christer_almqvist2

<p>This is the best way to avoid dust and scratches on the film. I have written it before so this is just copy and paste. As recommended by one of the better known specialist German developer manufacturers! And many others. Just try it once please and you will be converted for life. Here we go:</p>

<p>The best method is to wipe the film dry with good quality kitchen paper like this: hang the film, fold one piece kitchen roll paper twice across and the once in the other direction, place the top of the hanging film in the fold, pull paper SLOWLY down, making sure the whole width of the film (back and front) are in contact with the paper (use both thumbs and both forefingers to do this), but do not press harder than needed to ensure full contact. Do not repeat as the film is too dry and sticky after the first time. The "inside" side of the kitchen roll should be in contact with the film.</p>

<p>Ian said: "Now, I know what FLYPAPER is,<br />Anyone else remember this extinct ?? product?"</p>

<p>Remember? We use them in the kitchen (it has a very high ceiling) every year and they are quite efficient. They are easily available in rural France, where I live from April to September. Better than spraying chemicals. The fly season has not started here yet, but when it does, I'll get the product. Actually we don't use the paper, we use the rolls. When hanging, it looks a bit like a 35mm film hanging to be dried, which brings us back to the subject.</p>

<p>Had you adjusted your exposure index to Dwayne's development procedure?</p>

<p>If not, chances are that you won't see many blades of grass.</p>

<p>How did you measure the light for your test rolls?</p>

<p>I'm with Charles Monday. "stop, fix, wash can be within 2⁰F of developing temperature without problems." </p>

<p>But I would say: you will have no problem as long as stop, fix and wash are within 6°F of developer temperature.</p>

<p>I'm with John Cogburn. "I have heard of reticulation, but never seen it happen."</p>

<p>Kris:</p>

<p>First things first: This is a very nice shot!</p>

<p>I moved away from Delta 100 because of too much grain in the cloudless areas when I was shooting seascapes. Otherwise I think your combo is fine, very fine.</p>

<p>The main thing is to determine the correct development time and exposure index for your special situation. Why? Your thermometer may be off by a couple of degrees, your agitation may be more violent than used at the lab that determined the "official" development times. The times may be for mixed light enlargers, which are longer than for condensor enlargers - and scanners.</p>

<p>Tomasz,</p>

<p>it is as Henry Posner said ("In my experience grain is more noticeable in expanses of featureless gray skies"). In a picture of clouds like yours above, grain is less noticeable.</p>

<p>Grain (clumps) in featureless gray skies made me change from (35mm) Delta 100 to TMX so I can very well understand Malcoms' concern ....... with Tri-X.</p>

<p>Then again, in Xtol 1+1, TMX did not have the sharp look of Delta 100 so I had to change developer as well.</p>

<p>I always buy 36 exposure cartridges. If I have fewer exposures on the film and want to develop without waiting for the entire film to be exposed, I rewind the film into the cartridge but not completely. I leave the film leader sticking out and back in the darkroom I pull out just the length of film I have exposed. There are two markings on my work bench to indicate the length of half a film, and I do not bother with other lengths. </p>

<p>Just remember to mark the half film cartridge. Normally it is evident from the look of the hand cut film leader that is half film inside.</p>

<p>I have two different film loaders somewhere, which I have used years ago, but for me it is just not worth the hassle. Simplification is the solution. Take pictures.</p>

<p>I had _some_ good results exposing at 25 and developing in xtol 1+3 for 12 mins.<br>

Generally TP is not worth the effort, particularly now when supplies have dried up.</p>

<p>Light may be more important than film. (Yes, I know you did not ask.)</p>

<p>Otherwise I agree with Ton. "The rest" accounts for 90%.<br>

I do not agree with Richard because I have seen original prints from her negatives.</p>

<p>QUOTE "then poor water into the tank, for as long as I have to-30 minutes or so" UNQUOTE</p>

<p>Well, if you use running water for 30 minutes, then that is not environmental friendly!</p>

<p>The so called Ilford method uses five water changes in your tank, with agitation: first for 5 sec, then for 10 secs, then 20, then 40 and finally one minute. (Times vary depending on where you read it.)</p>

<p>I only agitate the first two baths for the whole time, the following ones I agitate intermittently but let them stand a bit longer (while I clean up the darkroom). It is important to ensure that there is as little carry over as possible from one bath to the next. Taking the spool(s) out of the tank and rapping against the sink is very effective.</p>

<p>Veronica,</p>

<p>all the variables listed by you are relevant ones for your purpose.</p>

<p>Varying too many of them will not make things more transparent (no pun intended).</p>

<p>Varying development time and exposure should be sufficient to obtain (or not) the desired result, at least if you use "normal" temperature, agitation etc.</p>

<p>I agree with you Brooks (This is, or should be, standard business practices), but why do Kodak need to call standard business practice "aggressive", and why use this word three times in the same paragraph. That sounds ......desperate to me..</p>

<p >J<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3928066">ohn Wiegerink</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 11, 2011; 09:01 p.m. said:</p>

<p>The problem with companies like Eastman Kodak is that they know how to expand, but don't have a clue on how to downsize. (end quote)</p>

<p>I worked for ITT Corporation during Mr Geneen's last few years and Mr Araskog's first few years (yes currencies and raw materials were sold/boght forward as standard practice). I admire Mr. Araskog for two things, he had the vision to see that the Corporation was too big to manage, and he had the guts to implement his vision. Too bad I lost a very good job in the process.....</p>

<p>here is the initial quote once more, the capitals are mine:</p>

<p>For 2011, the company is taking AGGRESSIVE action to improve the operating results from these businesses. These actions include capitalizing on Kodak’s market-leading position through a continued focus on unsurpassed quality and service and the introduction of innovative, new film products; continuing to AGGRESSIVE reduce costs in line with industry decline rates; and taking AGGRESSIVE actions to mitigate silver pricing volatility, including the implementation of an indexed pricing model for key products and a transition to a product portfolio less dependent on silver....<br>

(end of quote)</p>

<p>Couldn't they take INTELLIGENT action instead of AGGRESSIVE?</p>

<p>Delta 100 and Xtol 1+1 is a marriage made in heaven.</p>

<p>Many pictures on my web page were done with this combo.</p>

<p>http://www.almqvist.net/chris/</p>

<p>BTW, I am redoing my webpage, and would appreciate comments on the new one. The new one has mostly space fillers, but I am mainly interested in comments about the website organization and layout. </p>

<p>http://www.almqvist.net/chrisnew/</p>

<p>What is the relevance of the word "professional" with regard to b/w films?</p>

<p>(For color film it WAS different, that I know, but I only use b/w.)</p>

<p>When I used TP, and I used quite a lot, I shot at EI 25 and developed for 12 mins in Xtol 1+3 with agitation 4x every full minute or in Rodinal 1+150 for ten minutes, but then then the EI should be 16 or 20. I preferred Xtol 1+3. Make sure you use enough stock solution.</p>

<p>I just looked at the MDC, and my Xtol EI is definitely more massive than the MDC (which is more or less the Kodak times). Worked well for me and for Réponses Photo where I got the times from years ago.</p>

<p>I have several Paterson tanks; for one, two, three and five 35mm films and they are all in frequent use. I have not noticed any difference in results, but then most of my development times are longer than 10 minutes.</p>

<p>The five film tank does not look that big, but it is a beast to agitate. Hold on tightly when you inverse.</p>

<p>In principle they are all the same, yet I prefer the 3 film one. I didn't really knew why, but I just had a look at them again. The reason I like the 3 film one best is that it is the size where I get the best grip on the tank; in the middle. That makes inversions easier.</p>

<p>I also tried a melange of Xtol 1+1 and Rodinal some years ago and came to the conclusion that the marvellous results reported by some people must be in the eye of the beholder. They were not in my negatives. And they were certainly not on the prints, and that is what counts for me.</p>

<p>As Frank said on page one, what you are looking for is TMY in Xtol 1+1. A universally good combo from 200 to 1600. All you need for everything.</p>

<p>Sorry I can't help.</p>

<p>You have helped me by confirming the correctness of using only common films and developers. Easy to obtain, easy to process (or get processed) and costing very little more (sometimes much less) than exotic brands.</p>

<p>I shoot only TMY2 these days, using it from 200 to 1600. I develop everything except 200 in Xtol diluted 1+1.</p>

<p>My 1600 development times are 25-30% longer than the 400 times.</p>

<p>I have not quoted an exact percentage because my development times are not exact down to the last second. For your calculation I suggest you use any of the two percentages and round up to full half minutes if you use the lower percentage, and round down if you use the higher percentage.</p>

<p>Michael Axel said: "TMax is the new Tri-X, XTol is the new D76, and 50 is the new 40."</p>

<p>I agree with the first two points (but would be more specific and say TMY2 rather than TMax), but I have no clue what is meant by 50/40.</p>

<p>Please help.</p>