john_hicks___

Rodinal 1:50 (and even 1:100) works fine with HP5+ so something else is going on.

 

A heavy purple cast and/or cloudiness indicates insufficient fixation, while dark bands are evidence of light fogging.

The only published experimental results (as opposed to "common wisdom") I'm aware of are in _Controls in Black & White Photography_ by Dr. Richard Henry; his tests of several Kodak films in one developer found the least graininess in film developed between 68F to 72F. He found increased graininess both above _and below_ that range.

 

While it may seem logical to assume that Acros in Rodinal will behave similarly, in reality it may not.

 

Somewhere along the line I compared Acros and TMX developed in both Rodinal 1:100 and D-76H 1:3; I found TMX to give slightly finer grain and to resolve slightly finer detail while otoh Acros had slightly higher acutance. The differences were rather subtle and were often more on the order of a judgment call rather than obvious.

http://www.jobo-usa.com/instructions/instructions_load_reels_4x5.htm

Assuming the problem isn't caused by residue on the tank or reels and there's nothing weird about your water, a drop or two of Edwal LFN in the developer working solution will pretty much cure the foaming without any other ill effect. I had to use it for the same problem with AB-55.

> This question pops up constantly

 

Note that the restrictions are after the fact, civil and are of usage.

Try using half-strength or 1/4 strength photo-flo in distilled water, or Edwal LFN, about half strength.

I think that vintage Caltar was a Topcor. You could call the guys at Calumet (1-800-calumet) and ask; someone there will know for sure and be happy to tell you.

 

A friend tried a Caltar/Topcor 210 several years ago and reported that it was comparable to other 210s of that era. I really doubt any significant difference between it and current lenses would be apparent in practical usage.

When Anthony publishes his test article (yes, I got the spam too) he opens his methodology and results to public criticism. The illogical method and results are simply amazing.

Your second run looks better to me; the first is imho rather low contrast for printing on "normal" contrast paper.

> more skewed and unscientific tests

 

It's in the running for top honors. What a nitwit.

A cheap variant is to find a used Kindermann forced-air dryer. It's a small grey box that has a squirrel-cage fan and an attached tube; this thing sits on a tabletop and the air is taken in the front and blown from the bottom of the reels upward. It's nowhere near as forceful as a Senrac, but it works.

 

I put a piece of air-conditioner filter foam over the intake and duct-taped a piece of aluminum dryer-exhaust tube over the existing tube to extend it tall enough to take more reels.

 

I used a Senrac at the newspaper daily until about 15 years ago. It'd dry negs in about 10 minutes without heat; with heat would be _right now_ but I never trusted it to not melt the emulsion. The negs were always clean.

 

Come to think of it, something similar for sheetfilm would be rather nice.

> Ilfords recommendation for decreasing developing due to using a Jobo too much to heart

 

In working up development times for the Jobo machine to match results obtained with intermittent agitation I tested several Ilford films and found the development-time change required to range between 15% and 35%. See http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rotary/rotary.html for the entire article.

Are you using plastic reels?

 

Anyway...generally speaking if you're doing intermittent agitation...try using a double-size tank. That is, load film on one reel and put it in the bottom of a two-reel tank, then put an empty spacer reel on top. Use _only_ enough developer to cover the bottom reel. Pour in the developer and invert the tank continuously (and don't be gentle) for 30 seconds, thereafter give two to three inversions every 30 seconds. Continue with your usual stop, fixer etc. If the problem is agitation-related (I suspect it is) and you're doing intermittent agitation that'll cure it.

 

Otherwise, there's another problem that can occur when using plastic reels that shows similar symptoms; the edge of the image area can be inside the plastic reel spiral and you can get increased density, decreased density or both right along the edge of the film. What happens is that the emulsion is in intimate contact with the plastic reel spiral and the chemicals can't get at it. The only solution I've found, with many efforts since the mid-'70s, is Jobo #2502 reels as used in the Jobo 2500 tanks. These reels have tiny nubs inside the reel spiral specifically to prevent such problems, and they work very well.

> squeegee it

 

Stop that! Use distilled water for your Photo-Flo; also you might consider using Edwal LFN instead of Photo-Flo. Although I used Photo-Flo for many years I think LFN dries a little cleaner. No more squeegeeing. Take the film off the reel, grab an end in each hand and snap it a couple of times, not too violently, then hang it up to dry. The snapping flings water droplets off the film (and of course everywhere else).

 

If you still get scratches, clean off the camera's pressure plate with a lens tissue moistened in lens-cleaning juice or alcohol. Pressure-plate scratches usually print as dark lines although they may actually be pressure marks and print as white lines.

> purple caste is normal

 

Well, those guys have shown that they don't know what they're talking about. <g>

 

You might say that a purple cast is normal in improperly-processed film, but I wouldn't consider improperly-processed film "normal."

 

Here's the scoop. Films have various dyes incorporated into the emulsion or back coating in order to control spectral sensitivity, reduce scatter and halation, reduce or eliminate reflection off the camera's pressure plate etc. Some of these dyes are washed out during processing and some of them are simply decolored. Newer films types appear to have more tenacious dyes than older types.

 

Not only that, newer film types require stronger and/or longer fixing than old types.

 

So here's a couple of things. Use a rapid fixer. Not only will it help ensure sufficient fixation, it'll also help remove the dyes. I give five minutes or so in fresh rapid fixer, which is used one time and discarded. Although you certainly could reuse the fixer, that'll take some careful monitoring to be sure you're not exceeding the capacity of the fixer; imho that may represent false economy. There's no need to add hardener to the fixer.

 

The next step, and what really takes care of the dyes, is to use a hypo-clearing agent. This can be packaged stuff such as Perma-Wash or Orbit Bath or can be made by dissolving 20g sodium sulfite and 5g sodium bisulfite in a liter of water. Give the film two to three minutes in the HCA, then give it a 20-30 minute running-water wash.

 

These steps will either eliminate the dyes or reduce the color so much that it's not all that noticeable.

 

Why did I say "improper processing?" Well, those steps are plainly spelled out by the film manufacturers, and although the HCA isn't something you _have_ to do it's recommended.

 

OK, so let's assume the purple problem is gone. Next is "thin."

 

Shadow density is controlled by exposure. If the shadow areas of the neg are thin, transparent and detailless then you need to give the negs more exposure.

 

Highlight density is controlled by development. If the mid and highlight densities are too low then you need to give more development *after you've considered and corrected shadow density.* By that I mean if you're underexposing the film, both the shadows and highlights will appear thin and proper exposure will remedy both deficiencies, while if the shadows are ok but highlights aren't dense enough then you simply need to give more development. By "more" I mean a 20% or so change.

 

One other thing you need to consider with the Jobo is developer capacity. If you're using the minimum required amounts of solution you may be trying to develop more film than that amount of developer is capable of developing. For DD-X 1:4 I think at least 250ml solution would be ok (it works fine for me with D3200) but if you keep getting thin negs even with extended time, try using more solution.

The Metz 32-Z2 works well with the M6 TTL. It's not enormous, has enough power for bounce flash etc.

Let's consider Xtol 1:1 to be "standard."

 

You should expect a little more graininess, I think slightly lower acutance, and 1/3 to 2/3 stop more speed with DD-X or Microphen, while otoh ID-11/D-76/D-76-type 1:1 will give a little less graininess, slightly lower acutance, or apparent sharpness, due to the slightly finer grain, and about 1/3 stop less speed.

 

Curve shapes in each will be pretty much the same; Delta 100 has a rather long straight curve shape while Delta 400 has a gentle shoulder. This of course assumes films are developed to equal CIs in each developer.

 

Why not just roll your own developer? It's easy, no big deal, and then you aren't dependent on one manufacturer continuing the supply or not changing the formual.

I use Rodinal 1:100 11'30"/68F rotary agitation (Jobo) EI 64. I'd speculate that if you use intermittent agitation, using that time with Rodinal 1:50 will put you in the ballpark.

 

As for EI 100, it isn't going to happen. You can of course expose it at EI 100 but it's rather likely your negs will be underexposed a bit. I suspect the only way to get a real EI 100 out of it is to use a phenidone developer such as Microphen, DD-X, T-Max, Xtol etc.

Hmmm... _none_ of my TMX curves show that upward bend around Zone VI or iow "hole" at Zone V; they're all rather straight until up around Zone X or so, then begin a gentle shouldering. Could be an artifact of the developer you're using (and HC-110).

 

I use Rodinal (plain old Rodinal, not Special) 1:100 and D-76H 1:1 and 1:3. I've also gotten similar curve shapes with Rodinal 1:100 w/sodium ascorbate, TFX-2 and Beutler 105. All are with constant rotary agitation (Jobo) and developed for a DR of 1.25.

 

BTW, although adding sodium ascorbate to Rodinal for developing TMX doesn't cause any harm, imho at 30x magnification and in printing I don't see any difference in grain (what grain?) to make it worth bothering with for TMX. This is at 1:100 dilution; it may make a difference with a stronger solution. Anyway, it's _sodium ascorbate_ added at the rate of 4g/L of working solution. Don't add ascorbic acid; it'll kill the developer.

A brief, one-minute or so prerinse can solve problems with airbells in manual or rotary processing. There's no need to do it unless you have a problem it'll solve. A long prerinse can cause speed and contrast changes that vary together and separately and by film type; there's no "factor" that can be applied.

 

Jobo recommends a five-minute prerinse, stating that the prerinse allows a known-valid intermittent-agitation development time to be a good starting point for rotary agitation. Jobo says to not use a prerinse with Xtol simply because Kodak so nicely provided rotary-agitation development recommendations. You can certainly use a prerinse with Xtol but then Kodak's development recommendation may no longer be valid.

 

Ilford recommends against a prerinse on the basis that wetting agents are incorporated into the emulsion and a prerinse may randomly remove them, causing mottle and uneven development. I've never seen this with any prerinsed Ilford film, but then absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

The notion that a prerinse somehow magically "prepares the film for development" is imho a myth that's propagated from school photo instructor to school photo instructor without any basis in reality and should be allowed to sink to the bottom with the fixer.

 

To sum up, if you have a developing problem that a prerinse may solve then by all means go ahead and use a prerinse, but otoh don't use a solution in search of a problem.

I'm surprised a reflection placque is that high; the transmission step wedge was only $35. Anyway, look here:

 

http://www.stouffer.net/Photo.htm

If your friend was handholding the camera while shooting the test series he may have slightly changed the direction it was pointing when he changed the shutter speed.

Try increasing the dilution of your Rodinal to 1:50 to 1:100, starting with roughly 1.5x to double your 1:25 development time. Rodinal 1:100 can work very well with TMX.

 

With the faster "standard" films I'd lean towards 1:50. You may get up to a stop loss in "real" speed; the addition of up to 25g sodium sulfite per liter of working solution will usually give back maybe 2/3 stop speed without any unwanted effects.

 

If you want to try reducing the graininess, add 4g/L sodium ascorbate. That's _sodium ascorbate_, NOT ascorbic acid. Ascorbic acid will neutralize the developer. I believe you can make sodium ascorbate with ascorbic acid and sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) but don't know the formula offhand.

I just had to do some fiddling and fixing my old Eseco TR-90M densitometer and I just marvel at what a class act Eseco turned out to be.

 

First of all my calibration stepwedge ran away and hid; after a quick email question, answer and order I had a replacement stepwedge in three or four days.

 

Of course that wasn't all. The LCD display vanished! I called Eseco figuring to arrange to send it in for repair and hoping it wouldn't be too expensive. I ended up talking with Mr. Paul Thompson; he told me how to take the thing apart and how to fix it, and said that if that didn't work to report back immediately and we'd try something else. (it worked)

 

Anyway, my point is that such service _long_ after the sale is incredibly rare and was great to encounter.

Addressing the mount situation only, whether the purchase would be worthwhile or not could depend on how well the mount change was done.

 

Someone could look up the R flange distance but I'm fairly certain that there's plenty of room to put in a Nikon flange in place of the R flange plus there's the advantage of not having any mechanism to link up. It'd be a simple matter of drilling a Nikon flange (probably a BR ring) to match the tapped holes in the lens tube or drilling and tapping new holes in the tube to match the holes in the Nikon flange.

 

I swapped out my 400 Telyt R flange to an Olympus OM flange; although it's fairly crude it works fine.