
>> developed film. The rule of thumb is to discard the fixer
>> when _clearing_ time has doubled but IMO this is
>> stretching things a bit. Clearing time is measured by
>> fixing out a scrap of the film you are working with. Soak
>> the sample in water for a couple of minutes before
>> testing it because wet film fixes at a different rate
>> than dry film. Test a sample when the fixer is first
>> mixed and before its used. Note the time it takes for the
>> film to become completely clear. The rule of thumb is to
>> fix for twice this time and to discard the bath than the
>> clearing time doubles.
>
> Thanks Richard. I'll have to do this. I was just using
> the times suggested on the fixer bottle.
>
> From reading your post and Lawrence's I can test by
> snipping off the leader of a 35mm roll? Just drop it in
> some fixer and time how long it takes to clear?
>
> I also have a roll of 120 Tri-X 400 that I opened just to
> practice loading a reel with.
>
Just take a small scrap of the film and soak it in
water for perhaps 2 minutes. Then drop in some of the fixer
and swirl it around. Measure the time it takes to be
visually clear.
>>
>> Unless you work with very small quantities of film its
>> best to use two successive fixing baths. The film or
>> paper is fixed in each bath for half the normal fixing
>> time. The first bath does most of the work leaving the
>> second bath relatively fresh so it can clean up any
>> unfixed halide. After the first bath becomes exhausted
>> its dumped. The second bath then becomes the first bath
>> and a new second bath is mixed. Kodak has full
>> instructions about this in their Darkroom Dataguide
>> booklet.
>>
>> In addition to your processing method outlined above
>> I would add the use of a wash aid. I prefer Kodak Hypo
>> Clearing Agent because Kodak has published the details of
>> its contents and experimental evidence that it works. I
>> believe that Ilford's wash aid is essentially identical.
>> Teh wash aid will reduce film washing time from about 30
>> minutes to about 5 minutes. The wash aid can also remove
>> some otherwise insoluble fixer reaction products.
>>
>> Use the wetting agent after washing as you are doing.
>> Because the wetting agent can collect gelatin from the
>> film and will support mold it should not be saved between
>> sessions. It can be used for more than one roll of film
>> but should be discarded after you finish working.
>
> So in this workflow it would be develop, stop, fix, hypo,
> wash, and wetting agent? In class we washed prints in
> hypo but not film.
>
> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested
> that I use Xtol for now. But during class he told us that
> we'll get larger, more noticeable grain if we using
> something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why I'm currently
> playing with it.
>
> The bigger issue is that I'm getting used to developing at
> home but there is no way I'm going to be able to print at
> home. Does anyone have any current suggestions on finding
> a rental darkroom in LA these days? I'm currently signed
> up for another B&W class in Burbank, but I'm not going to
> have time to these next few months to actually do any
> assignments, I just want to print stuff from the last 4
> months.
>
> I was thinking about calling up Translight Colors. Anyone
> heard good or bad?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
What is the problem with setting up to print? There may
be a way around this. It is much more satisfactory to do
your own printing so its worth exploring ways to accomplish
it.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: B&W film developing questions
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
>>
>> From reading your post and Lawrence's I can test by
>> snipping off the leader of a 35mm roll? Just drop it in
>> some fixer and time how long it takes to clear?
>>
>> I also have a roll of 120 Tri-X 400 that I opened just to
>> practice loading a reel with.
>>
> Just take a small scrap of the film and soak it in
> water for perhaps 2 minutes. Then drop in some of the fixer
> and swirl it around. Measure the time it takes to be
> visually clear.
Thanks, I'll do that before my next round of developing.
>>
>> I was thinking about calling up Translight Colors. Anyone
>> heard good or bad?
>>
>>
> What is the problem with setting up to print? There may
> be a way around this. It is much more satisfactory to do
> your own printing so its worth exploring ways to accomplish
> it.
They have a rental darkroom near downtown LA. $12 an hour or something
like that.
My bathroom is tiny, tiny. Not much room to stand while brushing my
teeth and the toilet is in a space that I'm not sure I can fit an
enlarger on the toilet seat. It would be very difficult to print in the
my bathroom. And there is just too much light outside at night to close
off my kitchen.
Greg
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
>>
>> From reading your post and Lawrence's I can test by
>> snipping off the leader of a 35mm roll? Just drop it in
>> some fixer and time how long it takes to clear?
>>
>> I also have a roll of 120 Tri-X 400 that I opened just to
>> practice loading a reel with.
>>
> Just take a small scrap of the film and soak it in
> water for perhaps 2 minutes. Then drop in some of the fixer
> and swirl it around. Measure the time it takes to be
> visually clear.
Thanks, I'll do that before my next round of developing.
>>
>> I was thinking about calling up Translight Colors. Anyone
>> heard good or bad?
>>
>>
> What is the problem with setting up to print? There may
> be a way around this. It is much more satisfactory to do
> your own printing so its worth exploring ways to accomplish
> it.
They have a rental darkroom near downtown LA. $12 an hour or something
like that.
My bathroom is tiny, tiny. Not much room to stand while brushing my
teeth and the toilet is in a space that I'm not sure I can fit an
enlarger on the toilet seat. It would be very difficult to print in the
my bathroom. And there is just too much light outside at night to close
off my kitchen.
Greg
Re: B&W film developing questions
In article <13o626cl2okuo23@corp.supernews,com >, G.T.
getnews1@dslextreme,com says...
> My bathroom is tiny, tiny. Not much room to stand while brushing my
> teeth and the toilet is in a space that I'm not sure I can fit an
> enlarger on the toilet seat. It would be very difficult to print in the
> my bathroom. And there is just too much light outside at night to close
> off my kitchen.
>
You could always make a blackout tent. This can consist of as little as
a box (or fabric covered frame) in which to stand the enlarger on a
table, and a hood of blackout fabric that you duck inside and close
around your waist.
In article <13o626cl2okuo23@corp.supernews,com >, G.T.
getnews1@dslextreme,com says...
> My bathroom is tiny, tiny. Not much room to stand while brushing my
> teeth and the toilet is in a space that I'm not sure I can fit an
> enlarger on the toilet seat. It would be very difficult to print in the
> my bathroom. And there is just too much light outside at night to close
> off my kitchen.
>
You could always make a blackout tent. This can consist of as little as
a box (or fabric covered frame) in which to stand the enlarger on a
table, and a hood of blackout fabric that you duck inside and close
around your waist.
Re: B&W film developing questions
In article <13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com >,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>
> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested that I use
> Xtol for now. But during class he told us that we'll get larger, more
> noticeable grain if we using something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why
> I'm currently playing with it.
Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
developers.
--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks,com
http :// www .rodsbooks,com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
In article <13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com >,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>
> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested that I use
> Xtol for now. But during class he told us that we'll get larger, more
> noticeable grain if we using something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why
> I'm currently playing with it.
Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
developers.
--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks,com
http :// www .rodsbooks,com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Re: B&W film developing questions
"Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
> In article <13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com >,
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>>
>> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested that I use
>> Xtol for now. But during class he told us that we'll get larger, more
>> noticeable grain if we using something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why
>> I'm currently playing with it.
>
> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
> developers.
Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
Tri-X), and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other films
until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
Is that reasonable?
I'm fortunate to live a short subway ride away from Freestyle.
Greg
"Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
> In article <13o36j825t8r910@corp.supernews,com >,
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>>
>> Oh, and regarding grain, my instructor actually suggested that I use
>> Xtol for now. But during class he told us that we'll get larger, more
>> noticeable grain if we using something like Rodinal/HC-110. That's why
>> I'm currently playing with it.
>
> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
> developers.
Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
Tri-X), and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other films
until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
Is that reasonable?
I'm fortunate to live a short subway ride away from Freestyle.
Greg
Re: B&W film developing questions
In article <13o5st6mfb3dj62@corp.supernews,com >,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>
> "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
> news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
>>
>> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
>> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
>> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
>> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
>> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
>> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
>> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
>> developers.
>
> Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
> the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
> Tri-X),
For future reference, Freestyle sells several different products under
their "Arista" label. You *MUST* pay attention to the specifics -- for
instance, Arista.EDU, Arista.EDU Ultra, and Arista II are all made by
different manufacturers. Many of these products have been discontinued
(mostly because of manufacturers going under, such as Agfa and Forte), so
Freestyle may not have much of some of these items left, but it's
imperative that you pay attention to this detail lest you get the wrong
developing time or provoke confusion in discussions with others.
> and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
> finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other films
> until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
> Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
>
> Is that reasonable?
Your first post mentioned that you'd just finished developing your first
three rolls "at home." If you've not been developing film elsewhere, going
through as many developers as you mention after just three rolls is
inadvisable; stick with ONE for a while. "A while" is rather vague, I
admit; if you need more precision, I'd say 10-20 rolls before you start
trying other things.
--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks,com
http :// www .rodsbooks,com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
In article <13o5st6mfb3dj62@corp.supernews,com >,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>
> "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
> news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
>>
>> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
>> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
>> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
>> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a new
>> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how the
>> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques. Learn
>> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
>> developers.
>
> Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
> the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
> Tri-X),
For future reference, Freestyle sells several different products under
their "Arista" label. You *MUST* pay attention to the specifics -- for
instance, Arista.EDU, Arista.EDU Ultra, and Arista II are all made by
different manufacturers. Many of these products have been discontinued
(mostly because of manufacturers going under, such as Agfa and Forte), so
Freestyle may not have much of some of these items left, but it's
imperative that you pay attention to this detail lest you get the wrong
developing time or provoke confusion in discussions with others.
> and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
> finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other films
> until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
> Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
>
> Is that reasonable?
Your first post mentioned that you'd just finished developing your first
three rolls "at home." If you've not been developing film elsewhere, going
through as many developers as you mention after just three rolls is
inadvisable; stick with ONE for a while. "A while" is rather vague, I
admit; if you need more precision, I'd say 10-20 rolls before you start
trying other things.
--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks,com
http :// www .rodsbooks,com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Re: B&W film developing questions
"Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
news:ar4d55-v8d.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
> In article <13o5st6mfb3dj62@corp.supernews,com >,
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>>
>> "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
>> news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
>>>
>>> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
>>> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
>>> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
>>> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a
>>> new
>>> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how
>>> the
>>> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques.
>>> Learn
>>> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
>>> developers.
>>
>> Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
>> the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
>> Tri-X),
>
> For future reference, Freestyle sells several different products under
> their "Arista" label. You *MUST* pay attention to the specifics -- for
> instance, Arista.EDU, Arista.EDU Ultra, and Arista II are all made by
> different manufacturers. Many of these products have been discontinued
> (mostly because of manufacturers going under, such as Agfa and Forte), so
> Freestyle may not have much of some of these items left, but it's
> imperative that you pay attention to this detail lest you get the wrong
> developing time or provoke confusion in discussions with others.
Understood. It's Arista.EDU Ultra which I think is all they have in 120 at
this point.
>
>> and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
>> finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other
>> films
>> until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
>> Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
>>
>> Is that reasonable?
>
> Your first post mentioned that you'd just finished developing your first
> three rolls "at home." If you've not been developing film elsewhere, going
> through as many developers as you mention after just three rolls is
> inadvisable; stick with ONE for a while. "A while" is rather vague, I
> admit; if you need more precision, I'd say 10-20 rolls before you start
> trying other things.
No, I developed 24 rolls with Accufine in class, the 3 rolls with Rodinal
are the first I've developed at home. My instructor suggested trying Xtol
next but I tend to do my own thing. It's Rodinal for now, I've been mixing
it at 25+1 but to get more rolls done with it I'll start doing 50+1 or
100+1.
Thanks,
Greg
"Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
news:ar4d55-v8d.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
> In article <13o5st6mfb3dj62@corp.supernews,com >,
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > writes:
>>
>> "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks,com > wrote in message
>> news:134b55-5n7.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks,com ...
>>>
>>> Experimenting with products is fine; however, since you're just starting
>>> out I'd like to caution you against going wild with all the films and
>>> developers that are out there. You'll learn most quickly if you stick to
>>> just one or two films and one developer while you learn. If you try a
>>> new
>>> film/developer combination with every roll or two, you won't learn how
>>> the
>>> two work together or be able to optimize your developing techniques.
>>> Learn
>>> your basic techniques first and THEN start playing with different
>>> developers.
>>
>> Basically, for good or bad, I'm using Tri-X 400 (I have also used some of
>> the current Arista 400 film but for film right now I'm sticking with the
>> Tri-X),
>
> For future reference, Freestyle sells several different products under
> their "Arista" label. You *MUST* pay attention to the specifics -- for
> instance, Arista.EDU, Arista.EDU Ultra, and Arista II are all made by
> different manufacturers. Many of these products have been discontinued
> (mostly because of manufacturers going under, such as Agfa and Forte), so
> Freestyle may not have much of some of these items left, but it's
> imperative that you pay attention to this detail lest you get the wrong
> developing time or provoke confusion in discussions with others.
Understood. It's Arista.EDU Ultra which I think is all they have in 120 at
this point.
>
>> and on just my 2nd developer, the Rodinal, the 4 oz bottle. I'll
>> finish this Rodinal up and try some Xtol. I won't be trying any other
>> films
>> until I get a feel for the differences of the Tri-X in the Accufine, the
>> Rodinal, and then the Xtol.
>>
>> Is that reasonable?
>
> Your first post mentioned that you'd just finished developing your first
> three rolls "at home." If you've not been developing film elsewhere, going
> through as many developers as you mention after just three rolls is
> inadvisable; stick with ONE for a while. "A while" is rather vague, I
> admit; if you need more precision, I'd say 10-20 rolls before you start
> trying other things.
No, I developed 24 rolls with Accufine in class, the 3 rolls with Rodinal
are the first I've developed at home. My instructor suggested trying Xtol
next but I tend to do my own thing. It's Rodinal for now, I've been mixing
it at 25+1 but to get more rolls done with it I'll start doing 50+1 or
100+1.
Thanks,
Greg
Re: B&W film developing questions
Dnia Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:04:55 -0800, G.T. napisał(a):
> . The Rodinal says undiluted it will last 6 months. Can I be safe to
> assume it will last that long?
Last week I made test - bottle of Rodinal used last time 5 years ago
(so it has 6 or 7 years). 1+25 - still works without any problem.
I tested also D-76 1+1 mixed in Sept 2006 - works not so good, but it's
still ok - without direct comparison no visible difference.
And never ask such questions - shot a few test frames, cut film
and develop it. It costs a few cents, but can save your negative
if something will go wrong with developer after wrong storage.
> Can I develop more than one roll of film in my Rodinal?
In low dilutions yes - but I don't recommend it.
> 2. The stop is the least of my worries, right? It should be ok for a
> couple dozen rolls over the next couple of months?
After Rodinal don't use acid stop bath - plain water
works ok - I use 3 water changes in 2 min.
Greetings
Henry
Dnia Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:04:55 -0800, G.T. napisał(a):
> . The Rodinal says undiluted it will last 6 months. Can I be safe to
> assume it will last that long?
Last week I made test - bottle of Rodinal used last time 5 years ago
(so it has 6 or 7 years). 1+25 - still works without any problem.
I tested also D-76 1+1 mixed in Sept 2006 - works not so good, but it's
still ok - without direct comparison no visible difference.
And never ask such questions - shot a few test frames, cut film
and develop it. It costs a few cents, but can save your negative
if something will go wrong with developer after wrong storage.
> Can I develop more than one roll of film in my Rodinal?
In low dilutions yes - but I don't recommend it.
> 2. The stop is the least of my worries, right? It should be ok for a
> couple dozen rolls over the next couple of months?
After Rodinal don't use acid stop bath - plain water
works ok - I use 3 water changes in 2 min.
Greetings
Henry
Next: -- messaggio eliminato --
Previous: For Sale: Modded Consoles, ORI / Backup Games / Retro Stuff
