richard_newman

Two other thoughts. Will you be able to control the temperature of

the exposed film during your trip? Cold isn't a problem. As long as

it isn't exposed to a lot of heat during transportation, or at where

you stay, it should be all right. Also, don't put it in your checked

luggage on aircraft. More and more airports are using the CTX baggage

scanners on checked baggage. They WILL fog your film. In the U.S.

there is supposed to be a warning about film at the check-in counter

when the CTX is being used. Overseas, who knows??

What were the storage conditions for the HIE before and after use?

tkhe film does tend to be temperature sensitive, and if exposed to

heat for a period of time may fog. If you had it only a short time

before use, do you know who/how it was handled before you got it? An

even fogging implies that the entire roll was exposed to the same

level of 'whatever' which tends to leave out small accidental light

leaks in loading and unloading a fully retracted cassette.

Richard Newman

Paul, Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with photo.net.

However, this is a more B&W focused group, and I am hoping for some

input from others who do not use photo.net I have made some informal

comparisons, but don't want to input mine until I hear from others.

Kodak Black&White+ is supposed to be the "consumer version" of T400CN, modified to get better prints from the average minilab- presumably using color paper. Has any one done a comparison of these two to determine whether there is any difference in the resulting negatives? I don't really care about the prints - I consider them as "proof prints" from which real ones can be made. However, any differences in the negatives are important. Any input?

Ed, Since you plan to publish your results, I would suggest that you

borrow (if you don't have) a good color analyzer and measure the RGB

or CYM values with and without the pyro stain. I would suggest using

three negatives, with light, neutral and dark gray (gray card, plus

and minus 2 stops, no other image) with a neutral gray processed in

normal non-staining developer as the control. This will give

reasonably quantitative data on the shift in color, and some

indication in shift in hardness of prints on VC paper. Of course, if

you enjoy this sort of thing you could expand the testing

considerably, but I think you would rather make photos.

I AM EMBARRASSED!!!! In my last post I cited Photo Techniques as the source for the Kodalith article. IT A'INT. The correct reference is Camera Arts, May/Jue 2000, starting on P 52.. My apologies to all. I just got both magazines, and didn't have them in front of me when I posted the comment, and had been looking at both. Guess my short term memory is slipping. Old age strikes again....Sorry.

The latest issue of Photo Techniques (US not UK)has an article

recommending Dektol. I haven't tried it yet.

Checking film in a lead bag where the CTX 5000/5500 machines are used

in an invitation to problems. First, if the machine can't see thru

the bag, it alerts the operator who may use a high intensity x-ray

for a better look. If that doesn't do in your film, and the operator

still can't see into the bag, expect the bag to be inspected. Before

the bag is searched, they get the passenger down to the baggage area.

At the least, this is annoying. If they can't clear the bag, and

can't find the passenger, the bag doesn't go on the plane, and they

call the police, who take the bag and do whatever with it. They also

go looking for the passenger. Can you spell "missed the flight"??

Don't check film in lead bags. Save money and time. Carry it on, in

easily searched plastic bags.

John, Look at the negatives under a 10X or so magnifier. Reticulation

clumping usually looks quite different from large grain. If your

solutions only vary by about 5deg F, most film won't reticulate. If

the only cool solution is the final wash, it is less likely to be

reticulation. Hot developer and cold wash before fixing will give you

reticulation. Sometimes you can get it with cold fixer. When I did it

on purpose, I used larger temperature differences, even for moderate

reticulation.

Omar, as you see from the responses, there are a number of things

that can cause uneven focus. Most common is misalignment between the

lens board and film holder. However, film bending is also a

possiblity that occurs often with condenser enlargers. Lens softness

is the third most common. The thing you need is a good reference

negative. It is possible to buy film or glass ruled gratings which

will project a sharp and square set of lines on the paper/holder.

They cost lots. You can make your own for a lot less. Get a few

sheets of drafting paper, ruled for millimeter (ten to the

centimeter) and make a high contrast image on film. When copying, be

very sure that the film plane and the paper are exactly parallel.

This is critical. Using fine grain transparency film, you can make

positives (dark lines on bright field) or use b&w film for negatives.

Both is best. When enlarged, you will see the sharp lines on the

easel, and if they go out of focus it will be obvious. To make it

even better, use clear balsam cement to mount the slide or negative

on a thin piece of glass, such as a glass slide mount cover (anti-

Newton ring is best). This will prevent any bending of the negative.

Balsam cement is usually available at most optical supply houses,

especially those who provide materials for microscopes. This cement

is used to mound covers on slides. Also, do not use the cheap quarter

inch ruled paper you can buy at school supply stores. The lines are

not as sharp as on drafting paper, and you won't be able to get as

sharp an image. With this in the enlarger, you will be able to see

the real sharpness and linearity of your system, and the effects of

any changes you make. I hope this helps solve your problem. Good luck.

David, Conrad is correct. You don't need a densitometer to calibrate your negatives and printing. A good denistometer is expensive, and a poor one isn't worth spit. If you want it to do both transmission and reflected measurement, and do them well, it will be in the thousands of dollars. Further, you can't just buy one, turn it on, put a print or negative on it and get results that mean anything. You have to learn both technique and theory to get results and interpret them properly. True, there are conditions where a good densitometer is worth its weight in platinum, but for 99.9999% of home and commercial work, it isn't worth it. Pure overkill. There is lots of help available in getting your processes and prints where you want them. Lots of books starting with gool ol' AA, and going to Z??. If I had the price of a good densitometer, I would spendi it on better lenses, or lighting or other more productive photo uses. Or maybe even pay some bills.....

Bill, While Ed Farmer is essentially correct, there is a bit more to the question of negative quality than he mentions. First, the "ideal" negative is the one which gives you the exact print you want. That is the operational criterion. Second, an ideal negative for a condenser enlarger is not the same as for a cold light or arc light enlarger. Both density and contrast are handled different by the two types of enlarger. Also, there is the issue of how much enlargement and image grain are involved. These will affect your processing and the appearance of the negative.Then there is the issue of whether you plan to tone the print. I could add a few more things, but you get the point. Evaluating negatives is an art not a science. When you are comfotrable with the prints you get, then you have a satisfactory negative.

O.K. folks, enlighten my ignorance. When David Burke says "ghosting"

I assume he means that the image of the sprocket holes is present as

a secondary image on the exposed image area. I am familiar with

overagitation, having dumbly done it myself, but I have never seen

that particular problem, and the physical mechansim which would

produce that secondary image effect escapes me. Or am I

misinterpreting what David meant??? All enlightenment greatfully

received.

Jeff, getting good B&W processing is always a problem if you don't

do your own, especially if you don't live near a fair size city that

has professional labs. However, don't judge C41 process by the B&W

prints you get from Walmart or your 1hr lab. The processing of the

negatives is identical to that for color prints, and is machine

controlled. If the lab gives good color print film results, the B&W

negatives should be good. The printing is a whole other matter.

Printing XP-2 or T400CN requires different filters and times from

color printing. Most labs don't know anything about this and as they

get few requests for the B&W, they don't worry about it. Make sure

you judge your results byu the negatives, and get a professional

printing lab to do your prints. The results should be much better.

Just a minor caution on the C-41 process B&W, which I use often. Any 1 hour or other lab that does a decent job on color negatives will do an eqully good job on the B&W. The film processes identically, BUT making prints isn't so clear cut. The printing machinery is set up to work with color negatives, with their orange mask, and often attempt to adjust color for good facial skin tones. Obviously, that doesn't fit the B&W. Kodak recommends a specific filter pack for use in printing T400CN. Many labs don't use it. Probably most never even know about it. Mainly because there are so few rolls of T400CN processed relative to color neg. The result is that you can't always judge your negatives by the prints you get. I have found that the "clueless" lab prints tend to be muddy, low contrast, and dark no matter what the subject or exposure (within reason). If you can find a good professional lab near where you live, give them a try. But they ususally do cost more. You may be surprised to find that the results are better than you had thought. Have them process some film, and also print some of your "less than loverly" negatives to compare with the cheaper labs. If you are lucky you may find the "mass production" lab has been doing a good job. Or you may find that your images are better than you thought. Either way, you'll learn from the comparison.

A lot depends on what you are trying to do with the multiple exposure and what film you are using. I have done a bit of multiple exposure work with color film using separate exposures with the tricolor (RBG)separation filters. Each film is different and has to be calibrated for exposure. To get "normal" color out of this technique you must adjust exposure for the sensitivity of the film to the filter color. The difference may be almost a full stop between colors.

Black and white is more forgiving. Remember that the sum of the exposures must be appropriate to obtain negative density desired, and if doing three or more exposures per frame this can become a problem. Also, order of exposure can be a factor. One object "overlaying" another can occur unintentionaly. Again, it depends on your goal. You really need to try the film you use under the conditions you want to photograph. Good luck.

Refrigerator storage should be more than adequate for all your paper. Unless you use only a few sheets a year, it isn't critical for paper. Some film, is a little more of an issue. Certain professional films, and some specialty films - especially infrared- do need refrigeration until used. The problem is heat. For both paper and film, heat is the enemy. It causes loss of sensitivity, fogging, etc. I am not familiar with any paper which is espceially sensitive to heat, so that keeping it at room temp or below should be fine. Certain films, as mentioned, are more sensitive and do need to be kept cold. Freezing isn't necessary except under unusual conditions, such as storage for over a year. Whether frozen or just kept cold, remember to let the paper/film come up to room temperature before using, keeping it covered to prevent condensation.

Sean,

I don't have that particular allergy myself, but I am familiar

with chemical allergic responses. They aren't the same for every one.

Most times the "contact dermatitis" shows up as red, itching skin.

The problem is usually only where there was contact with the

chemical. If the allergy is more severe, other problems may occur,

and then its time to see the doctor. Hydroquinone, as was mentioned

is one of the likely culprits, but there are others. As for the

cream, I have never used it and don't know if it really offers

protection. My suggestion is to get surgical gloves. They are thin

latex, don't interfere with your sense of touch, aren't that

expensive, so they can be thrown away after use, and offer full

protection. But definitely do something. Allergies can get worse if

permitted to go untreated, and for this removing physical contact is

the best choice. If you like darkroom work, it can be a real bummer.

Mike Moore doesn't indicate whether he is judging contrast by the

negative or print. I have used a fair amount of T400CN and XP-2, with

processing by different labs - home photo type and professional. In

general, I haven't seen much difference in the NEGATIVE contrast from

conventional film. Printing is a different matter. Prints have ranged

from muddy crud to top quality, to a "burned out" Kodalith look. I

believe that Kodak has a filter pack for the labs to use in printing

T400CN, but I expect your average 1 hour lab never even heard of it.

This may be the problem. As for filters, I haven't done much with

them, but I think that the film shows a little less contrast with the

red (25) filter than I expected in use for cloud/sky contrast, but

that is just an impression. My suggestion - get a good lab, ask about

the filter pack, and what paper they print on, and experiment. Good

luck.

I think that in general, presoaking makes little difference. I

stopped doing it a looong time ago. However, in theory, by presoaking

you have an emulsion filled with water molecules when you drain the

water and add developer. Since the developer is a solution of active

ingredients in a water base, it will take time for the developer to

displace the soak water and bring the chemicals into contact with the

emulsion. This implies that for some brief time, the actual developer

contacting the silver compounds is more dilute than the nominal

concentration. How long this lasts (depends on the exchange rate

across the film surface) and what it implies for developing time and

contrast is a question only a photochemist could love. I just think

that it adds another variable I don't want.

Justin,

There are a number of good faucet mounted filters which should work for you and don't cost a lot (under $50.), but if you use a lot of water, replacement elements can get expensive. They are readily available. I don't know where you are, or whether you are on well water or a city system, but if you are getting color changes after a rainfall, you may have some basic problems with your supply. If you use the same water for drinking and cooking, it might be worthwhile to have the system and water checked out. If there is a problem and it can be corrected, you may not need a filter.

RNewman

Most airport X-ray equipment will not significantly affect film - when working correctly - as reported BUT!!! one model, the InVision CTX5000 CAN all but melt your film. This is used to examine checked baggage at a number of larger airports around the world. It operates in two modes. A normal scan will not affect film, but if during the normal scan a suspicious object is detected, a special high intensity scan is used. It operates much like a medical Computerized Tomography (CT) scan, and can very definitely do in your film. Use of a lead bag to protect the film will greatly increase the risk of the high intensity scan being used, as it may block the normal scan, and be interpreted as a suspicious object. You are probably better off carrying the film with you unless you have very large amounts, in which case you will need to request special handling by the airline before checking baggage or going through the gates. If you can get properly cared for film in India, or once exposed get it reliably processed there, you can avoid the problem.

To make matters more interesting, the FAA has apparently just approved a new model machine called the CTX5500. I don't know the differences, or where it will be installed, but I doubt that is benign where film is concerned.

Richard Newman