thomas_wollstein

In principle, any red filter is fine, but the images may lack the

typical IR look (Wood effect, etc.). Even with a #25 filter you may be

disappointed. A #29 is, IMO, the very minimum, truly spectacular

effects will result with #87, which is visually opaque. There are a

couple of filters in between, which will still give good IR effects

while being transparent enough for aiming the camera through them, for

example an RG 665 (about #70, I believe).

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Although it would be nice to have a scapegoat, this is not exactly

true. A great manufacturer's plant is bound to comply with strict

legislation. Also, not only for the benefit of the environment, but

also to minimise cost, there is often quite a tight system of in-plant

recycling and reuse. So the total quantity of waste and

emissions produced by such a plant is comparatively low. This is quite

different for amateurs who do not collect their waste for recycling

or proper disposal. Each one of them may only dispose of a few dozen

gallons of toxic waste per year, the large number of amateurs who do

this makes for quite a quantity of hazardous matter released into the

environment w/o any treatment.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Daniel and Pete both put their fingers on the wounds, and Nigel found

the keyword: the big picture. In fact, none of us is able to see this

big picture. If the manufacturers had their way, we wouldn't even know

that darkroom chemistry (or computer manufacture, for that matter) are

bad for the environment. Both technologies are bad for the

environment, the wet way because of the hazardous chemicals it uses,

which are not collected for recycling, and the digital way because a

lot of chemicals and energy are used to produce the hardware. Later,

in use, the energy consumption is the main issue.

<p>

As a rule, it is easier to keep the recycling chain unbroken when

as many of the environmentally harmful processes as possible are

centralised, i.e. at the plant of a manufacturer. This is in favour of

computers. It is possible to keep most of the hazardous stuff in the

plant for recycling. On the other hand, centralised production

requires additional energy to transport the goods to the consumer.

Whether more energy is consumed by shipping computers around the world

or by shipping photo chemistry, is a question which probably no one

can answer because it strongly depends on the life cycles of the

computer hardware in question.

<p>

When going the wet way, you may look for less toxic chemistry. XTOL is

probably a good choice in this respect as it contains much less of the

conventional, mostly highly toxic agents. For prints, Agfa's Neutol

Plus (Vitamin-C-based like XTOL) is similar. You should also make sure

you don't dump hazardous stuff down the drain just because it's so

convenient to believe it's biodegradable. It is not too difficult to

collect the material to bring it to a collection point for

incineration at a specialised plant, if such an infrastructure exists.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Depends on what you want.

<p>

Here's the short version: If you want shadow detail and not too much

contrast, use true ISO 400 film. If you don't care about shadow

detail, and can live with the increased contrast pushing entails,

push.

<p>

Pushing does not increase the true speed of the film (at least not

notably, maybe by 1/3 f-stop or so), but it does increase contrast

considerably. Therefore, there will not be any detail in the shadows

if you use pushed film, and the negs will be rather contrasty. It's

not the thing to try when your subject is already contrasty.

<p>

True ISO 400 film, on the other hand, will still have detail in areas

that read about two f-stops below the midtones.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

I am trying to collect some processing information on Cachet/Maco's infrared film. I would appreciate receiving processing information going beyond the sparse data and developer recommendations given in the film's tech sheet. If you have and tested data, please let me know. Please don't forget to mention the following data:

<p>

1) developer, including dilution

<p>

2) temperature (20°C, unless otherwise specified)

<p>

3) agitation (rotation/cont./30 s/1 min)

<p>

4) developing time

<p>

Thank you in advance.

<p>

Thomas Wollstein

The following resolutions were given to me by Ilford Germany:

<p>

Pan F Plus 150 l/mm

FP4 Plus 110 l/mm

HP5 Plus 100 l/mm

100 Delta Pro 160 l/mm

Delta 400 Pro 145 l/mm

Delta 3200 Pro 100 l/mm

XP2 Super 110 l/mm

SFX 200 80 l/mm

<p>

They apply to a contrast of 1:1000. Under practical conditions, expect

to find half these values.

<p>

Ilford does not give these resolutions in technical documentation as

they find they are not really useful for practical application.

<p>

I, too, cannot say I have tested Gigabitfilm yet, and I certainly

won't for the time being, as it seems the film still has some

problems. It is extremely sensitive to residues of surfactants

(wetting agents) in the tank, and the comments from those who did test

it are inconclusive. Whereas some say sharpness and tonal rendition

are great, others state the either the negatives or the prints, or

both, look real bad. So far, there has been one realistic test in a

German B&W magazine that compared the film to Tech Pan and other

high-resolution films, and it was the bottom line of this article that

Gigabitfilm is far from being the revolution is resolution. To me, the

examples of resolution test targets shot with Tech Pan and Gigabitfilm

using the same Leica camera and lens showed no recognizable difference

in resolution. Gigabitfilm is indeed Agfa Copex material, and all the

proprietary stuff is in the developer. The film is developed to give

really soft negatives. That, together with the fact that it's actually

underexposed (so the author of the article claims) makes for the

alleged overexposure tolerance.

<p>

If it's for resolution testing, you might be happy with a document

film such as Cachet/Macophot Ort 25.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

(thomas_wollstein@web.de)

No comments on Atomal FF, but if you want a real gain in speed rather

than in gamma, your best bet might be a two-bath developer, such as

Tetenal Emofin. This is said to produce about a one-stop increase in

actual speed.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Whatever the purpose was when the film was first manufactured,

nowadays, it's mainly used to achieve a pretty unique look in b&w

photography. You don't usually have to use a special camera for IR

shooting, just some modern cameras won't work too well because they

use IR LEDs to count frames. These LEDs fog IR film pretty badly. IR

film requires special care in handling, and you should read something

about its use, or you will almost certainly screw up your first

roll(s).

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

The problem with fogging in Kodak HIE is that the film acts as a light

guide like a fibre-optic device. If you take a conventional film out

of the plastic canister in daylight, the film will hardly be fogged

more than a few millimetres beyond the opening of the cartidge. With

HIE, you may easily fog about a foot of film. Also, HIE is very

grainy, which means you shouldn't sacrifce too much of your negative

by cropping.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Hi Robert,

<p>

I tried it a while ago with a #29 filter. The EI that worked fine then

was 25. I developed the film in Ilfotec HC.

<p>

There's a guy at Ilford Germany who seems to to know a lot about the

film. His name is Matthias Schneege, and you could mail to him for

advice: info.de@ilford.com.

<p>

Greetings,

Thomas Wollstein

I can only concur with Anchell's warning in the Film Developing

Cookbook not to use such an agent on the film. There is at least one,

Tetenal's Drysonal. It is supposed to dry the film within a few

minutes. I tried it some years ago because I head the same problem

that you seem to have, but Drysonal didn't appear to solve it but

aggravate it. So my technique today is this: Final bath in

demineralized water with a trace of wetting agent (preferably one w/O

foam), spinning film in lettuce centrifuge for a minute or so to

remove any surface water, hanging the film in the shower cabin until

next morning. Works fine for me. No dust Problems at all.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

(thomas_wollstein@web.de)

Depends on what you're after, and on your throughput.

<p>

Many photogs use one-shot developer because it's more consistent. All

developers that are not one-shot will, obviously, gradually decrease

in activity as the effective developing agent is depleted, and

oxidation products are accumulated, part of which slow down

development. Of course, developer manufacturers formulate their

developers so as to ensure the best possible consistency, and the

decrease in activity may remain acceptable if you comply with the

manufacturer's recommendations concerning capacity. Yet: One-shot

developer is naturally more consistent as it hasn't been before.

<p>

The second issue to be considered is your throughput: If you only

develop one or two films every now and then, developer solutions will

oxidise. Working solutions have a much shorter shelf life than

concentrates. So you may not be able to exploit the full capacity of

your developer.

<p>

Third, devlopers for re-use do have one more advantage: You don't have

to mix them each time, and if you take them with you (on a vacation,

for example) you need only one bottle.

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

Apart from Kodak Panalure paper, there is also Forte Equitone. Both

are panchromatic papers, as opposed to the more or less orthochromatic

sensitization of conventional photographic papers. This means they are

sensitized over the entire visible spectrum, and you must process them

in complete darkness (i.e. w/o safelighting).

<p>

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

(thomas_wollstein@web.de)

Personally, I have never encountered that problem, but as I am

preparing an article about the stability of (not only) RC papers for

an online magazine, I have seen some examples of damaged prints. (I am

indebted to three gentlemen of Agfa who took the time to present the

examples to me, and to explain the cures.) So I can give you a few

qualitative hints and keep my promise (given in an earlier posting)

to disseminate some of the info I collected.

<p>

1) You are right in that working to exacting archival standards will

not protect you from silver oxidation. Silver, albeit being regarded

as a "noble" metal, silver is actually quite reactive, and it doesn't

take much to oxidise the silver image.

<p>

2) Damage to prints can become visible in as little as a month.(I saw

examples of prints ruined in four weeks by hanging them in a barber's

shop, i.e. in an atmosphere with a lot of formaldehyde and other

solvents - boy, I'am glad I haven't got to work there!)

<p>

3) Warm-tone papers having a silver image consisting of finer grains,

thus having more effective surface for the oxidants to attack, seem

more vulnerable, but the difference is small.

<p>

4) The process is accelerated by light, which means that storing your

prints in the dark will make them a bit more stable, but eventually,

if the air is bad, this will not fully cure the problem.

<p>

5) Partial toning in selenium (such as the toning for a better D_max

in highly diluted selenium toner) will not protect the image

sufficiently. If you tone to get archivally stable images, tone until

there is a clear change in image tone, i.e. in strong selenium and/or

for longer toning times.

<p>

6) For partial toning in gold toner the same holds.

<p>

7) Sulfiding toners (such as the bleach-and-redevelopment toners with

ferri/KBr bleach and sodium sulfide toner or the polysulfide variant,

like Agfa Viradon) do protect the image. It is then as stable as it

can get (but brown).

<p>

8) There is a product by Agfa, Sistan, which protects the image by

precipitating any soluble (= oxidized) silver ion in the emulsion in

the form of an insoluble salt. Sistan is basically a potassium

thiocyanate solution plus a wetting agent, which is used as the final

bath (thus no washing after the sistan treatment). It is said to be

compatible with other toning methods (such as partial selenium

toning), and also with spotting. There is a more or less equivalent

product by Fuji, which is called AG Guard, which, however, appears to

be offered on the Japanese market only.

<p>

9) No manufacturer of photo paper will give you any guarantee that

images made on his paper will last for whatever period, even given

proper processing. This is not because the manufacturers are bad guys,

it's because they can't take any responsibility for the air quality at

the place where the image is hung.

<p>

10) RC paper does NOT appear to be inherently worse than FB paper. The

problems reported by Ctein in the nineties are said to have been

solved by the addition of anti-oxidants to the base during major

revisions of the papers in the late nineties. (I am quoting this from

one manufacturer.)

<p>

Thomas Wollstein

Emofin is not a split developer of the kind meant in the original post

but a two-bath developer, bath 1 of which contains the developing

agent, bath 2 containing the activator. The process works strongly

compensating because when you soak the film in bath 1, it absorbs a

certain amount of developing agent. Bath 2 activates this. In the

dense areas of the negative, the developing agent is consumed much

faster than in the thin areas. Therefore, development stops sooner in

the dense areas.

<p>

I guess the problem with the idea is that you don't usually develop

negatives by inspection, and that - as mentioned above - you have got

one shot per negative. If it doesn't work out, you've blown it.

I would guess that most of the minerals and proteins are water soluble

anyway as the cat uses water to wash them out of its body. So maybe

you should try water (maybe with a wetting agent in the last bath)

first.

Kodak, of course, is a manufacturer, and as such, they are not neutral

about this. I found there are considerable differences in

the statements published by the manufacturers, and also in legislation

of different countries. Here are some facts:

<p>

Developer is a reducing agent, which means it consumes oxygen

dissolved in the waste water. That oxygen, however, is necessary for

bacteria to be able to degrade the chemicals.

<p>

Many of the compunds in photographic chemistry are also toxic and/or

carcinogenic. So in my eyes, it is not at all clear that they are

easily degraded in waste-water plants, as manufacturers routinely

claim.

<p>

Fixer contains silver. Silver has a so-called is a heavy metal and has

an oligodynamic effect, which means that in its presence, bacteria

will not survive. I have read a Kodak publication on silver in the

environment, and they simply state that in the form in which silver is

present in used fixing baths, it is not a big problem as most of it is

precipitated. As the concentration at which silver kills bacteria is

very low, I have my doubts about this statement, too. Also, silver

resources are not infinite, and once silver has gone down the drain,

it's lost, and we are one step closer to more expensive photo

material.

<p>

Selenium is a natural TRACE element, and you need a certain amount of

it, but it's also highly toxic, and the line between the good effects

and the bad ones is extremely thin. I think even Kodak concede that

selenium toner shall not be disposed of via the sewer.

<p>

So we are actually left to guess. In my country (and I think this

applies to most of Europe), it is forbidden anyway to dispose of

darkroom chemicals via the sewer. You have to collect them and bring

them to a toxic-waste collection point for incineration. (They are

available almost everywhere.)

<p>

For prints, there is an almost non-toxic developer. That is Agfa's

Neutol Plus, where the developing agent is vitamin C. There are

probably other less-toxic developers, but photo chemistry remains a

pollutant, and if your conscience nags you to act responsibly, I think

you won't get around collecting your waste for an ordered disposal.

<p>

As for silver: I would try to find someone who's willing to desilver

your fixing agents, or use metallic replacement cartidges. (They were

an issue from time to time in one of the forums.)

Freezing does slow down all chemical processes, so it should be worth

while. It is common practice with IR films, and to avoid

condensation of moisture on the film leave the film out of the

freezer, but in the sealed canister for a few hours before putting it

into the camera.

If you don't mind orthochromatic film, try Maco's (or Cachet's in the

US) Ort 25, developed in a Beutler-type developer (such as Tetenal's

Neofin Doku). Otherwise, I have heard great things about Ilford Pan F

Plus.

In his Film Developing Cookbook, Steve Anchell comes to the conclusion

that it is not necessary to do anything like that to your negatives

provided you especially fix and wash and store them carefully. For a

detailed discussion I suggest you read the book. It's interesting for

a couple of other reasons, too.

Polysuplhide is just one toner formula. Use thiourea (or

thiocarbamide) toner for varying tones. This toner can be controlled

to give a wide range of tones between yellow and deep brown.

<p>

Toner formula aside, toning results also vary when you use different

papers.

<p>

While it's a good idea to make the print a little darker if you intend

to tone it, for a really antique look, Hicks and Schultz, in their

book on monochrome, suggest to keep the print a little lighter and

harder before toning. You may have to experiment a little to get the

look that is most pleasing to you.

<p>

The bleach-and-redevelopment sepia toner is actually a solution of

sodium sulphide, the bleach is ferri plus potassium bromide. If you

are interested, I will look up quantities in one of my books.

<p>

Interesting effects will also result from split toning in selenium and

sepia. Selenium will tone the dark areas first, while sepia eats

itself down the tonal scale from the highlight end.

I encountered the same problems that you describe. There was one

article in a German photo journal, which was very disappointing in

that there was no definitive information in it either. The only thing

that you could draw from that was the suggestion to try and expose

and developt the film as you would do with HIE. Besides that, you

will probably have to bracket a lot for the first film. I haven't got

round to test the film yet, but hopefully I will be able to do so on

a trip next week. When I can give some specific information, I will

post it here.

In order to know how to expose a film under given lighting conditions,

you need some kind of index to translate the brightness measured by

your meter into suggested combinations of shutter speed and aperture

on your camera. Typically, this index will be the ISO speed of the

film as given by the manufacturer. It is determined by a standard

(ISO) method and applies to standard conditions. Sometimes, however,

there is good reason not to use the standard speed. Examples are

personal preference or experience (let's say you found that using the

ISO speed gave you images that are a bit too dark), non-standard

lighting conditions (such as shooting in a bar, where there is much

more red light to which the film is less sensitive than the meter),

and only having an ISO 100 film in your camera when the lighting

requires an ISO 400 one. In such cases, you set your meter to a

different speed that is more appropriate. As it is non-standard, it's

not an ISO speed, but just an exposure index (EI).

<p>

So, to cut a long story short: The ISO speed is a laboratory value

for the speed of the film under standard conditions. The EI is the

speed index you actually use to account for personal factors that are

not standard.

<p>

Now for obtaining it the easy way:

<p>

1) Expose a film at its ISO speed, process as specified by the

manufacturer.

<p>

2) Critically assess the images, particularly the tones you are most

interested in (usually the shadows).

<p>

a) If they are fine, you have found your EI. It happens to equal the

ISO speed.

<p>

b) If they seem underexposed, go back to 1), but use the ISO speed

minus two-thirds or one f-stop. DON'T VARY ANYTHING ELSE. If the

images are fine now, you've found your EI. Otherwise, repeat at lower

speeds, increments becoming smaller as the results get closer to what

you want.

<p>

c) If the images seem overexposed, do the same as in 2) b), but at ISO

speed PLUS something.

<p>

Now for the complications:

<p>

It may be that using an EI that is reduced w/ respect to the ISO speed

you find the highlights too dense. In that case, you have to adapt

development time. Start by reducing it by 10 to 15%. This will not

usually have a great effect on the shadow detail, but it may affect

your EI if you are used to metering off midtones instead of shadows.

Then you have to repeat the process using the adapted development

time. It is therefore recommended that you determine your EI on the

basis of the desired shadow detail, or rather density.

<p>

Let me repeat my waring: NEVER VARY TWO PARAMETERS AT THE SAME TIME!

The only thing you achieve by doing so is total confusion and a waste

of time and material.

Why not ask Kodak? I tried a similar thing with Agfa last year, and

they were very willing to provide information.