tim_curry

Sorry for the lousy scan. tim

Basically, I use the screen as a backing for the film to make removal after processing easier. If your screen is cut 4 1/4" x 6", there will be enough length to cut away about an inch at the top, leaving a "pull-tab" in the center of the short side to draw out the film. Good idea to cut the screen slightly bigger than the film so it rests completely on the screen.

 

Procedure I use is as follows. Have a tube, plug, screen and film holder out and turn off the lights. Open the film holder, remove film with emulsion side up and place on top of the screen. Pick up the screen with the film on it and gently roll it into a tube-shaped cylinder. Be sure not to scratch the film with screen edges which are raw from the cutting process. Slide the screen-film cylinder into the open tube, add water for pre-soak and screw in the plug (leave room for air to be displaced as the plug is screwed in place).

 

You now have film in the tube which is light-tight, presoaking is moving along. You can now turn on the lights and mix developer to pour in. As I've said, minimal agitation is the best way to go for sharpness (depending on your developer). With Efke 100 and pyrocat, the results are stunning. Amazing depth of detail and an etched look which is hard to describe, nice full, sharp, shadows also. I tried scanning an example to post from this weekend's shoot, but my scanner and software are not up to the task. Did one shot with minimal agitation and one without. Clear winner is minimal agitation, here's the print. tim<div></div>

Try PMK pyro. Nice tonality and even prints. Stick with 15 second inversion intervals. tim

Nate, if you are trying rodinal, give 4x5 tubes a try with stand development. This will be a very sharp combination! tim

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?a=101

If underexposed, there won't be shadow detail and you will have dark holes where detail should exist. If underdeveloped, the scene will be flat, no highlights or a muddy look at best.

 

I use asa 12 as a starting point, at times asa 6. Until you decide which problem you are dealing with, changing things will just add another variable. tim<div></div>

I mix it about once a year. The current batch has been going for well over a year now. The bottles are opened frequently, have lots of air space and are nearing empty, about 1/4 full. No change in strength at all. It should be good for years without any trouble.

Photographic Works in Tucson charges $1.70 for 4x5 @ 3 hours standard turn around time.

Thomas, Sorry to take a few days to get back about your question. Yes, the dilution for the chrome shot was 1:2:100, or a "normal" dilution for PMK.

 

I use Efke 25 in low light as well, because of its good reciprocity characteristics and full inherent contrast. It takes some getting used to, but is fun to work with.

Sassan, I think these tables will have to be generated by doing your own film tests. A test run by anyone other than yourself becomes meaningless due to many variables (shutter speeds, developer, internal camera flare, lighting conditions, etc.) but the curve will be roughly the same for a given film from person to person.

 

While these density numbers are quite useful to the understanding of film behavior, the print is the actual proof of a good negative, not a charasticic curve and theory. These numbers allow us to discuss similarities and differences between films without seeing them, so as an aid to understanding, they are useful, but for a good print who cares what the numbers say?

Efke 25 at asa 12, PMK @ 7:00 & 70f (my version of N development). This is the shot I use to show what Efke & PMK looks like. Nikon FM, 50mm lens, full sun and chrome, lots of it.<div></div>

For 6x9 you might try an older press type camera. A Busch Pressman or an old Crown or Speed Graphic would be just right. They should be available in many places. A 4x5 press camera with a 2x3 rollfilm back would also work out well.

Ron has posted some excellent advice, so let's look at what he said:

 

1) Darkroom chemistry is toxic. This means not only pyro, but most, if not all, chemicals must be handled with care (gloves & respirator for airborn particles).

 

2) His experience exceeds most of the people's on this forum, both with respect to thechnical and practical considerations.

 

3) He worked for years (it sounds like from his post) without gloves and his hands immersed in many different types of chmicals, some of which were new to science. One might only wonder about the cumulative combined effects of these chemicals on the human body and central nervous sustem. I would only hope that any health issues he now has are not terminal.

 

4) He is still alive and kicking. He is able to share with us his knowledge, experience and reservations about chemicals, especially pyro developers. To me, this is a good indication that wearing gloves and taking proper precautions with all chemicals is mandatory now. It is also a good indication that, with proper care most of these concerns are certainly worth precautions, but not running away from out of fear.

 

I have used PMK for nearly two years now (my only time in the darkroom). I am 53 years old. I wear gloves and do not allow ANY chemicals to come in contact with my skin in the darkroom, if some does, I wash it off with water immediately. I spent 25 years as a cabinet maker breathing paint, sawdust, lacquer, catalysed urethanes, MEK and formaldehyde glue vapors from partical board and related products. I am much more concerned now with environmental toxins having a cumulative effect on my health than I am about a few chemicals in a darkroom which I handle less frequently and more carefully.

 

Who knows which straw will break the camel's back.

Marc, it sounds like you are right in the middle of all this stuff. Since you haven't done a lot of zone system testing, I have a couple of things to try.

 

First, until you have nailed down your exposure and development, keep notes! Write down your exposures as best you can, shadow values, highlights etc. for each shot in question.

 

Second, just to see where you are, try using a gray card to do some "nomal" shots and write down these same values as before. The card will place things in the same spot each time in exposure, but write down shadows and highlights as you normally do. This will tell you a lot about your film speed. Try switching speeds as has been suggested above and keep track of the shots as you vary asa. The shots with full shadow values are your correct film speed, the highlights are then a function of development time. Once you know your film speed, try to vary development time and write it down for each attempt. The ones which don't work will give you numbers for N+ and N- times, so keep track.

 

Third, do film tests. Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop was much easier for me to understand than Adams at first, as Adams can be very technical if you don't have a lot of theory behind you already. Once you have this exposure and development figured out, you will not need to worry about any of it and just enjoy knowing that you have good shots which will work.

 

One developer I use which works well here in Tucson (yes, we have lots of sun too) is PMK pyro. It is easy to use, forgiving of small mistakes in time and will help control highlight values well. It works very well with roll film as it has the ability to mask grain when enlarging.<div></div>

Nothing tricky about it. I use asa 200 and about 15:00 of development (like the snap the extra minute gives) which works well. Remember to agitate every 15 seconds, use distilled water to mix working solutions, water stop and TF-4 fix (no acid please). Beautiful combination for tonality.

Christopher, if your prints are "muddy" as you have stated, have you done film speed (exposure) and development tests? If this combination is not correct, your choice of developer and film may not be the issue. Is zone 3 really zone 3 and is zone 8 really zone 8? This may have something to do with it.

 

If your film tests are correct, is it sharpness, contrast, shadow values or a combination of these? Perhaps you could post an example for us on apug's gallery to show the problem in an image as you see it. This would be a bit more helpful. Words can be a bother to understand in cases like this.

He just passed away. Friday, 10-1-04, 11:00 AM PST

Dave another alternative, if you enjoy working with Tri-x, is a staining developer. PMK pyro works well with Tri-x, but the negatives will look different to you, greenish yellow and somewhat flat. The advantage with a semi-coarse film like Tri-x is the ability of the stain (dissolved silver suspended in the gelatin) to mask grain. Since a large amount of the stain is located in the areas of greater silver concentrations, it fills in around the grain to some extent and gives a much smoother image. The grain is still there, it is just hidden by the stain left in the film after development.

 

Do some reading about PMK, Pyrocat-HD, WD2D or Rollo-pyro and you may decide it is worth a try. Unbilnkingeye.com has a great article by Sandy King about staining developers. PMK has a long shelf life, is a one shot developer, masks grain and gives very nice negatives. I use it for both roll film and sheet film as my primary developer for enlarging and have had good results with it, but there are others to look into..

If they really must wear clothing, there are a few rules. Keep tops in the same range of values, as has been stated. Don't let someone wear a checker board pattern, someone else in broad stripes, etc, keep it neutral. Background; simple and neutral, no trees or lamp posts growing out of someone's head. Try a setting which is easy, natural and uncluttered.

 

I still think clothing is not necessary, but everyone is different.

Luca, not really sure about the 250 at f64, but you will need about 466mm to cover without movements. Try looking at lenses with a minimum coverage of 460mm and see what's out there.

The interleaving paper used is to protect the surface of the emulsion from scratches. It is not a dust collector in itself. I find more people have trouble by using a vacuum cleaner on their film holders than anything else. The vacuum creates a static charge which attracts dust. The paper does not. Try using compressed air to remove dust and see if there is still a problem. A changing bag can be a wonderful dust trap. Make sure to blow it out if there is any doubt about dust.

If you are willing to take the time to do film tests with PMK and the film of your choice, you will find that the stain (some say greenish yellow, while others say yellowish green) does not adversely affect contrast on VC paper. With proper development times, grade 2 VC paper is actually grade 2. The stain enhances detail with VC paper.

 

I have a shot of late afternoon which shows almost nothing in the shadows but prints with very fine detail in those areas of the image. This is something you have to see, to get an appreciation for the value of stain as opposed to silver in a PMK image. There doesn't seem to be anything in the shadows when the film is placed on a light box and examined, but it prints well.

 

As to what should be, the theory is a bit lacking. The proof is in the print. Image stain is a function of the development process and reduction of the silver during chemical changes during development. The pyro afterbath simply adds general stain, like fog from general light on film which is not produced by a lens. This will reduce contrast (try fogging a sheet of film and you will see).

At asa 25 you may end up with shadow values that are too empty. PMK is a trade off with respect to film speed. It does mask grain well, but does so at the expense of film speed. I've found asa 12 to be about right, but meters, shutters, etc. can vary a great amount.

 

Try 1/2 roll at asa 25 and 1/2 roll at asa 12 and see what you get. My best results have been with asa 12.

Markus, I still use Efke 25 at asa 12, 7:00 @ 70f for N development and PMK for most of my shots in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10. Try this combination and meter off of a gray card to see what you think. I've found it to be a good time with roll film as it is too difficult to do N, N+ or N- with roll film.

 

The above mentioned time for asa 12 seems a bit long for my tastes. At asa 25 this might work well enough, but shadow values will be lacking a bit. It would be about right for portraits or very flat light (low SBR). tim

John, Efke 25 is a rather soft emulsion to work with, but these problems stem more from sheet films in this emulsion than roll film. If you are using a staining developer (like PMK pyro) a hardening fixer is not recommended because the acid will remove stain which is necessary for image quality. With non-staining developers, a hardening fixer will be fine. While it is softer than many newer films, it handles well with reasonable care.

 

Keep temperatures constant throughout processing and you shouldn't have any problems. I haven't used APX 25, so I can't say about other issues by comparison. It is a very fine film with sharp contrast and little tolerance for variations in exposure and development, but it can yield some incredible images when everything is done right.

Mei, the biggest concern I would have would be about developing and water quality. Since mineral content will vary considerably with location, you may have a problem with trying to deal with PMK activity and development time. You may be doing N-, N or N+ development without trying to.

 

You may want to try various bottled waters from grocery stores in your area, tap water and a few other types just to see what it does to development times with your film. I have always used distilled water with PMK and have found it to be a wonderful developer which is easy to control and work with. It is very economical and produces great images with consistent results. Mine is kept in the darkroom where temperatures in the summer can climb, but I have not had any trouble with age as I use mine up and make it new each year.

 

Good luck on your trip, it sounds like an adventure!