Re: OT: Developng questions
At what speed will you rate them? DGAJ I've got three rolls at 12500, five rolls at 6400, nine rolls at 3200, DGAJ and one roll at 1600. (And two that don't have a speed written on them, DGAJ so I have to look them up in my database by roll-ID...) Ok, so I got to a computer this evening for a bit before I leave again... At that speed, you would be IMO better with Emofin. 12500 and 6400 is extreme pushing of the film, and good results depend a lot on the original subject contrast and if you want any shadows or not. For such speeds, testing in similar light is mandatory. I have used TMZ up to 3200 in mixed light conditions, and it came out of Emofin nicely, without largely blocked highlights but still with enough shadows. At higher pushed speed, I would be afraid of using it without testing first. Even so, Emofin actually has a real compensating effect, although with pushing that high compromises are inevitable. Good light! fra
Re: OT: Developng questions
On 4/27/05, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've started developing film at home, using Sprint developer. Oddly, I've been getting better results with 120 than with 35mm, though I may have finally solved that (I just don't know why). Sprint says this developer is the same as D76 diluted 1:1, but the times on the bottle don't match those on Kodak's web site. This morning I used Kodak's times for the 35mm Tri-X and Sprint's times for 120 Tri-X, and oddly, both came out pretty. So a tangential question is, Why? ... Getting into this late, but, how much developer are you using? And how large are the 35mm rolls? I find that if I need to do two rolls of 36-shot 35mm in D-76 1:1, I have to use more developer than is necessary to just cover the film. I usually use one of the 3-roll tanks, and use a full 900ml of developer. If I only use 600ml, enough to cover the film, it gets exhausted before the film develops fully. Dunno why the different between Sprint and Kodak for the times, but I have noticed a bit more grain using the Sprint developer than I have w/ real Kodak D-76. Though the fact that you can reuse the Sprint developer works in its favor... -Mat
Re: OT: Developng questions
Thanks for the answers. (So far it sounds like I should probably use a different developer, even though there's some chance that experimentation will show decent results from Sprint.) Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED], who suggested Emofin, wrote: DGAJ But the main question I've got today concerns TMZ and Delta 3200. [...] At what speed will you rate them? I've got three rolls at 12500, five rolls at 6400, nine rolls at 3200, and one roll at 1600. (And two that don't have a speed written on them, so I have to look them up in my database by roll-ID...) Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've put Delta rated at 1600 through Microphen and found the result more than acceptable. It may be that 20C versus 24Celsius matters also as I like more the outcome at lower temperature - longer developing. Thanks. I'll also be asking the folks from the lab I used to take most of my high-speed film to, if I can track them down (the lab appears to have closed! *pout*) what they used, and check to see what TV wrote down for the rolls he developed for me. I appreciate the advice, folks. BTW, I've noticed that to me, as developed by other people in the past, these two films look the same. Are they in fact similar enough that I can develop a roll of each in the same tank together, or is that just Begging For Trouble? (I can _guess_, but figured I should _ask_ anyhow...) I'll come back to the BW transparency question in a little while. -- Glenn
Re: OT: Developng questions
I think Kodak still makes a transparency kit for BW film. It was meant for use with Plus-X not Tri-X however. D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: Thanks for the answers. (So far it sounds like I should probably use a different developer, even though there's some chance that experimentation will show decent results from Sprint.) Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED], who suggested Emofin, wrote: DGAJ But the main question I've got today concerns TMZ and Delta 3200. [...] At what speed will you rate them? I've got three rolls at 12500, five rolls at 6400, nine rolls at 3200, and one roll at 1600. (And two that don't have a speed written on them, so I have to look them up in my database by roll-ID...) Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've put Delta rated at 1600 through Microphen and found the result more than acceptable. It may be that 20C versus 24Celsius matters also as I like more the outcome at lower temperature - longer developing. Thanks. I'll also be asking the folks from the lab I used to take most of my high-speed film to, if I can track them down (the lab appears to have closed! *pout*) what they used, and check to see what TV wrote down for the rolls he developed for me. I appreciate the advice, folks. BTW, I've noticed that to me, as developed by other people in the past, these two films look the same. Are they in fact similar enough that I can develop a roll of each in the same tank together, or is that just Begging For Trouble? (I can _guess_, but figured I should _ask_ anyhow...) I'll come back to the BW transparency question in a little while. -- Glenn
Re: OT: Developng questions
On Apr 29, 2005, at 11:39 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I think Kodak still makes a transparency kit for BW film. It was meant for use with Plus-X not Tri-X however. I think the reversal kit was originally designed for Panatomic-X. Could be mistaken, it's been years and years since I made BW slides. D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: Thanks for the answers. (So far it sounds like I should probably use a different developer, even though there's some chance that experimentation will show decent results from Sprint.) In my last film/negative processing work, I came to using XTOL (and the workalike Patterson FX-50) as my standard film developer for Agfa APX25, Ilford Delta Pro 100, TMax 100 and 400. Exposed at one EV faster than the factory rated speed and processed one-shot in XTOL at 1:1 dilution @74F (used the Kodak time/temperature listings for time plus 10% at these speed ratings, also developed my own agitation schema for the processing), it delivers excellent tonal separation, does not block up highs easily, and produces high acutance/low grain. For most films, my standard agitation process is very very gentle to minimize grain growth. TMax, however, wants a LOT of agitation to develop evenly ... Keep that in mind when working with it. I think this is because it was formulated with machine processing in mind. It, and Ilford Delta, also requires more time and agitation in fixing to clear fully. Godfrey
Re: OT: Developng questions
Quoting P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think Kodak still makes a transparency kit for BW film. It was meant for use with Plus-X not Tri-X however. Thought they made one for T-Max 100, or is that one history?
Re: OT: Developng questions
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: OT: Developng questions I think Kodak still makes a transparency kit for BW film. It was meant for use with Plus-X not Tri-X however. The original kit was designed for Panatomic, and they reformulated it for T-Max100. I tried it with Ilford Delta 100 one time, and it worked well. Use the kit at the lower temperature recommendation, not the higher one. I used it at 24ºC one time and the emulsion came off the film. William Robb
Re: OT: Developng questions
DGAJ But the main question I've got today concerns TMZ and Delta 3200. DGAJ I've just about run out of TX to develop (yes, of course, I'll go DGAJ shoot more, but in the meantime ...) so I'm thinking of trying DGAJ the high-speed stuff. The question is: should I go ahead and DGAJ do it in the Sprint developer, or do I really want to go buy some DGAJ other developer -- TMax or something -- to use on the TMZ? At what speed will you rate them? If you really want to get good results from TMZ and D3200, you have to try Emofin. It's a double bath developer from Tetenal, which gives the best results with these films, in my opinion (well unless you want to get into mixing your own chemistry...). It is a compensating developer, which is absolutely needed with these high speed films if you push them (and they are pushed at anything above 800 or 1000, which is their native iso speed). Frantisek
Re: OT: Developng questions
I've put Delta rated at 1600 through Microphen and found the result more than acceptable. It may be that 20C versus 24Celsius matters also as I like more the outcome at lower temperature - longer developing. Servus, Alin Frantisek wrote: DGAJ But the main question I've got today concerns TMZ and Delta 3200. DGAJ I've just about run out of TX to develop (yes, of course, I'll go DGAJ shoot more, but in the meantime ...) so I'm thinking of trying DGAJ the high-speed stuff. The question is: should I go ahead and DGAJ do it in the Sprint developer, or do I really want to go buy some DGAJ other developer -- TMax or something -- to use on the TMZ? F At what speed will you rate them? If you really want to get good F results from TMZ and D3200, you have to try Emofin. It's a double bath F developer from Tetenal, which gives the best results with these films, F in my opinion (well unless you want to get into mixing your own F chemistry...). It is a compensating developer, which is absolutely F needed with these high speed films if you push them (and they are F pushed at anything above 800 or 1000, which is their native iso F speed). F Frantisek
OT: Developng questions
(I haven't been reading much -- not feeling well has left me with insufficient energy to keep up. This is temporary, and I will still peek at the list to catch answers...) Hey folks, I've started developing film at home, using Sprint developer. Oddly, I've been getting better results with 120 than with 35mm, though I may have finally solved that (I just don't know why). Sprint says this developer is the same as D76 diluted 1:1, but the times on the bottle don't match those on Kodak's web site. This morning I used Kodak's times for the 35mm Tri-X and Sprint's times for 120 Tri-X, and oddly, both came out pretty. So a tangential question is, Why? ... But the main question I've got today concerns TMZ and Delta 3200. I've just about run out of TX to develop (yes, of course, I'll go shoot more, but in the meantime ...) so I'm thinking of trying the high-speed stuff. The question is: should I go ahead and do it in the Sprint developer, or do I really want to go buy some other developer -- TMax or something -- to use on the TMZ? IIRC, Kodak gives times for TMZ in D76 straight, so if I use the Sprint, which I've diluted 1:9 per the instructions on the bottle, should I mix up a batch at 2:9 to make it act like straight D76? * * * * * 'Nuther darkroom question: I want to make some BW slides. The first thought I had was to buy some Scala, which will be a special order at my local camera shop, or mail order, and I presume I'll have to mail it off to be processed, right? The second idea was to find out whether there was a chemical trick to turn Tri-X into slide film, and it turna out there's chemistry to do that with TMax, again special order and I'm not sure whether it works for TX. And the third notion was to make a contact copy by unrolling a bit of Tri-X in the darkroom, laying the negative I want to make a positive of on top of it, and shining the enlarger on it briefly (this'll be using 120 film for both, BTW). So ... is that last idea sane, and if so, how do I guesstimate a reasonable starting range for the length of time to light it? (I'm assuming that I am going to have to determine the exact exposure experimentally.) * * * * * BTW, the results of the 35mm film in the Holga experiment amused me enough that I'm considering adding a rewind knob to the Holga. I'm not sure it's really worth it for anything other than look what I can do though, since I don't know where to find a negative carrier the shape of the resulting neg, and I could always just crop a normal Holga neg down to that panoramic shape anyhow. Still, it amuses me. -- Glenn PS: I've got four rolls of TX that have the green blocks on the cans and say Kodak Tri-X pan 400 Professional instead of the current Kodak Professional Tri-X 400. These take a slightly shorter development time, right? I'm sure that info is buried somewhere on the Kodak web site, but I wasn't able to figure out where.
