reuben_c

May 14, 2005

(All typos mine; I do not advise doing any of this unless you understand the risks, and accept all liability for your actions. This is posted strictly for historical and educational purposes.)

<blockquote>From Chapter VI, Desensitizers and Hypersensitizers, Darkroom

Handbook and Formulary, by Morris Germain, quoted under Fair Use

doctrine.

<hr>Hypersensitizers

Several wet and dry methods of hypersensitization have been used over

a period of years, but the technique in handling them has been such

that amateurs often ruined film or suffered distress from the ammonia

fumes which were employed. By far the best method of all and the most

popular in use today is the new mercury vapor treatment.

The essential procedure is to place the film in n air-and light-tight

container along with 8 to 10 grains of metallic mercury. The mercury

must be placed in a small glass or non-metallic container. Be careful

not to spill the mercury or let it com in contact with the film.

Treatment is approximately 36 hours for loose film and about one week

for tightly spooled or wrapped material. Other salient information is

best given by quoting the summary of the research report on the New

Method For Dry Hypersensitizing of Photographic Emulsions, by F,

Dersch and H. Durr, Agfa Ansco.

<hr>

"Hypersensitization by mercury vapor increases the speed of

photographic negative emulsions about 50 to 150 percent, depending

upon the emulsions used for the treatment. The important features of

this method that make it superior to the well known

wet-hypersensitizing methods are: (1) The film does ot have to be

put through a bathing process and then dried. (2) The mercury vapors

are active also upon tightly wound spools of film, the sensitizing

effect being uniformly spread over the whole length (e.g., of a

1000-foot roll of 35-mm. motion picture film). If sufficient time is

available for hypersensitizing, the films need not even be removed

from their original wrappers, as the mercury vapors diffuse

sufficiently through the wrapping material. (3) The increase of

sensitivity is general throughout the range of wavelength of light to

which the film was originally sensitive. (4) Not only can unexposed

film be hypersensitized by this method, but it is also possible to

intensify the latent image with mercury vapors. (5) The stability of

the film is not permanently affected, although the increase in speed

is gradually lost over a period of four weeks of aging. The clearness,

however, remains the same, and may even improve somewhat. By a second

treatment with mercury vapor the hypersensitization can be renewed in

a film that has recovered from previous hypersensitizing."

<hr>

</blockquote>

For one who likes to experiment purely for the love of

experimentation, time in hypersensitizing will be well spent and much

knowledge can be accumulated. When getting the picture is the main

thing, hypersensitizing should be avoid if possible and resorted to

only when absolutely necessary.<hr></blockquote>

May 14, 2005

I am surprised that no manufacturer has yet offered a "virtual full-frame" body, with a "reverse-teleconverter" built in. (A relay lens similar in concept to the ancient Speed Magny", but designed to form a smaller image rather than a larger image).

The advantages would be the ability to use existing lenses with the same "full frame" image (reduced in size to fit a smaller, cheaper sensor), and, a speed increase, perhaps a stop or so, due to the full frame's worth of photons being concentrated on a smaller area on the little sensor.

May 14, 2005

Extend the lens to its closest focus distance. Then look at the side of the front (aluminum color) part of the lens, which will have become uncovered as you focused the lens out.

You should see a small hole, with a setscrew in it.

Loosen the setscrew, and you should then be able to unscrew the front ring (the aluminum ring with the filter threads cut into it).

Once you've removed that front part of the lens barrel, you should be able to drop the entire lens cell (front, rear, and diaphragm) out by turning it upside down and letting it fall into your hand. Be careful!

Once you've removed it, you should then be able to unscrew the front and rear groups from the barrel (the inner barrel that you've just dropped out of the outer barrel/focus mount).

After you've removed the two groups, it should be obvious how to further disassemble them. Again, be careful -- it is very easy to chip or fracture the fragile optical glass. If you use too much force while pulling an element out of its housing, or do not pull it straight out (if there's a bit of torque to one side), you run a risk of damaging the glass. Best is usually to let gravity "pull" it out, onto a piece of lens paper or lint-free cotton in the palm of your hand.

Same precautions apply when reassembling. You don't need the sadness of seeing a chip fly off the edge of the glass.

When you are all done, and you are ready to drop the inner barrel back into the outer barrel to reassemble it, you will have to pay attention to the linkages for diaphragm setting and stopdown tab.

The mating is obvious, but not automatic (you will need to ensure that both linkages are in the right position -- in the outer and inner barrels -- when you seat the inner barrel to home).

May 12, 2005

That is an interesting solution, and one that would give great permanence due to the sepia-toned image being extremely stable (a silver sulfide image is comprised of the kind of "stain" that attacks very old photographs; it's a end-stage condition, extremely stable).

I recently read something about a chemical that can be used to turn a sepia image black. If that is practical, it would allow the use of the ferricyanide for a unique kind of reversal!

The problem with B&W reversal is that it's like a two-post Towers of Hanoi challenge, in which you've got to manage to create and destroy one silver image without harming the other. Color reversal processing is much simpler!

I don't recall the name of the chemical offhand. I think I saw it mentioned in an old book I've got, "Darkroom Handbook and Formulary" by M. Germain. If there's any interest, I can see if I can dig it up again (it's not that long of a book, but it's not indexed).

May 12, 2005

Anyone else old enough to remember that famous NY Daily News

headline, "Ford to City: Drop Dead"?

Well, here's an article form an upstate paper that might easily be

headlined, "EK to AG: Drop Dead":

<a href="http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

AID=/20050512/BUSINESS/505120369/1001">New CEO pledges faster digital

pace - Perez warns that Kodak's 'time to act is short'</a>

It's chock full of gut-wrenchers like "continue curbing its historic

film business", and references to the new honcho's "killer instinct".

One employee said she was surprised; that she "hadn't thought Carp

was going to step down. I don't think he's that old."

Well, I guess not, since he's two years younger than the "killer

instinct" that he brought into the company, took under his wing, and

then... well, you get the picture. It's all there in black and white,

go read the article.

So, it seems like the future of traditional photography is looking

greener by the day. ("Green" is just a symbolic corporate color, of

course. I expect Ilford, Agfa, Maco, etc. are probably viewing this

stuff as good news too, along with Fuji.)

Dang, I'm really going to miss Kodachrome. And Microdol-X. I think

they've pretty much killed off the rest of my faves already.

I'll leave the last laugh to Monty Python, and hope that someone

tells it to that lady from Accounting who didn't "think he's that

old":

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

May 12, 2005

As others have pointed out, the problem is the bleach. To expand on the idea, for your application (B&W reversal), ferricyanide isn't really a bleach. It just "rehalogenates", which means that it turns your developed silver back to undeveloped silver salt.

Ferricyanide is generally used with bromide, the result being silver to silver ferricyanide to silver bromide, which is then dipped in sodium sulfide (for sepia toning, which converts the silver bromide to silver sulfide), or, if you're using it for color processing, you dip it in fixer, which removes it.

That's the primary use for that sort of bleach -- color processing, where your goal is a dye image, not a silver image. Frankly, I'm surprised you got any image at all using ferricyanide as a B&W reversal "bleach". What I'd expect is that you'd get a solid black image after first development produces the silver negative -- which you then remove (!) (!) (!) (*) via rehalogenation -- and then reexpose the now-raw film, which then is turned completely black in the second developer.

For B&W reversal processing, you need a bleach that physically attacks the metallic silver (the developed negative), rather than a ferricyanide that leaves it there to be redeveloped.

With color slides, it doesn't matter that you end up with a completely black silver image, since it's all rehalogenated and then stripped out in the fixer, leaving the dye image.

You should be able to use a ferricyanide bleach to make B&W reversals with C41 (chromogenic) B&W film, however the masking dyes present in most of those emulsions may leave you with an image that is unsuited for projection. (You'd be able to scan it, of course -- but if that's the goal, it would be simpler to avoid the entire mess and just develop the film as a negative.)

(*) The Nanny from Hell struck. I attempted to type a parenthetical tripple-bang -- a common editing artifact -- but, when submitting my post, instead of the confirmation message, I was greeted with the following:

===========================================================

We had a problem processing your entry:

A single exclamation mark is usually sufficient. Try again.

===========================================================

This sort of trite nannyism is just ridiculous. If the programmers have THAT much time on their hands, I'd suggest fixing the *#&*(@ last-visited flag, so that it would be possible to consistently track last-read threads.

May 12, 2005

<blockquote>I would expect that this will, if anything, accelerate Kodak's depature from silver-based film products. The pace of that departure, though, will be bound by cash flow concerns stemming from the very healthy depreciation EK still gets from its film ops.</blockquote>

Am I reading that correctly?

It sounds like you're saying that they're going to work harder and faster to kill off film, which is making them lots of money.

Please tell me that's not what you meant to say!

May 11, 2005

My understanding of the technology is gleaned entirely from the consumer rags, as I no longer receive the trades. But from what I gathered, it was not intended to be one more "one-hour-lab" device, but was intended to be a "disruptive technology" that would largely carve its own niche.

If anything, rather than cut into the traditional film/processing market, it would, as I understand it, compete with the digital market, because it gave traditional film consumers much of the convenience of "digital", plus, it added benefits that "digital" could not match.

<p.

I'm talking about things like the ability to change "sensors" by buying a different type of film. Users could "upgrade" the "sensor" by buying faster/sharper/etc. film. And, they would find that all of their 35mm cameras were "digital".

While obviously not all digital users would benefit from the technology's unique feature set, it's indisputable that many would, and each one of these users would conceivably represent a lost (digital camera) sale.

Try as I might to rationalize it any other way, I keep coming back to the idea that the purchase was accomplished not in order to bring the technology to market, but rather to keep it off the market. Hence my tongue in cheek reference to the apocryphal "100MPG carb" which, according to the myth, was purchased by "big oil" with the idea of keeping it off the market.

I'd really like to know what kind of discussions and debates transpired when the decisions were made to acquire and then bury the ASF technology. And as someone who's worked on various projects of my own over the years, my heart goes out to the ASF propellerheads, who while no doubt compensated financially, must have had an emotional stake in wanting to see "their baby" come to fruition.

May 11, 2005

If I were running Kodak I would focus investment and R&D on the processing market.

What is your take on their having spent big money to take over the rights to the "dry" C41 processor/scanner/printer/CD-burner technology invented by Applied Science Fiction?

They spent the money to take over the technology -- a truly innovative, if not "disruptive" technology -- and then they dropped it!

The net result was some money in the pockets of the inventors, and the actual technology joining the ranks of the mythical "100MPG carburettor".

May 11, 2005

I need to clarify the above -- he is exiting as CEO on June 1, but will remain Chairman until Jan (06), at which point he will retire.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050511/tech_kodak.html?.v=1

May 11, 2005

Here's a possible ray of hope from an article on thestreet.com:

<A

href="http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/markets/marketfeatures/10222843.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA">Carp

Out as Kodak CEO</A>

Excerpts:

<BLOCKQUOTE>Daniel Carp, the Kodak chief executive whose decision to reorient

the camera company around digital imaging has been a source of enduring

controversy, announced Wednesday that he will retire at 57.

...

Carp will be succeeded by Antonio Perez [...] The Spaniard is two years'

Carp's senior.

...

The appointment comes as Carp's vision for an all-digital Kodak remains in

flux. [emphasis added]</BLOCKQUOTE>

Comments: It looks like thestreet.com sees Carp's exit as being tied to

problems with Carp's "vision" being "in flux". Since his "vision" was for "an

all-digital Kodak", it seems logical to speculate that his exit might mean a

newfound respect for the "silver goose" that pays the bills.

May 11, 2005

Well, that was fast. Anthony Perez will replace him.

Does anyone know what implications that may have for traditional photography? Anyone know where Perez stands on "issues"?

May 11, 2005

Will Daniel Carp's retirement as Kodak CEO on June 1 have any effect

on the company's agenda for traditional sensitized materials?

Will Kodachrome receive a new lease on life?

Does anyone know who they'll be replacing him with?

May 11, 2005

Daniel Carp will step down as CEO of Kodak on June 1, and will be replaced by Anthony Perez, who was formerly an executive of Hewlett-Packard, and a relatively recent arrival at Kodak. Carp will continue as Chairman of the Board until next January, when he will retire.

May 8, 2005

Tip: use a rubber block rather than a spanner wrench for those "two-hole" screws. No matter how careful you are with a spanner, there will be visible marks on/in the holes. A rubber block will supply sufficient friction to unscrew them (advance lever cap, selftimer cap) without marring them.

Sometimes I think the designers put those holes there so that they could tell if anyone had gotten inside the cameras. Seriously.

Same deal with the rings in front of the lens. 99% of the time you will be able to remove them with a rubber block (cut out so the front element clears the rubber). The other 1% of the time, you'll leave marks in the two slots in the ring.

May 7, 2005

The "New answers" bug that I mentioned several months ago has

obviously been addressed during the recent forum software upgrade,

but it's not yet quite ready for prime time.

While I can now visit a forum, and click the "New answers" link, and

see the threads with recent followup activity since my last visit,

there is still a major showstopper problem.

The problem is that when I visit another forum, it tells me

there are no new answers, even though there are.

What is happening, apparently, is the "last visit" flag is being set

globally rather than on a per-forum basis. So, I get to pick

ONE forum to check for new activity since my last vist, and the rest

of them are hopeless.

For reference, the old behavior was extremely strange. It

seemed to accurately track my "last visit" flag for each forum, but

only within a timespan of a few hours at the most. There

seemed to be some internal rollover point of unknown (to me)

duration, after which, it would go nuts.

For example, if I came back the next day, it would tell me that

my "last visit" was now! (e.g., my "last" visit had the

identical timestamp as my current visit.) As long as I stayed

online reading articles, the system would accurately track my "last

visit". If I left, and came back a few hours later, it would

still remember my "last visit". But, if I left for

more than a few hours, it lost the "last visit" timestamp, and

acted as if my next visit was my first visit. (e.g.,

the very first time you visit a forum, your "last" and "current"

timestamps were assumed identical)

It appears that when that bug was repaired, something

else broke. The system can now remember the correct "last

visit" timestamp for more than a few hours at a stretch.

These "fix one thing and break another" are common in any software

development milleu. Hopefully it will be repaired, rather than left

in the hopper to be addressed in the next major revision. As it

stands, the "New answers" function is useless, which is a major

disappointment, as it makes it well nigh impossible to keep track of

threads receiving any activity.

April 30, 2005

I miss that stuff. The Kodak film was conceptually a better system than Polaroid's SX70 system, and had much better results. Polaroid's system required a mirror, because the image was formed on the front of the sheet (same side that faces the lens). Kodak had the rear of the sheet face the lens, and the front formed the image.

This gave Kodak the ability to have a textured surface. Not so textured as to obliterate the resolution or interfere with the image, but enough so that it wasn't a fingerprint magnet like Polaroids, which had to be optically smooth because it was facing the lens.

The Trimprint improvement was great too. Once you peeled away the chemical and "negative" part of the photo, you were left with a thin sheet of plastic, something like a Cibachrome, which you could trim with a scissors to fit in an album, wallet, etc.

Kodak's pictures also had a better aspect ratio than the SX70.

The biggest difference though was the image quality. Polaroids always looked kinda bad to me, especially outdoor shots. Hard to put into words, they just looked bad. Maybe like what you'd see with outdated or heat-damaged traditional camera film.

Kodak images, though, looked real. They had vibrant colors, the kind of rendition you'd expect to see on a decent consumer grade snapshot.

I think that the quality of those images is what gave Polaroid the willies and provoked them to sue Kodak. Polaroid's cameras were much nicer, it was no contest. But when people saw the pictures, it was also no contest -- in the other direction.

April 28, 2005

<blockquote>Ctein evaluated speed thus: "Ultra Color 100 is much faster than it ought to be. It certainly wasn't 2/3 stop slower than Portra 160; as far as I could tell it was identical in speed." I'm curious whether 100UC sharpness improves at EI 160 or 200.</blockquote>

In Europe (at least the part of Europe where I looked at Kodak's regional website a few months ago), they sell what appears to be the same film as 100UC, but as a 200 speed film. In that market, they sell 200 and 400 for the UC counterparts, but no 100.

Couple that with reports I've seen that say that the 100 Ultra Color behaves better when exposed at 200 (less blocked-up highlights, etc.), and, it having PGI that is more like a 200 than the older (discontinued) 100 (Supra/Royal Gold/Ektar), and it makes me wonder how I should expose the test rolls they sent me.

I guess I'll bracket, and see what I can see.

In either case, I miss the "old" emulsions -- the ones we were stuck with before they were replaced with the "new, improved" emulsions. What do I miss about them?

Well, the finer grain and higher resolution, that's what.

April 27, 2005

<blockquote>Kodachrome has a definite "you are there" ambiance to it,

<blockquote>Bull. MF and LF chromes shot on the less raucus Kodak E-6 films like E100G or Fuji films like Astia blow 35mm K64 right out of the water.</blockquote></blockquote>

Gee, Scott, I love you too, man.

Anyway, I'll take your demand that 35mm Kodachrome beat large format alternatives, and... and let let it stand there, serving as your legacy. The legacy of a bitter young man, who isn't really interested in honest debate, but is only looking to attack, annoy, antagonise, and in general, psint himself into a corner. What is your problem anyway? You used to be a nice, normal poster. Then, somewhere along the line, you went nuts, and now it's as if you're bucking for the Mike Scarpitti Popularity in Posting Award.

You must really miss that lithium.

April 26, 2005

I agree with Mike.

Kodachrome has a definite "you are there" ambiance to it, that cannot be described, but can readily be observed.

Look at a Kodachrome image of a damp mossy bog, with lots of vegetation, old bark, rocks... you will have an eerie feeling of "being there" that really cannot be put into words -- or, put onto other film.

Kodachrome's razor sharp "crystaline image" (the dyes form as crystals, rather than clouds) combined with its uncanny ability to capture subtle gradation has always set it apart from the rest of the pack.

But that's old hat in our hyperactive age, where the only things that matter are speed, cost, saturation, and glitz, and anything that can't be "appreciated" within the universal fifteen second attention span is discarded as boring, worthless, and old.

If Kodachrome is the fine old wine of photography, the "modern" hyperglitz emulsions are the "Zima" equivalent.

Drink up, boys.

April 25, 2005

Gee, I hate to think what will happen if they kill off Kodachrome entirely.

Well, for one thing, I think there'll probably be a very large "Global Chorus" of former Kodachromers singing Kermit's theme song.

April 24, 2005

<blockquote>I am amazed that any legislature would have enacted a statute that is so shoddily drafted.</blockquote>

Ah, but you miss the beauty of it all (from the state's perspective).

The game is simple, but the rules are impossible to obey. It goes like this: make everything illegal, and then, enforce as needed.

Pundits from Orwell to Rand have outlined the racket sufficiently that I need not dwell on it further. Suffice it to say that as it becoming increasingly difficult to make it through the day without committing a felony (or series thereof), we will all become perfect little citizens-cum-mice. No one will want to piss off the overlords, lest they sock it to us for any of a number of handy dandy infractions.

March 11, 2005

Agfa had maskless color negative films at least through the mid 1960s. I recall seeing it on display at the NY World's Fair.

February 14, 2005

<blockquote>Basic Corporate Finance 101:

Any money invested has to generate Equity-Value-Add that meets or exceeds some pre-determined ROI calculated by that investor - or it must be given back (i.e. investor dumps the investment).

Being able to eke out just isn't sufficient. Wish it were...</blockquote>

And one day, that mentality took over automobile manufacture.

Not much later, the automobile manufacturers went broke, because people stopped buying automobiles.

A thousand years hence, historians pieced together a probable sequence of events. It seems that shortly after the auto makers stopped building cars with seats, heaters, and wheels, people refused to purchase the cars.

The automakers tried reasoning with the customers. They explained that the return on investment was very poor for things like seats, heaters, and wheels, and in order to satisfy the day traders, they had to prove that they had "trimmed away the fat", so, they had to drop those unprofitable items.

They then reminded the customers that, "By removing these low-profit items from our automobiles, we are able to continue maunfacturing cars at affordable prices."

For some odd reason, the customers would hear none of it, and continued driving their old cars.

Meanwhile, the "profit at any cost" school of thought took hold in the grocery business, and before too long, a typical supermarket had shrunk down to the size of a minivan. One shelf held "bread", another "meat", and a third shelf held "milk". ("Would you like a pound of meat, Sir? Meat is on sale today! Meat, five percent off!")

No one could explain why profits continued to plummet, even though all those "low-profit SKUs" had been removed from inventory. It was paradoxical! The more "fat" they trimmed, the less "meat" the customers would buy!

Stranger yet, millions of people suddenly took up gardening, and at the same time, small livestock management cooperatives sprung up all over the place.

By the way, can I interest you in some "shoes" or "clothes"? They're in stock this month down at the local GUM store. "Shoes" are manufactured in pairs -- one left, one right -- and "clothes" come in three varieties! You can purchase "mens", "womens", or "childrens" clothes.

The "Commercial Supply Distribution Division" is having a sale on "Signs" this month too. As usual, "Signs" are available in what economists have determined to be the least unprofitable design. They continue to say, "Have it Our Way!"

February 8, 2005

Remember what I said about you playing the double corner of the checkerboard?

12:48 a.m.: "we can no longer buy hexachlorophene"

11:36 a.m.: "Hexachlorophene is still available"

At least you're consistent.

These are now forbidden, under EPA and OSHA rules to be used in photographic materials. Also included were ferricyanide and a host of other ingredients in both the emulsions and in the processing chemistry.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, man.

You can get ferricyanide at any of the mail order photo chemistry dealers.

Fuji Velvia did not even exist when the new Kodachromes and Ektachromes went on the market.

As if that had anything to do with what I was saying.

Are you a Turing machine?

If so, you're not ready for production.

Seriously, I think I am going ot bow out of tossing any further reality your way. I am starting to feel guilty about it, and I don't like when I feel like that. I'm not the sort of person to go about provoking people into making fools of themselves, and it appears that that's what our little interchange has devolved into. I ask questions, which you ignore. You make wild and crazy ex cathedra allegations, which I then ask you to substantiate, and you blithely move along, completely ignoring my requests.

I shoot down a few of your more absurd claims, and you then shift gears an pretend you never made the original claim -- even though it's there in black and white for all to see, right in this very thread!

You are either a troll, in which case I would feel silly for allowing you to bait me into feeding you, or else you are not quite "there", in which case I feel guilty for allowing you to make a fool of yourself.

Please do not misinterpret my refusal to address the remainder of your babble. My silence is neither a concession of defeat, nor is it an acknowledgement of your correctness. It is simply the aforementioned factors, compounded by the fatigue that inevitably follows this sort of interchange. The ELIZA program may never get tired of chatting, but the sentient being at the other end of the keyboard will eventually say "screw this" and get on with life.

I'd say "it's been real", but I fear I'd be leading you on, so I'll simply say good day.

Oh, what the hell. I cannot resist. One last thing for you to meditate upon:

<blockquote>My facts are sound, and my information sources are 100% reliable.</blockquote>

I read that, and I immediately scratched my chin. Deja vu, ya know.

Then it hit me.

This is <A

href="http://www.moviewavs.com/0056218974/MP3S/Movies/2001/operatio.mp3">your voice</A>, isn't it.

Same message, different planet, eh?

In closing, if your "sources are 100% reliable", then put up or shut up. I've asked you REPEATEDLY to substantiate some of your outlandish claims.

You simply ignore my requests, and them move on to issue even more outlandish claims.

It is axiomatic that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You, however, simply cascade your claims higher and higher, with no substantiation to back them up, other than repeated invocations of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

What makes you unique in that regard is your steadfast refusal to cite your authorities.

Too sad for words, man. Too sad for words.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reuben_c