arnie_milowsky

Nitrogen will not work, as it lighter than air, and will simply

diffuse out unless kept under a positive pressure from a nitrogen

source. In the labs, we used to use argon to blanket a liquid, but

this is impractical in a home darkroom. Tetenal makes a product

called Protectan that is supposed to work well. See,

http://www.jobo-usa.com/products/chembw.htm#Protectan Spray

I have the EOS 3 and once calibrated under various lighting

conditions, ECF works great for me. I say for me, because there have

been reports that it works better for people with blue eyes, versus

those with brown eyes; I have blue eyes. With respect to its ability

to focus on fast action, I have used it with good success for

equestrian jumping, go kart racing, and soccer matches which all

involve fast action shooting.

Isaac:

Just a few comments for you...I have the 70-200 2.8L, the 300 4L

and the 100-400 4.5-5.6L. Out of these lenses, I find the 70-200 to

produce images that are just as sharp as the 300, and much sharper

than the 100-400 (and I love to shoot wide open). Similarly, the 70-

200 produces images that are of equal contrast to the 300, but have

better contrast than the 100-400. The 70-200 autofocuses much faster

than the other lenses. I too bought the 70-200 to replace a Sigma

(70-200 2.8) and there was no looking back. I see no reason for me

to sell the sell the 70-200 and replace it with the IS. The 70-200

is a little heavy to walk around with all day, but the results are

just outstanding. I think you should rent one, the blurred

backgrounds that you get at 2.8 make the lens. BTW..if you have any

shooting to do at 200, and want to have some fun, rent the Canon 200

f1.8 lens. It blows em all away.

I own both the 100-400L IS and 70-200 <b>2.8</b>L lenses. The 70-200

is a much sharper, faster, and faster focusing lens. It also

produces pictures having much better contrast. I find that the 100-

400 is good for motorsports, where the focus is not on the eyes of

the subject, but the 70-200 (coupled to a 1.4 teleconveter) will blow

the doors off of the 100-400 for sharpness of facial features (either

nature or people). The IS on the 100-400 is nice, but clearly not

indispensible. If you can afford to buy the 100-400, I would

consider buying a 70-200 <b>2.8</b>L and a Canon 1.4x teleconverter

(should be around the same total price). BTW...your wife will not

murder you if you remember the rule of thirds...LOL... as far as she

knows, the item costs 1/3 of what you actually paid for it.

Donald:

I don't know if using acetic acid will solve your problem or not,

but I do know that you should not use glacial acetic acid (or

anything nearly that concentrated). It is not necessary, and is much

more likely to harm the slides than duilute acetic acid. (I don't

like to tout degrees, but I do have a PhD in Chemistry.) Urine

contains ammonia, other amines, minerals, salts, etc. All of which

are water soluble. The overall pH of cat urine is basic, but is not

characterized as strongly basic. I would suggest soaking a test

slide in a large amount of water (preferrably distilled, can buy in

supermarket); I would also use warm water, since the E6 process is

run at 100.4 degrees. This should bring most if not all the urine

residue into the water solution. Then I would change the water and

resoak in a dilute sloution of acetic acid (as a guess, even more

dilute than stop bath, and probably at room temperature). Let the

slide soak for a few minutes, and then rinse in clean warm water.

As an aside...There are many reasons why you don't want to or need a

concentrated acetic acid solution: (1) it is corrosive, and may

destroy the dyes; (2) based on numbers, you don't need it. There is

plenty of acid present in dilute acetic acid to neutralize the amines

in the quantity of urine present; (3) as part of the acid + base =

salt and water reaction, heat is formed as a byproduct. Using a

concentrated acid, will result in a very loacalized generation of

heat (probably right on the film surface), which could be enough to

damage the emulsion. In a dilute solution, the water acts

to "buffer" the heat, and prevent any localized heating.

Good luck and hope this helps.

Arnie

You can check the "Massive Development Chart" at

http://www.digitaltruth.com

for development times of a multitude of films/developers. For Tri X

sheet film,it lists developing TriX sheet fime at ISO 320 in D76

(stock)for 5.5 min at 68 degrees. No listing is given for 1:1

dilution.

I shot some 120 size Delta 100 and developed it in D76 (1:1) at 68

deg. for 11 mins and thought the negatives lacked contrast. Someone

suggested trying Acutol. Tried it 1:9, at 68 deg, for 11 mins in my

JOBO unit (constant rotation). Got great contrasty negatives, but at

the expense of huge grain increase. Anyone have experience with

Acutol? Could the JOBO have caused overdevelopment because of the

constant agitation? (The D76 run was not done in a JOBO, just

inversion to agitate.) I like the contrasty look from the Acutol, but

not the grain. Any suggestions on working with Acutol, or developers

that work well with Delta 100? Also how does D76 undiluted compare

with the 1:1 dilution? Tha