IanRivlin

<p> this doesn't necessarily help for some of your exposed film but please consider Fomapan-R. This is a film designed to make B/W slides from have used it a few times. It is excellent and the general appearance to the films are quite lovely. You can also use the developing chemicals to process your present negative film stock as a positive.</p>

I checked out this book but there was nothing on this subject on page 337. In case I have a different version, can you give me some contiguous text, so that I can do a word search in the document? Thanks.

Does anyone know if latent images can be developed using an electric charge across the film, instead of using chemical reducing agents? Chemistry and physics suggests that this might be possible. More than that, I could see such a process leading to extreme fine grain, since there would be no chemicals encouraging clumping of silver particles. If anyone out there has any input on this, please post a reply or send me a PM. Ian Australia

Do any members have any experience with electrolytic physical development? I can't see any reason why an electric current passed across a film emulsion wouldn't reduce the silver, just as chemical reagents do. I could see this offering benefits too ie, no silver grain clumping, developing cost would be virtually zero and simply altering the current would adjust the density. I envisage a current passing across the width of the film, whilst the film is in an electrolyte (saline or sodium sulphite). The current would be supplied by slowly revolving metal rollers touching medial to the perforations, each side. The mechanism would be very simple and "development" time might be acceptably short. If anyone wants to collaborate on such a project, please get back to me. Ian

<p>Should be all sorted, one way or another, by early next week....<br> Watch this pace.</p>

Really fascinating. I thought I'd send the camera (with the F1.2 50mm, the 24mm and the 500mm lens) to David Salter Camera Repair in Queensland for him to have a look at. David is a Canon expert and will be using a sophisticated Kyoritsu exposure meter tester. It'll be interesting to see what he finds. I'll keep this forum appraised of the results. As a slight digression, I'll post a sample photo of some snaps I took with the A1, using Fomapan R film (developed in Foma's own chemicals) taken on the A1 and on a Minolta SRT 201. This Fomapan R is an intriguing and pleasant film to work with.

<p>I'd be really grateful if you could try and duplicate this test - since you have two A1s, I'd much prefer it if you could do the test on these cameras, rather than the F1 (a fantastic camera) - I've had one myself but since it's fundamentally different from the A1, it wouldn't be a test relevant to my circumstances.<br> Point duly noted re the theoretical mathematical calculations of apertures not necessarily being accurate "in the field". Nonetheless, one or two stops is out of the realms of acceptable variation. Since I'm (mainly)going to be using the A1 for reversal film I have to get the exposure sorted out accurately.<br> If I may suggest that you could try - as I did - illuminating a large sheet of white paper from a standard light source and filling the entire viewfinder with the reflected light from the centre of the paper. - That way we'll standardise experimentation techniques.<br> Regards,<br> Ian</p>

Makes perfect sense but what do I do if I have a hand held exposure meter? Let's say that meter gives 125th at F16. Do I dial this in for all three lenses or do I introduce a compensating factor for the 24mm and 500mm lenses? I hope I don't sound OCD about this but light is light. When I set 125th at F16, this is a certain brightness level multiplied by a given amount of time. ie, a specific total number of photons falling on the light sensitive emulsion. I'd have probably been much more comfortable about everyone's explanation, except for the fact that on all my Nikon's (an F5, an F2As and an FE), whatever lens is put on, repeating this experiment gives the exact same reading. So, either three Nikon's (which give very good exposures) are wrong or one Canon A1 (which overexposes with the 24 and 500mm lenses) is/are right. I'm sure you can see how frustrating this is. Ian

Thanks for a very helpful and insightful suggestion. I took the lens off and looked through the viewfinder, whilst operating the maximum aperture plunger. It definitely did alter the readout. I suspect that this plunger has a specific position, which has somehow become disturbed. Since the camera has just come back from service, I guess whatever cam is operated by this plunger, has been malpositioned. I'm sure the technician will be abe to sort it out. In the meanwhile, when I'm using any lens, other than the 50mm one, I'll leave it set to "P" and just introduce an exposure compensation on the ASA dial. This camera is too good not to have it working perfectly! Ian

<p>Many thanks for that. It sounds reasonable but we're back to the original conundrum. The camera was going to expose 1/30th second at F5.6 with the 24mm lens - and 1/60th second at F5.6 with the 50mm lens - for the exact same "scene" (I know it wasn't a scene but I'm sure you know what I mean).<br> Irrespective of how much light was going into the camera, when viewing the scene - there was going to be half the light landing on the film emulsion with the 50mm lens, as compared with the 24mm lens.<br> Best regards,<br> Ian<br> PS - you're right about the A1. I got my first one in 1978. At the time, it blew me away. Nothing on earth had such sophistication. Cost a fortune but was worth every penny - and then some.</p>

<p>Not that this has got much to do with the original question but I have a Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm which I used on a Canon F1 and now use exclusively on my trusty Canon A1). As most people are aware, these were made by three different manufacturers. Mine is the first one - made by Kiron. They are all superb - <em>absolutely</em> superb. I'm told the third one was the best - albeit by just a tiny margin. Comparing the Series 1 with the Nikkor equivalents shows no difference - possibly the Vivitar is even better? My point is that the Canon A1 and a Vivitar Series 1, 70-210mm is a film camera and zoom lens combination that just about can't be beaten by anything - at any price.</p>

<p>I have a Canon A1. It's just been serviced (<em>2 days ago</em>). The technician said that the shutter speeds and metering were "spot on".<br> Before it went for service, it took good photographs - but I generally used Ektar 100 color film - a product known for it's very extended dynamic range.<br> Just out of idle curiosity, I set up a large unified light source. (a large sheet of white paper, illuminated by a fluorescent tube, approximately 3 ft away). <br> Using a Canon FD 50mm F1.2 lens, I took a reading off the paper, ensuring that the entire field of view was taken up by this uniform light source. It gave 1/60th second at F5.6 (and it didn't change at all when I moved the camera forwards and backwards - confirming the uniformity of the light). When I put on an F2.8 24mm Canon FD lens, it gave 1/30th second at the same aperture. Again, I ensured that the light from the sheet of paper filled the entire viewfinder frame. Again, moving the camera to and fro didn't make any difference. Using a Canon 500mm F8 (fixed aperture) mirror lens, gave 1/15th second. ie, the same as the 24mm lens. This is a full stop different from the 50mm lens. <br> Do I just use the camera's meter and press on regardless? - When using a separate meter, what do I do? - Do I make a 1 stop adjustment with the 50mm (or the other two lenses)? As I said, the camera has always given good results but having used negative film, I'm wondering if a one stop disparity didn't make sufficient difference to notice.<br> I'm experimenting with Fomapan R (reversal) and since reversal is far less tolerant of overexposure than negative film (and reversal is not particularly tolerant of underexposure either). Obviously, I want to standardise things before I waste film and developing time. I've - so far - used my Nikon F5, with the 24-120mm zoom for my experiments. Deliberately over or underexposing by 0.3EV doesn't make a huge difference but I'm confident one stop certainly will.<br> I'd really welcome anyone's suggestions or assistance.<br> Thanks,<br> Ian</p>

<p>It's all made very simple. There are fluids "A" to "D". Generally, you take 30mls of each fluid and mix with 300mls of distilled water. The problem is that I'm in Queensland. The tap water temperature is 26C (about 80F), therefore, I have to take a cooled 5 liter bottle of refrigerated distilled water and one that's been kept at room temperature (about 80F) than mix aliquots of each to give water that's within 0.5C of 20C - So there's a lot of fiddling AND I have to do this whilst agitating the tank (needs continuous agitation). I was up to the task but was like a one armed paperhanger for the majority of the time. I'd describe it as "Tricky but do-able". Of course, I could have prepared a water bath at 20C and got all the fluids sorted beforehand but I only have one sink in my darkroom and it would have been a bit too fiddly. The next time I do the development, I think I'll get a friend along to assist. We can have a beer, talk about the world's problems and listen to some good music, whilst we develop films......</p>

<p>I recently acquired some Fomapan R (and the development kit) from www.blanconegro.com.au <br> The processing was a little fiddly - and when I do some more, I'll be a little better prepared and organised - or I'll have an assistant to help agitate, whilst I mix solutions and adjust temperatures.<br> It went very well and I was really pleased with the results. The film had that misty, dreamy tonal quality that I'm used to seeing from paraphenylenediamine negative developers. The grain was perfectly acceptable and the tonal range was the most impressive thing about the film. Highlights weren't blown out and shadows weren't blocked, even when over and underexposed.<br> I did a variety of exposures but found out that 100asa (rated ISO) was the best. Possibly a small adjustment might be needed according to the scene but generally speaking, stick to 100asa.<br> I'm going to take many more photos with this combination. The film goes really well on scanning. I just did some quick ones on my Epson V700 Photo but I'm going to mount the transparencies and do some scans on my Noritsu and see how they turn out. Generally films that look good on the Epson, really shine on the Noritsu.</p> <p>Just wondered what other people's experiences were.</p> <p>If I can help anyone with advice re processing, please feel free to ask.</p>

<p>PS - I don't wish to appear argumentative but ferricyanide is actually extremely dangerous. Not in itself (low toxicity, agreed) but if any acid comes into contact with it, it releases hydrogen cyanide (ie Zyclon B, the poison that was used in gas chambers by the Nazis). <br> Why would acid come into contact with ferricyanide, you may ask? - answer is that we photographers regularly use acetic acid as a developer arrester and I can see a situation where these two chemicals (ferricyanide and acetic acid) are accidentally mixed, with catastrophic results.<br> Again, careful research, before using any chemicals ensures that no accidents will happen - and that's the bottom line.</p>

Is this the Maris Rusis who lived in Sunshine Beach?

I don't want to appear unpleasant but if you have a fear of photographic chemicals, you should switch across to digital. Photographers have been using chemicals for over 150 years without problems. They are generally inherently safe. (Except ferricyanide) Study your chemistry *before* using them and take whatever appropriate steps are advised. Generally speaking, normal developing chemistry is never a problem unless you are being willfully stupid. If you are genuinely concerned, call an ambulance, never seek emergency advice from a forum. That is irresponsible.

<p>1) Underexpose<br> 2) Overdevelop<br> 3) Deliberately cause reticulation, by developing at 24 degrees, then plunge the film into cold (zero centigrade) water after the development and before the fix. The emulsion - provided it's thick enough - will develop stress cracks. Some east European black and white films (such as EFKE 100) have emulsions that are thick enough. This process can't be done with colour or slide films.<br> 3) Print on soft grade contrast paper.</p>

<p>I agree. It has to be oil on the shutter. Whoever cleaned it before, didn't dismantle the shutter and polish the blades. They cannot be lubricated with any form of liquid.<br> Have the shutter 100% dismantled and cleaned and your camera will be good to go for 20 more years.<br> An old trick by some unscrupulous camera mechanics was to spray a solvent on the blades, which allowed the shutter to function for a few months.</p> <p> </p>

Best develop in D76, stock dolution diluted 1:3. Develop for the manufacturers specified timeplus 50%. Agitate continuously and don't develop at warm temperatures. (i.e., keep as close as possible to 20C - 68F) and wash with water at the exact same temperature. Use 100% fresh fixer. (240gms thiosulfate with 50gms sodium sulfite in 1 liter of water. You have to dissolve the thiosuphate in water at 50 centigrade but ensure that the fixer has cooled to 20 C before you use it. The extra sulphite will assist with stabilzing the emulsion). Only fix for 4 minutes, agitating continuously. Do not use an acid stop bath at any stage. Wash for a short time, use two drops of washing up liquid to improve wetting of the emulsion. Dry in a shower cubicle that has had the hot water running for a while and generated a lot of vapor. (This reduces drying marks on the film) It's very important to weight the end of the film. Old film is notorious for curling The images will still be somewhat "flat" - low in contrast - but at least there will be separation of tones. You'll have to either play around with the scanner settings or use a hard grade printing paper to get a reasonable image. The film will be very grainy but, at least, usable. Do take note of the temperatures. Old film developed at warm temperatures usually comes out either blank or black. - nothing in between. If you can, reduce the temperatures to 18C of all fluids. The results will be better still. Once you've made your prints or scans, washing the film again for a long(ish) time will reduce the likelihood of degradation. Bear in mind that old films had much thicker emulsions than modern polyester b/w films. Thick emulsion can wrinkle badly if the fluids used are at different temperatures. - sometimes poor temperature control even causes cracks to appear. That effectively ruins everything. You are much better off developing the film yourself. Labs invariably give poor results, since they get the same money whatever effort they put into the exercise. Be prepared for sub optimal results anyway. 50 years is a long time for a latent image to hang around. (But I have used this development technique, with success, on many occasions). The temperature and humidity that the film has been subjected to over 50 years will dictate the outcome. The use of D76 is quite important. A hydroquinone containing developer is important. Beutler or Rodinal developers will give grain the size of coal. Pure Metol, Vit C or caffeine developers are almost certain to fail. Continuous agitation has to be taken into account when working out the developing time. A good rule of thumb is that continuous agitation equates to about 75% of the time of "normal" (i.e., 2 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds of development). Let us know how you get on. Ian

<p>I contacted Scott Martin who emailed me back today and said that he wasn't able to help.<br> <br />Unfortunately, it looks like it's back to the old drawing board.<br> Ian</p>