richard_urmonas

Add me to the list of 10 saying go second-hand. At the moment

used darkroom gear is going VERY cheaply. A lot of pros are

going digital and so the market is flooded with high end

used gear. With a bit of looking around you should be able to

get better gear for rather less than the price of the kit.

Thanks for the replies so far. I guess what was puzzling me was that

two bath developers seem to have many advantages, but there are very few

commercially produced two baths available. Almost all the market offerings are single solution developers. Perhaps it was just a convenience thing.

 

Tony. Both types of two bath develpers will compensate for overexposed

highlights. The difference is in how they deal with the highlights.

The type where some development takes place in the first bath (e.g.

divided D-23) will have a very slow rounded shoulder, with

contrast slowly reducing from the upper mid tones to the highlights.

The type where no developement takes place in the first bath (e.g.

Diafine) will have a more "normal" contrast up into the highlights

then a more sudden hard shoulder with little seperation in the

top highlights. Another consideration is that these type of baths

are generally "high accutnace" so this may influence your choice.

 

James. Tony mentioned he wanted good mid tone seperation. My understanding of PMK is that it gives good highlight seperation at the expense of the mid tones. So PMK is quite a differennt effect than divided developers. I have not used pyro devs. so can only

go by what I have read.

I have been thinking about 2 bath developers. They seem to offer

some advantages, as well as ease of use. The lack of popularity

intrigues me. What are the disadvantages which have stopped them being

popular ?

Andrew,

 

Rodinal can be an issue in a Jobo. You need to run fewer films

at a time. You might be able to do 3 rolls in your 600ml (approx 8ml

Rodinal per film).

ID-11 is no longer the same as the classic formula. I can't remember the new addition (I don't have a packet to hand), but if you look at the safety data on the packet there is an added chemical (from memory in the B packet).

With Rodinal, 1:25 dilution gives best tonality. Dilutions

such as 1:100 have a compensating effect and increase acutance,

but lose tonality. The minimum amount of Rodinal concentrate per film depends on the film. Some films like Agfa and the fast films

like Delta 3200 or TMAX-P3200 are quite "hungry" and need a good

amount of developing chemical. The 10ml per film is a general

recommendation. If you want to use less, try it and see. As others

have suggested look for an increase in contrast with time, which

indicates that there is still active developer present.

The two liquid concentrates I recommend for people wanting

long life are Rodinal and LC29. Both are easy to use. Rodinal

is not a fine grain developer, but gives wonderful image tonality

and sharpness. LC29 is a fine grain general purpose developer,

and lasts 18 months in a partly full bottle.

Sounds like you grossly underdeveloped.

My suggestion would be Delta 3200 in 120, exposed at 1000/31,

Develop in Rodinal 1+25 for 11 min at 20 deg C. Wonderful

tonality, and an image which seems sharper than the grain

would suggest possible.

I would think about Ilford LC-29. This is a highly concentrated

developer (dilution up to 1:29) so a small bottle goes a long way.

It has a very long life in a partly filled bottle (from memory

18 months in a half full bottle). It is a good general purpose

developer. I have not used it with Delta 400, but no reason why

it should not be OK.

I have not seen an effect like this, but would guess this to be

due to a reaction of silver with some other chemical forming a soluble

silver salt which then migrates into the wet spots and dries / crystalises there. I would suspect contamination in the water.

I suggest using distilled water for the final rinse and the photoflo

wash.

I use a Jobo 2500 series tank with the 2509 "reels". This combination

is designed to use in a Jobo machine, but originally I used to just

roll it up and down the table (with the wide part of the lid

hanging over the edge to keep the drum level).

The residue is an off white colour. I tried the HE-1 on it

last night (outside of course). Left it going overnight, but it is

winter here so things go slowly. Checking this morning the residue

seems "thinner" but it may take more time or a few batches of HE-1

to completely remove it.

 

Thank you to all for the assistance.

A few months back I bought a second hand Jobob machine.

The plastic bottle used for fixer has a crystaline deposit

over part of the inside. I have tried soaking it in water

(for weeks), and scrubbing it with a bottle brush and soapy

water. It does not seem to budge. Does anyone know what I could

use to remove this residue?

I have not had problems with chemicals getting to the back of

film in a smotth drum. In fact the sheet shifts during processing,

so it cannot be sticking to the drum.

I am using a technique along the lines of Zone system tests. i.e. Zone I is 0.1 above FB+F. As Delta 3200 and FP4+ are the only ones of these

films I use regularly, the others have been developed to close to correct gamma, but without fine tuning. This should not affect the speed anyway. Most of these films have been tested more than once,

generally with different batches.

Does anyone have experience pushing APX-400 to 1000-1600 ASA ?

What were the results like ?

How well does it compare to say 400TX, or HP5+ pushed?

I use an range of small brown glass bottles. My experience has been that glass bottles give better storage life than plastic. I use labels made from short legths of masking tape. The bottles are cheap.

A 100ml one runs around US$0.50, a 1 litre is under US$2. The best

place I found to get them was from an essential oil / aromatherapy

place.

 

For cleaning I use a good bottle brush and some sugar soap, then rinse

and rinse, and rinse.

 

I have never seen crystals in Rodinal. I buy mine from a high turnover place so it is always fresh. I split up a 500mL bottle

into 5 100mL bottles and find it keeps very well that way.

Lex,

 

I only wish it was technique, but why then do FP4+ and 400TX

both give correct results ? Also I noticed this problem

when shadow details were lacking compared to similar shots done

previously.

OK the details of my testing:

 

The film was shot in one or more of: Minolta XD5, Minolta SR-T303,

Fujica ST605n, Rolleiflex 2.8D.

 

Metering by cross checking: Gossen Sixtomat digital, Gossen Lunasix 3, Weston Master II, in camera meters of above.

 

Densities measured on: Speedmaster TRC-60D universal densitometer, Fuji Densito V

 

I exposed the film using a grey card, in uniform cloudy conditions,

under the cover of a verandah. I checked for uniform light by

giving a "correct" exposure at start and end of test exposures, then confirming the density in both is the same. In one test

I used a black card so that shutter speeds and aperatures matched those used when exposing 400TX.

 

Speed was taken as the exposure which yielded 0.1 log density

above film base + fog.

 

This is not a development issue. I cross checked by sending half film to a specialist black&white pro-lab and compared the speed

with half developed by me. Both had identical speed.

I had a previous question regarding problems with tabular grain

films which I thought due to development issues. I have now proven

to my satisfaction that it is NOT developing issues. (I used a

pro-lab to process half film and compared to mine).

 

So has anyone seen / know why I get low speed for tabular grain

film. My estimated speeds are: Kodak T-max 3200P = 320 ASA,

Ilford Delta 3200 = 300 ASA, Ilford Delta 400 = 125 ASA, Fuji

Neopan 1600 = 160 ASA. These films look exactly like they have

been underexposed, i.e. the curve shape is right, just shifted

down in speed. Conventional films are spot on for speed (FP4+,

400TX).

 

I have used several cameras and cross checked light metering. I

have even run some T-max 3200P using a black card (instead of grey)

so shutter speed + aperature matched those used for 400TX.

 

This is really bugging me as I used to get great results from

Delta 3200, then suddenly 3 months ago a complete lack of shadow

detail.

Can anyone tell me the effect on the characteristic curve of developing

at a different temperature but adjusting development time to keep

contrast constant. For example if I develop for 8 min at 20deg,

or 6 min at 24 deg, what differences there will be in the curve.

I am particularly interested in the effect on the shaddow areas.

I would not use the lead bag. My typical experience with one was:

 

1) They refuse to hand inspect (not easy to convince them when there

is a big queue, and you can't speak the local language)..

 

2) Bag goes through x-ray

 

3) Bag goes through x-ray on higher power

 

4) Then they ask if you have a lead film bag.

 

5) Finally they hand inspect the film

 

6) The bag (minus the film bag) goes through the x-ray yet again

 

In the end I found it less hassle to just let the film go through

the X-ray machine.

 

I would also comment that you may have problems with so much film.

Some places may consider this a "commercial" quantity and charge

duty etc.

The 35mm Delta 3200 was bought for this testing. The 120 size

had been refridgerated for 2-3 months.

 

I am not looking to change developers at this stage. What I

am trying to figure out is why

I am having problems with a process which has worked just fine

for several years. The contrast is good, indicating that development

has occured in at least the higher exposure areas, the behaviour is

very much like I have underexposed the film, except that two lightmeters and three cameras say I have exposed correctly.

The question is what could have changed which I have missed???

Recently I have had a drop in apparent speed with Delta 3200.

I have used quite a lot of this film over the years, and generally

had good results rating it at ISO 800-1250. To investigate the speed

loss, I did the following:

 

1) Exposed at ISO 1000, processed in Rodinal 1+25 using Jobo CPE

machine. Frame at -3 stops has a density lower than 0.1 above FB+F.

I would estimate the speed at ISO 300ish. Contrast is good.

 

2) Exposed at ISO 1000, processed in Microphen using Jobo.

Results the same as above.

 

3) Exposed at ISO 1000, using a different camera, processed in

Microphen using a hand tank. I made sure that this time I used

different graduates, bottles, etc. etc. in case there was some

contamination of equipment. Result as above.

 

4) Exposed a 120 roll of film (above are 35mm), processed in

Microphen in Jobo. Result as above, low speed, good contrast.

 

5) Exposed a roll of FP4+ (35mm) and processed in Rodinal with the

Jobo. Results are perfect. Contrast and speed are exactly as

expected.

 

I am really at a loss to work out what has gone wrong. I have used

the same procedure as I have used for many rolls in the past. By

using different cameras, I doubt I have an exposure problem. The

exposure was measured using two hand held meters, and confirming that

the readings agreed. I have used two different developers. I have

used both Jobo and hand processing, in case there was contamination.

I tried both 35mm and 120 film in case I had a bad batch of film.

All chemicals were mixed with de-ionised water, and even this was

not all from the one batch (in case that was a problem). The FP4+

exposed and processed under the same conditions is spot on.

 

Has anyone seen anything like this, or know what may be causing this??