group 11

what is the spacing of the lamps in the table? even at your longest test, i believe your time is too short. i'm at 20+ minutes in the high noon sun in july for gum.

indeed it does sound like the ferric ammonium citrate mix was too rich. when i didn't calculate correctly, it went to bright green to blue, then to washed out.

 

i keep balloons that have been filled with sand to a variety of weights (1g, 5g, 10g, etc.), then marked w/a sharpie. this gives me a comfort level that my scale is accurate and i use them to zero it when i need it.

that does sound like it is the problem, but don't know for sure unless you post the solution a dilution and solution b dilution. as for '...25 grams it took up way more than 1/4 of the bottle...', well, 25 grams is 25 grams; no more, no less. if you use the same ratio that i use (25g/100ml), then 100ml of water is precisely that; 100ml of water. if you didn't begin w/those amounts there could be a problem.

 

is the image fading to gray? are you rinsing in 10% hydrochloric acid?

what time/temp did you use? my 1600 negs come out punchy as all heck.

pmk works perfectly for it. double dilution, same temp and times. works like a charm. aerial photogs rate it much higher and use similar variations.

i do an awful lot of lith. start with this to see if it helps:

ahhh yes, my apologies; i had this in my notes. i must've spaced and read the 90 as an 80:

 

 

"Just as a followup, I visited the forums at nikonians.com and many

N80 users have shot Kodak HIE with no fogging at all.

 

Since I was leaning toward an N80 anyway, I think this confirmation

makes the N80 my choice.

 

Thanks for everyone's input!"

"i rate it at ei 200. i meter ttl through a #25 meter."

 

ya, ok Will....

 

#25 filter*.

 

need...coffee..

i rate it at ei 200. i meter ttl through a #25 meter. can't help you on the developer; i use pmk. the ir sensor shouldn't prevent you from loading the film, but will sometimes ruin part of the neg.

fp4 @ ei85 in pmk pyro.....and xp2.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....gentlemen; thank you very much. i appreciate it.

near the aperture ring there is printed: N/AI

 

 

thanks all for your help thus far.

static information:

 

lens: kiron 70-210 f4.5 macro (1:4)

camera: canon rebel eos 2000

 

 

i searched no less than 4 booleans and about 40 pages with no luck in

finding an answer.

 

my question: will this lens fit that body?

 

i respect the knowledge here, so if you could limit your response to

the question i'd be appreciative. i'm full aware of the mtf rating,

etc. i have a lens that i want to send to a friend that could use it

to further her composition knowledge.

 

thanks in advance.

*yawn*

yes, plz.<p>

pmk is a very versatile developer. i happened across a mix for shooting hp5 at 1600. instead of the 1:2:100, just use 2:4:100..normal times/temp/agit. works like a friggin' charm. <p>

 

given that hp5 is a somewhat flexible film - my question: is there a method to the madness? some sort of close correlation between dilution and ei based off the published iso? i've read of so many folks 'experimenting' in so doing, but nothing tangible and usable has come of said experiments. <p>

 

so as i toss back the last of this drink, i thank you in advance for any information that you can get. <p>

and thanks for the offer.

i pronounce it rô�dĭ�nәl, but only when wearing thong underwear and sipping some burgundy.

folks; <p>

 

thank you very kindly for the comprehensive detailed responses.

<p>

i did indeed many times read the ortho references by Radeka. matter of fact, tmax is mentioned only in the back of the book, but it has been suggested to me to use tmax for unsharp masks and ortho lith for true contrast masks. <p>

 

i'll give this a whirl. thanks again.

i think the film forum is as good as any. feel free to move if it fits

better elsewhere. <p>

 

<p>i have, over time, extensively searched this site and some other

sites for

some answers and have come up short of anything that i can confidently

take to

the darkroom. </p>

<p>groundwork:<br>

- 35mm negative panf developed in pmk <br>

- condenser enlarger<br>

- have duratrans and other diffusion materials<br>

- can work out registration issues<br>

- as mentioned, i've done research and have come up empty. further, i

own the

Radeka book on the subject, but although tmax100 is mentioned for an

unsharp

mask, it stops there. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>my questions are these:</p>

<p>1) using tmax100 as an unsharp mask, not a contrast mask, what

exposure time

would be a good beginning? the research i've done varies tremendously;

so much

so that there isn't a common ground that i could use even as an

educated guess.

the answers i've found range from setting the enlarger to an 8x10

height and

expose starting at 1 second all the way up to 30 seconds.... i imagine

some of

these are realistic, but aperture openings are missing from some of the

suggestions as well as the use of a diffusion material, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>2) i could <i>probably</i> figure out the first question with some

hours of

trial and error (which i, naturally, would like to avoid), but i'd

probably fail

in that i've seen too many recommendations for developing the tmax100

us mask

and most are lacking one of the variables (time, dilution, temp). i

found some

suggestions for hc110 that are missing the temp (which i could assume

is 68),

but a) hc110 has been noted as the least favorable of developers for this

purpose and b) i don't own it :) i've seen suggestions for using

dektol, but

again, not all the variables are listed. i'd like to be able to use a

developer

that i have in the dr (pmk, dektol, rodinal, edwal ultra black (i've

seen this

used)). </p>

<p>so it's either many hours with too many variables in the darkroom

or some

help from you kind folks.</p>

i had similar problems (negs looked very much like yours). in my case, it was indeed water quality. i switched to using distilled water for dev/stop/fix and the problem went away. for how long are you fixing? i'm not a tmx shooter, but if i recall correctly it needs an extended fix.

River;

 

you may want to breeze through <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005MMl">this</a> post on xp2. <p>

 

in particular <a href="http://daniel.staver.no/img/xp2test.jpg">the test</a> done by Daniel Staver. he shot xp2 at four different ratings on the same roll and had the roll developed normally. the take away is that if you have xp2 loaded and find yourself in need of something faster, changing it to 800 will cause slight quality loss, but will get you the shot.

oddly it worked quite well for me w/rodinal. spot on, actually. go figure.

i forgot to add this....: i'm attempting to verify your factoring by taking the plots from the charts and matching them up. i'll let you know how it goes.

actually, i work the new engine like a horse. it's fast and i've yet to not get the answer for which i was seeking.

from the ilford site:

apparently magenta dyes in tmax film are meant to slightly reduce blue sensitivity.

 

some graphs: http://www.kenleegallery.com/curves.htm