al_divenuti

<p>Naren,<br>

Edwal FG-7 is a lighter color when the bottle is first opened. It will quickly darken to a dark yellow and then become brown. Your bottle is probably ok, but do perform the clip test and - if possible - develop a test roll first.</p>

<p>Edwal does not exist any more. FG-7 and other former Edwal products are marketed by BKA Photo who do not really support the product.</p>

<p>Arthur,<br>

Fuji's 120 film camera was simply a Kobalux design that never made it to the market before Kobalux folded.<br>

I think most of us would have preferred that Fuji continue to manufacture ISO 400 film in 120 siizes rather than introduce a new 120 film camera.<br>

Kodak, at least, still manufactures two ISO 400 B&W films in 120 to Fuji's zero. While film is no longer the largest part of Kodak's business these days, it is a much greater part of it than film is to Fuji.</p>

<p>Yes, Fuji has been quietly discontinuing a lot of product of late.<br>

Why so many?<br>

Keep in mind that, in addition to silver, the production of panchromatic B&W and color film requires the use of rare earth metals - most of which are produced and exported by China.<br>

If you've followed the news of late, you'll recall that China suspended shipments of rare earth metals to Japan from late September until late November. While the embargo was in place, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry became very involved to ensure that critical industries would receive inventory from available stockpiles. According to TV JAPAN, FujiFilm and a couple of other manufacturers were asked to sell off inventories of Osmium, Iridium, and Indium to battery manufacturers.<br>

So it is possible that FujiFilm has found itself "crowded out" and unable to manufacture some of their former catalog.</p>

<p>Is the optimal temperature for T-max developer <em>really</em> 75 degrees?</p>

<p>I know that T-max developer was often employed in dip 'n dunk processing lines when it was introduced. Could it be that the higher temperature is designed to maximize throughput via faster development times rather than image quality?</p>

<p>I think the old Ilford DD (introduced in the 80s) used in dip 'n dunk processing lines also published developing times using a temperature of 24 C, but I could be wrong. In any case, DD-X publishes for 20C.</p>

<p>Here's what appears to be the case:<br>

- E200 is definitely discontinued in 120. UK Kodak reps are reporting that production has ceased in 135, too.</p>

<p>- E100GX has definitely been discontinued in all formats.</p>

<p>Of course, you still might be able to find both films in 135 and 120 depending upon whether retailers have exhausted their stocks yet or whether Kodak distributors can still fulfill retail orders.</p>

<p>Sorry, Patrick...<br>

E200 is very definitely discontinued. If you search on APUG you'll see postings with messages from Kodak UK reps confirming E200 is no longer manufactured.<br>

It's a shame that all Kodak reps aren't taking the time to keep up to date with this sort of information and this is causing lots of confusion, but Kodak is a company in considerable trouble these days so it's not something to marvel at, I guess.</p>

<p>As far as alternatives go, I would suggest looking at the Silvergrain line of chemicals available from FreeStyle, Digitaltruth, etc. There's no film developer among them, but you should find liquid concentrateStop Baths, Fixers, and Print Developers with somewhat lower toxicity than the other choices.</p>

<p>Sprint is pretty much the "de-facto" community darkroom standard for film & paper chemistry because:</p>

<p>a) It's easy to mix</p>

<p>b) It doesn't cost much</p>

<p>c) The shelf life is good</p>

<p>d) Even if "c" doesn't hold true you can still feel good about "b" when you have to toss it out</p>

<p>Pretty compelling stuff if you're running a community darkroom of small-medium size.</p>

<p>Why doesn't Sprint get much love among hobbyist users?</p>

<p>It's like buying the supermarket brand soda. It'll do the job but the results are not as good as the offerings from Kodak, Ilford, Photographer's Formulary, etc.</p>

<p>I don't use Sprint anything in my home darkroom apart from their Stop Bath when I make prints. If I'm going through the trouble of maintaining a darkroom in a 1 BR apartment, I'm pretty committed and there isn't any compelling reason to cut corners on the chemistry. It takes a lot more time to get my galley kitchen light-tight and clean up afterwards than to mix a couple of stock & working solutions...</p>

 

<p>Try contacting a Kodak rep in the UK. According to APUG, multiple reps in the UK are stating it has been discontinued world-wide in both 135 and 120.</p>

<p>If you call B&H, Adorama, or Freestyle they will tell you that E200 has been discontinued.</p>

<p>These days it's most frequently a #16 Orange fillter.<br>

I sometimes use a #25 Red filter. Frequently, though, it lowers the overall scene contrast too much, is too dramatic, or I simply can't spare the full 3 stops.<br>

I use Light Yellow and Green filters, too, but rarely.</p>

<p>>I find that T-Max and Delta films require a running wash to get rid of the dyes in the emulsion, however. I think the T-Max emulsions have a hardener built in, and that would make for a longer wash.<br>

Chuck,<br>

I think nearly every B&W film from Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford uses a hardener. Efke films do not, nor did the Forte films.</p>

<p>Not all manufacturers agree with the Ilford method.</p>

<p>Agfa/Gevaert actually devised the method many years before Ilford began to promote it in the 1970s. Sometime in the 1980s, though, Agfa ceased to advocate it.</p>

<p>I don't remember the exact reason why, but I believe it had something to do with surface tension effects leading to a locally-higher concentration of solute on the surface of the film. Since the diffusion rate across a boundary relies upon concentration gradients, this would suggest the rate of solute removal would slow.</p>

<p>I've got a 6x6 Bronica SQ-Ai kit on the way from KEH. I'm still a dedicated film user, though almost exclusively B&W.</p>

<p>I'd thought of going with a 6x7 outfit, but I wanted something that was more easily hand-holdable than a Pentax 67 or Mamiya RB/RZ. A Hasselblad was too rich for my blood.</p>

<p>It isn't discontinued; but if you're shopping for it at Freestyle you may have to wait a bit:<br>

<a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnp=30&q=rodinal&rfnc=301">http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnp=30&q=rodinal&rfnc=301</a>&<br>

Rodinal will be in stock ~July 31st and R09 a couple weeks before that.</p>

<p>It isn't discontinued; but if you're shopping for it at Freestyle you may have to wait a bit:<br>

<a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnp=30&q=rodinal&rfnc=301">http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?rfnp=30&q=rodinal&rfnc=301</a>&<br>

Rodinal will be in stock ~July 31st and R09 a couple weeks before that.</p>

Actually, Uncle Goose, the "LC" stands for "Liquid Concentrate" :-)

 

LC29 is a very close cousin of Kodak HC-110.

Lowell,

 

Have you not stopped to realize that very nearly every constiuent you put in a liquid concentrate is, at one time or another, in solid (if not powder, than certainly in bulk) form?

 

Even the briefest search on the web will reveal MANY powder-based developers that contain all the components that you named as being exclusive to liquid concentrates.

 

It may be an inconvenient truth, Lowell, but the best results are usually to be had by mixing developers from fresh ingredients (read: powders) and then utilizing them as soon as possible.

 

If there is a grain of truth in what you are claiming, it is only that most commercial liquid concentrate stock solutions have a better shefl life than stock solutions of developers mixed from powders. Even that isn't universally true. For example, there are now many developers that are mixed from powder to produce stock solutions using organic solvents (e.g. TEA, Glycols, etc.) that have extremely (indefinite?) shelf lifes.

I have used PC-TEA with Neopan 1600 and I do not find the two to be a particularly good combination. You'll do better in the speed/grain department with Microphen or DD-X.

 

I think Tri-X with PC-TEA is an exceptional combo for all sorts of lighting conditions.

 

I echo most of Jeff's comments but I don't think that PC-TEA is at all like Rodinal. It does not produce adjacency effects (not as sharp in the major subject outlines), has better speed, and is slightly (only slightly) less grainy. It is similar to Rodinal only in its shelf life, which appears indefinite.

 

PC-TEA is better compared to Edwal FG-7, Patterson Aculux-2, or even XTOL.

Most of the remaining use of photographic silver is in cinematic films.

 

About 80% of the silver used in photographic manufacturing processes is recovered in one form or another.

The group that owns and runs Polaroid (Petter Group?) has been shopping the Waltham, MA production facility since they acquired Polaroid's assets.

 

They were rumored to be close to a deal to sell the property (just the property - not the film-making business) to Raytheon in early 2007 but the deal never went through.

 

This is far from a surprise.

Michael,

 

TMY is terribly unforgiving stuff when underexposed the least little bit. Yes, shadows are well-separated when properly exposed. But the film has no toe so you either have nicely-separated shadow detail or no shadow detail whatsoever.

 

Your transmission densitometer may well tell you that TMY exposed at EI800 has the same density as HP5+ exposed at EI 400. But I'd wager that actual shadow detail is discernible in the HP5+ at that density and nowhere to be found in the TMY.

 

The good news is that there seems to be some home that the new TMY is quite a bit more forgiving in this regard.

The first developer I ever used was FG7 with the 9% sulfite solution. Almost immediately, I stopped using the sulfite because it wasn't delivering much in the way of benefits. It shortened development times such that it became harder to get consistent results, it turned the grain to mush without making it smaller, it definitely impaired sharpness (effects were noticeable from about 5X and above), and the improvement in film speed was modest (I wouldn't even call it 1/3rd stop).

 

My guess is that the 9% sulfite solution was simply a knee-jerk response from Edwal to try to give the developer comparable fine-grain characteristics to D-76.

 

I've found Gainer's PC-TEA and Ilford DD-X to be better developers than FG7. In fact, FG7 is one developer I would outright recommend against using because its shelf life is not good and since inventory turnover of this stuff isn't what it used to be - it cannot be considered reliable, IMO.

I think you'll get the finest grain from shooting Neopan 1600 at EI 800. That film actually has a true speed of about ISO 500-640.

 

I also find that a one-stop push of any of the traditional ISO 400 films (Tri-X, HP5+, Neoapn 400) in Ilford DD-X does not exact much grain penalty as long as you extend development time 20-25% and not the generally-recommended value of 50%.

I've used Efke 25 in 35mm with Pyrocat-MC and semi-stand developpment and was pleased with the results.

 

It's a bit tricky. In contrasty light it's really an ISO 12 or even 10 film with this combination. And Efke 25 does lose sharpness fairly dramatically as you overexpose it.

 

And then there's receiprocity failure. Efke 25 starts exhibiting reciprocity failure at around 1/4 second and believe me you get there a lot when you're shooting at EI 10 or 12 with a #25 Red Filter!