joe_k.

Hmm. I'll probably toss a scan up tonight or tomorrow, but the result of my Neopan SS experiment (shot at the DX-coded 100, 1+14, 8 minutes @ 20C) seems to be 'overexposed and underdeveloped.' Dunno who came up with the idea that "thin, reedy" negatives are better for scanning, or if "compensation" really took place, but my hunch is to take that claimed speed increase to heart (and perhaps add development time?) if you want something resembling a normal negative. (On the other hand, if you meter for highlights, maybe this isn't a problem... I'm starting to wonder if my approach there isn't a little weird.)<BR><BR>Also stumbled across <A HREF="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html">this article</A> that mentions a technique of bleaching before development... could that be a mechanism for the supposedly nonexistant compensation effect of this stuff?

For what it's worth (and what I wished I'd confirmed before I'd ordered), you can *barely* fit a Spanish-style plastic tank into a 'small' (16x??) changing bag and maybe even have room to load it. Heartily recommend the big ones for anything larger than a single-roll stainless tank... and with a larger one, you could just stuff a cardboard box in to create a tent. If you really care about getting the best bag possible, pay attention to how long the 'sleeves' are, how tight they fit, and whether the internal zipper has a pull on the inside to let you easily get at anything you left in the wrong portion -- I can say the small Kalt we just got doesn't.

 

Someone mentioned jars -- don't forget you'll probably want at least one cheap funnel.

 

Figuring out what you've developed: If you can't eyeball the negatives directly, find a really bright light, and a really matte piece of black paper; holding the negative emulsion side up atop it, you should be able to find an angle to reveal the 'positive' in the reflectance of the silver. (Help -- what's the name for that process? :))

 

If you just want to have fun, buy a tank and chemicals, and load in the windowless bathroom at night with the lights in the house off and any LED-illuminated stuff (beard trimmer, etc) unplugged. Light leaks are never good, and cheap and easy to avoid (stuff a towel under the door, gaffer's tape, etc), so there's no excuse not to... but, for example, I was introduced to the process at a summer camp where the 'darkroom' was a shed you could've made a camera obscura out of -- as long as you worked fast and didn't let film sit out long enough to collect an 'exposure,' you'd certainly get something printable. If you get fog, seal the room tighter and try again.

Coincidence that this comes up... Finally finished our first roll of Neopan SS, and we'll be trying it in same this afternoon. (After a round of phone calls and old-wives-tale testing to try to narrow down a time...)<BR><BR>I've been relying on <A HREF="http://www.pbase.com/crcherry/b_w&page=19">this guy's gallery</A> for some vague idea of how different combinations scan (easier route is to use that site's search feature for it); images.google.com for "Acutol" will pick up a few samples as well.<BR><BR>On the subject: Anyone have thoughts as to why most of the samples seem to have the tonality of a graycard?* Just some coincidence of the people who use it not doing as much postprocessing, or is this what to expect from a vaguely 'compensating' (except everyone-save-said-advocate claims it doesn't really) developer? Or a coincidence of the few people publishing results shooting on overcast days? :}<BR><BR>*Maybe I'm abusing 'tonality' there, but may as well abuse it instead of talking out of my posterior about gammas and curves.

I just ended up with one of the "Spanish" tanks (screw-top, red-plastic-cap style), and the 'bumps' on the bottom seem to be a feature of those... or at least, a heck of a lot more pronounced than what I remember of my Paterson, which I always inverted with anyway.

 

Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the different experiences?

Hmm, more "don't trust this information," but I'm a former Neopan 400 shooter, and I've dug through near every Neopan SS image posted on the Internet...

 

My *personal* impression is that results vary quite a bit with developer; I've seen everything from 'golfball' grain on through to prints and scans so smooth they seem to melt off the screen. The two Fuji devs suggested -seem- to turn it into a finer-grained, slightly "sharper"-toned Plus-X equivalent or something more resembling a contrasty Tri-X, from what I remember. Most of what I've seen claiming D-76 has presented a moderately-smooth look with inky shadows... though I haven't bothered to form a theory as to why. There definitely seems to be something different to it versus the 400/Presto(?) emulsions.

 

You can catch me babbling about the look in Diafine a few posts down, but then, I'm also a sucker for artistically blown highlights, and 'smeared'-looking night shots like the one I linked.

 

...and, yes, I'll be insane enough to be trying it in (oh-no) Acutol, but I'm still waiting for the giftee to expose a roll. Never tried anything claiming to be an 'acutance developer' before, only recently realized all the mistakes I've made picking developers in the past, and hoping I might've made a lucky guess and found something that might make up for what could be a longer "toe" (but then, how many people are actually metering this stuff at straight 100?) and avoid the Rodinal 'grit,' but for all I know, I've been suckered in. Scans should be coming in a week or two...

This is probably stating the obvious, but if someone cares for some perspective from the "Gen X"/"Gen Y" camp... there are simple reasons why B&W carries on -- it's required by teachers, and it's cheap!

 

Going digital in the classroom requires educators who actually have a grip on the technology, and who are willing to admit it's equally 'art'... and that day won't come until long after the technology is fully ready for it. (Further, operating a film camera remains mechanically illustrative of the concepts involved, and a perfectly good one now costs *less* than an average college textbook, so I can accept the argument there.)

 

Perhaps because of that, B&W carries that 'artsy' connotation, and there'll always be some subset of the population interested in using it for effect. Since the whole minilab culture obfuscates the printing process (What normal human knows you can reprint color negs in B&W? Heck, what normal human bothers to come back for reprints at all?), it takes the C-41 films to remind people the option exists... and it seems Kodak's only recently pushed those onto Wal-Mart and CVS shelves. (Of course, digital users will probably be using the kiosk, and thus be made aware of the option through the proto-Photoshop available at the booth.)

 

Then, as anyone who's gotten bit by the bug realizes, true B&W lets you run off rolls and rolls in your bathroom for what you'd end up spending on minilab prints. Recurring costs are the bane of students everywhere, after all... though the appearance of cameraphones and affordable digitals probably will reduce the necessity there.

 

Here's the thing - digital's already far better than 640x480; that's what you'll get in a box of corn flakes (if you can't already), not unlike the 110 cam I sent away for in the '80s. ;) But concomitant with that, high-DPI display tech is coming that will require some real skill to image for effectively. When the average "TV" becomes a 5x10 foot roll of e-paper at 300DPI, taking a picture worth showing off will demand skill, whatever technique the capture is made with. (Advantage does seem to go to film with that, for now, between resolution and the aesthetic benefits of grain's "random sampling" on magnification... though I'm sure we'll see some better algorithms to interpolate from digital, too.) So photography certainly won't be dead, and it might even be a more marketable skill in the extreme-definition era.

 

...

 

Meanwhile, don't forget that Kodak's just giving out rolls of film here, and probably breaking more than even after processing's paid -- they get to recycle the disposable bodies and resell them again and again. (Well-known tip: The disposables come with the film wound out on the left-hand spool, and pull it into the cartridge mounted on the right, so you can pop one open when you're done, remove the can, and save the body for your own nefarious purposes. I once respooled a panoramic to play with the wide-angle lens, back when those were the trend, and I'm saving a flash model to modify into a handheld popper for time exposure work... careful with the voltages involved, if you follow my lead!)

 

That's my sack of quarters, anyway. Right now the average human just wants a passable 4x6, or something suitable for current web resolutions, but as society makes the switch from pulling out the album to bringing things up on the big-screen, "consumer expectations" should scale, too.

It sounds like he has Scala, but just wants to make negatives from it?

Awesome -- I give up, and get a great answer. Thanks, Ron!<BR><BR>

 

<i>The aluminum bonding has a limited 'reach' and becomes more effective if the gelatin swell is reduced. An acid stop bath helps the alum harden, but a water rinse after the developer does not.</i><BR><BR>

 

So an acidic solution would be required for it to work at all, as I came to guess...<BR><BR>

 

<i>These two 'reactions' are reversed by alkali <b>and by the wash</b> due to the copious water removing the bulk of both the aluminum and the sulfate.</i><BR><BR>

 

...but it'll all go back into solution if the film is washed thoroughly, making it most useful as a temporary anti-swell agent... and the pH 5-6 (IIRC) Paterson fixer already has one... which just might be alum anyway.<BR><BR>

 

I think you've just saved me a lot of putzing around, and explained why the 'real thing' is necessary if you want the real thing. :)

Heh, quite agreed. Of course, *my particular situation* raises concerns about scratching during the squeegeeing, and abrasion dragging the dried emulsion against a contacting scanner bed (this particular model has a filmstrip-size backlight holder device, which Microtek calls a 'Lightlid 35;' if you see how it's used in practice, there's enough opportunity to scrape both inserting the film, or grinding it against the scanner bed while positioning, especially if you're doing fine adjustment to get things perpendicular)... But at this point, I'll just report back if we end up risking it, and introduce it *after* the first rinse post-fixer, if so. If anyone else gets crazy enough to add it to stop, let me know. :)

 

Thanks for the thoughts!

It's even more complex than that. Some consumer chipsets will simply ignore the fact that the ECC bytes are available, so you don't really get a performance hit (beyond any more-conservative timings present in the DIMM's SPD ROM or similar), but you don't get any advantage, either. <BR><BR>

 

If your chipset *does* support ECC, single-bit errors will be corrected transparently, while ones across more bits -- from, say, a really energetic cosmic ray -- will not be; the best ECC allows there is *detecting* the error and passing that information on to the OS. To my knowledge, Windows and FreeBSD have no mechanisms for recovering gracefully, so you'll bluescreen or panic, probably losing all your work... but "at least" corruption won't sneak in silently (important in the financial case, etc).<BR><BR>

 

Newer Windows, at least in 'Server' incarnations, might do something better; I'm going on information from the NT era. FreeBSD, on the other hand, can happily accrue years of uptime on the cheapest systems, and I've never actually seen an ECC-related panic on machines that (to my knowledge) have had it enabled. Most of today's tower cases and mainboards put the DIMMs perpendicular to the sky, possibly with a few thicknesses of CD-ROM drives and power supplies above, so single-bit errors are probably reduced, while the occasional reallly lucky particle might have a better chance of strafing through the die and causing multi-bit problems.<BR><BR>

 

The Suns appear to log every single-bit error corrected, while the x86 universe doesn't really have a mechanism for that (for the single bit case, either the chipset handles it, and you never know, or it doesn't, and you never know until you notice corruption somewhere). However, since Sun rolls their own, they might have some design issues that make ECC hits more common than just for cosmic rays. ;) (Seriously, modern memory controllers are complicated beasts, and current ones incorporate some fair black magic to ensure the signals get through reliably; the likes of Intel and Via may be ahead there, since Sun sometimes has a flair for the simple. Then there's the question of 'Taiwanese capacitor syndrome,' something to worry about with almost any hardware manufactured from the late '90s through two years ago, which will often trash mainboards' onboard power regulation and cause all sorts of "flaking out.")<BR><BR>

 

<A HREF="http://www.memtest86.com/">memtest86</A> is Free and indispensible if you want to check your DIMMs (and mainboard, etc) for reliability. (Of course, sans-ECC, you might have the bizarre luck of seeing a cosmic-ray-induced error while you test; recurring errors at a particular address would point to a definite hardware problem.) It's also a great tool if you want to try more aggressive CAS timings or similar than those in your DIMMs' autoconfiguration ROMs. (Note that stability there can also depend on the memory controller; I could never run my RAM at CAS2 on an old Socket 7 board, but when I upgraded to an Athlon with a more modern chipset, the same stick tested flawlessly at the slightly higher speed.)<BR><BR>

 

<A HREF="http://vbulletin.newtek.com/archive/index.php/t-17753.html">This thread elsewhere</A>, and <A HREF="http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sol.lists.freebsd.chat/browse_thread/thread/77afef74db1b8a4c/0501ec78074c32f3?q=ECC+freebsd&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DECC+freebsd%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle+Search%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#0501ec78074c32f3">this one</A> elaborate a little about ECC. One likely example of the failing capacitor syndrome can be found <A HREF="http://www.lemis.com/grog/diary-aug2003.html">here</A>, on his 8 August entry -- note how the originally tightly-regulated "Vc" or "Vcore" voltage has gone to hell. (Changing the power supply wouldn't fix that, and indeed, I think it didn't, though it's been months since I informed *him* of the <A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Feb/bch20030207018535.htm">problem</A>. Anyhow, monitoring the onboard power regulation is a nice methodology to test.)

Sorry about that, the dog ate my line breaks.

Note that "Centrino" is the branding for the Pentium M with Intel's wireless chipset. A non-Centrino "Pentium M" (Not 4M) will just have a different wireless card... one that might actually be more compatible with alternative OSes, should you care to try one someday. The Athlon 64 is an absolutely marvelous chip (says this geek and AMD shareholder), and the Mobile ones can be quite power-efficient, though probably still an order of magnitude above the Pentium M. (So we're talking power consumption by the CPU equal to the LCD backlight or drive, instead of half of it, perhaps.) Consider your usage pattern; if you'll be doing this editing on the road or in the field, the M will probably have the best battery life (unless you buy an ultrathin model, where they've used the advantage to shave out half the battery, instead). If you mostly just need to type notes, suck files off a digicam, or otherwise work in short bursts, the A64 with some more aggressive power management should do almost as well, and give you that extra oomph for the video encoding when you're plugged in at your desk, car, or plane, while being future-proof if you find yourself craving a 64-bit OS (but make sure the laptop can ever support >4GB RAM if you want the main advantage). The "real" P4 chips actually used to be most efficient at video encoding, per-clock, but I think the laptop incarnations have always been dogs for power or speed reasons (and the last true P4s have had some fairly damning thermal issues at rated clocks, hence the barrage of 'Intel is screwed!' stories in the press, and the new 'BTX' wind-tunnel layout for desktop cases). Upshot is that 'BTX' is engineered so well that desktops with cooler processors will get by with much quieter fans. Maybe that gives some perspective? The neatest thing about A64 is how multiple processors tie together, but you won't see that in a laptop, at least until "dual core" chips start reaching the market sometime next year (power consumption shouldn't be as bad as two completely separate CPUs, but it's not yet clear if they'll 'scale' down to mobile versions at launch). Intel will be going dual-core, too, they're just a little behind. [if you want to do video encoding *and* work in Photoshop at once, two CPUs should give a rather dramatic advantage, which is why I bring it up. And at that point, maybe you want something 'disposable,' but with more useful value later -- the most affordable Pentium M you can find, since it'll still have great battery life for playing DVDs and doing work at less-than-bleeding-edge speeds -- and the money you save versus being cutting-edge now invested towards the first dual-core lappie that appears.]

Hm, just lost my first draft of this response trying to cut and paste while stuck in the "Links" browser (don't ask)... So I'll be terse for once:<BR><BR> -Re: Density/Gamma, I'm afeared of that myself, and I'll drag that to the scanning forum if I don't find a clue there already. But if I want as much density/contrast as I can get, that means the stronger 1+9 dilution (and appropriate times), right?<BR><BR> -I sent a mail to Paterson's US operation, but didn't get anything back. Guess I'll try the UK side, if they're known to talk. (They don't list *any* compounds in their MSDSes for these chems, so I got the impression they were rather secretive sorts.)<BR><BR> -Big thanks to everyone (here and in email) who passed along vendors shipping Diafine... All I know is that the combination with SS can produce some stunning scans, from what I'm seeing online. (<A HREF="http://www.santini.org">This guy's gallery</A> has some examples; you'll have to search for Fuji SS. And since <A HREF="http://www.santini.org/jerome/photo/PAW-2003/aal">this image</A> happens to particularly blow my mind, but isn't showing in my search for some reason, I'm typing that link manually just to show what I mean. Sample of one, not everyone's cup of tea, could just be good with Photoshop, etc... but hey, it sure is 'different' than the results I've seen posted from other developers.)<BR><BR> I was of the impression Presto 100 was closer to Presto 400 (which may or may not have been the same as Neopan 400 or Neopan 400 Press before that, I seem to remember having 400 with and without the Presto branding, and if there were differences, it was as subtle as what they've done to Tri-X lately)... and I was going to blather about the way SS seems to change character immensely in different developers (maybe because it's a thin emulsion that predates 'tweaking' for one predictable response across a range of chemicals?), but since that's all subjective, check Google and the various galleries, don't ask me.

Okay, if I'm up late reading, let me add to this -- hardener before fixer in general: good idea, bad idea? I read that hardening stop used to exist for film use, and if I 'have' to try this, it'd save a bottle and provide an acidic environment... While, in turn, a separate jar of pickle juice isn't too hard to store if it'd be a much better idea to try after the majority of the hypo is out. (So I already know better, but it sure would be convenient to save a jug and a step, if results would be on par with how this emulsion was probably treated when it was new... and this is all "in theory," anyway.)

 

What's a usual soak time for 'real' standalone film hardener?

You asked about underdevelopment vs. underexposure -- well, I'm about to embark on my own development-time misadventure, and I've found <A HREF="http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewtechnique.cfm?recid=119">this handy chart</A>.<BR><BR>Those positives assume something resembling consistent print exposure, as you'd see on a contact sheet, or a scanner if the driver doesn't automatically compensate to confuse you.<BR><BR>Underexposure/overdevelopment shows an example of 'push,' and overexposure/underdevelopment demonstrates 'pull' -- necessary evils, effects, or things to avoid, depending who you talk to and what you want to do with your film.

Quite, to all of the above. But surely he's not the only person to ever actually use it, right? ;) Similarly, thoughts on SS being 'almost exactly like' [Plus-X | Efke | Ilford | APX100] in terms of processing (I've seen a few notes versus either around) are more than welcome, since times are available for some of those.

 

Since there's so much conflicting info around, I'm happy to take whatever anyone claims here as a starting point... just want to keep things in the stadium, not out in the lot!

 

[FWIW, the SS is quite possibly the cheapest 35mm currently going at B&H - $2/roll, and at the time, said soup seemed to have the best price:capacity:shelf-life going for the number of rolls involved. I wanted to do XTOL, but storage would be a problem... Then Diafine, but they can't ship it!... and then ID-11, but it sounded like the stock solution goes stale quite fast?] ... What's in Diafine that restricts it, anyway?

Well, as noted two posts down, we'll be processing some Neopan SS for scanning, which is likely to be mildly abusive to the emulsion side... and we'll be using Paterson AcuFix, which is "non-hardening" but does contain an "anti-swell" agent, so the literature goes.

 

Opinions on SS's durability vary, and I always used to add the hardener to my Kodak Rapid-Fix for not "knowing better" (shooting the more modern Presto 400, then), so it'd be neat to know if there's already a 'solution' in the cabinet if fragility actually proves a problem. (Especially while the film is still wet, since it'll be squeegeed by fingers with rough skin or long fingernails, respectively. ;))

I know this isn't an auspicious start here on Photo.net, but I *do*

have some darkroom experience... just enough to allow me to have these

crazy thoughts.

 

So... theoretically speaking, would plain old McCormick Alum

(potassium aluminum sulfate, as far as I can tell) suffice as a film

hardener? If it might, would it be safe and sane to add it to stop

bath, or would this risk incomplete fixing if it actually works?

 

How about a 'standalone' solution in water or distilled white vinegar,

as a pour-in/pour-out after the first stage of an Ilford-style rinse?

I know, I know, I know. Unfortunately, I've purchased 10 rolls of

Neopan SS and a bottle of the A-juice for a novice as a gift, and this

is rather a shoestring affair. If we can't get acceptable results

within two rolls, there's always D-76 for sale around the corner, but

since it's all paid-for, it'd be nice to be able to use it.

 

I have a suggestion from its biggest advocate of "1 + 16.5 for 8

minutes to start," but it'd be nice to have other opinions before I go

wasting too much film. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? At

what EV? (Ideally, I'd like to have the giftee meter most of the

rolls at the SS's 'true' speed, whatever that is here -- 100, 160,

200? -- but also give a few a ~400 push, since she's not going to be

able to handhold any other way... so I end up needing twice as many

numbers, and that packet of Kodak is sure sounding more attractive!)

 

FWIW, the idea is to have some fun, and produce negatives of

appropriate density for scanning (with a cheap flatbed at present,

though a dedicated scanner might be next year's gift). I'm not sure

what density/gamma that would even be -- current hardware is an old

Microtek with a 'Lightlid' adapter, for what it's worth -- so

suggestions there are welcome, too.

 

More generally, does anyone have thoughts on soups that might be

"related" in composition or rate, so I can have a few other points to

work from in extrapolating times?

 

I've clicked near every search hit for both the film and the

developer, but I still haven't managed to find much clue. (As far as

I can tell, what few times are published assume Neopan 100 is the

"Presto" emulsion, or sometimes even Acros!)

 

["Mike," if you Google across this one, I haven't forgotten about you.

.. but my reply became a big digressive theory on why every other

cocktail miiight be producing more appealing scans, so I've got it

holed away as a draft until I can see what things look like myself.]