chris_raney1

<p>Actually, I tossed all of it and went back to the Vestal formula. But if I try the PF formula, I'll be forced to experiment with the solution B, not knowing how much sulfite I should include in that formula. I suppose I could split the sulfite equally between A & B (as anecdote has it Vestal did, after forgetting to which bottle it should be added). </p>

<p>The beauty of the original, and perhaps even the original split formula was that bromide needn't be added to the mix. The sulfite was the secret, obviously.</p>

<p>But I'm here to learn, so I just might try it. </p>

<p>Wow, now we have a discussion going on! And yes, I live a bohemian existence in an old garage apt with neither central air nor heat, so the chemicals <em>did</em> get chilly that night. But they perhaps dipped no lower than 60 degree F, and the other chemicals weren't affected. I whipped-up the standard Vestal formula that does take 50 grams per litre of sulfite in the B mixture, and the next day everything was clear and lovely in the glass bottle.</p>

<p>Obviously, 60 grams per litre is a heavy saturation of Twenty Mule Team Borax. Yeah, that's right, I've been using the stuff out of the grocery store for years now and it's never acted up on me before. Though in truth the Vestal B solution only calls for 2 grams of borax per litre--I bump that to 16 grams, and this plus the 400 grams of sulfite in that gallon--which is then cut in half for a working solution of B--has always mixed up clean and clear for me.</p>

<p>Sodium sulfite in the solution B, is the answer? Should I simply default as Vestal did and mix the sulfite 50/50 between solutions A and B? </p>

<p>Thanks for the lecture, Alan, but you missed the question: why does solution B, a solution of a gallon of distilled water and 240 grams of borax simply precipitate into crystals in the bottom my my glass jug? None of my other chemicals has ever done this: not pre-packaged Kodak F-5 hardening fixer; not my sodium sulfite concentrate (for hypo-clearing); nor any of my developers; nor my scratch-made, non-hardening F-24 fixer I use for paper prints to be toned. </p>

<p>Solution B is a use-and-discard chemical; the stuff in the bottle has never come in contact with a photographic emulsion. When I used the Vestal B formula of 2 grams of borax to 50 grams of sodium sulfite there was never this crystallization. Yes, I just spent my afternoon whipping up a new batch of Vestal formula, but I still want to solve this mystery so I can see if the Formulary recipe is a superior developer. </p>

<p>I don't know about the rest of you, but I just love to solve one of these old-school (as my students say) conundrums! So, what the hell turns the pure borax solution into gunk? Would adding sodium sulfite to the solution solve this chemical suspension problem?</p>

<p>Lately, I've decided to experiment with different formulas of divided D-76. So far I've used Vestal's version of the mix with very good results. Then I began thinking that perhaps Photographer's Formulary might have improved on the formula, so I happily whipped-up their version and poured it into my lovely, brown glass bottles. Solution B called for 60 grams of borax per litre, so I dissolved 240 grams in heated, distilled water to make a gallon.</p>

<p>The next day the bottom of the bottle looked like there had been an overnight frost; a substantial portion of the borax had precipitated out and had formed into large crystalline clumps. I shrugged my shoulders, poured the solution into my glass Griffin beakers, stirred it up, dissolving what I could (I was about to use it, so I didn't heat it up) then filtered the solution back into the bottle.</p>

<p>When I unstrung part of a roll of film during the wash cycle I kept unspooling, waiting for an image to appear...though there was none. Both rolls of film I had just developed were completely blank...as if they had been unexposed. In a moment much more painful than a rookie's mistake, my precious, irreplaceable images...were gone. </p>

<p>Vestal's solution B calls for a mere 2 grams of borax per litre, though it is mixed in solution with 50 grams of sodium sulfite. How in the world could a bit less than Formulary's 60 grams--given the crystals I had filtered out--not have been able to render an image for me? Would I be answering my own question by suggesting that the sodium sulfite is the savior, and perhaps is the true and necessary accelerant in Vestal's mild borax solution B? </p>

<p>The question I originally intended to pose was this: is there anything I can safely mix in with that heavy amount of borax that will keep it from crystallizing? Assemble, wisened alchemists, and give me your thoughts. </p>

<p>I keep a solution of about 6 grams in a brown glass litre bottle diluted with nothing else. I use it for my Maxim Muir paper developer, and it appears to work wonderfully with no preservative, or otherwise. My base chemical is actually an old pound of Kodak's Anti-fog No. 1 purchased at a camera swap over a dozen years ago. <br>

So I'm thinking shelf-life is more or less...indefinite. </p>

<p>I appreciate all the responses, yet, as a teacher I'm rather shocked at the poor reading skills exhibited here. I've explained that I use the packaged F-5 only for film, not prints. Though I should have explained that I do live in a tropical climate, so hardening of the film is important.</p>

<p>However, how can I respond to those who suggested I check my water supply, when I've explained I use distilled? As far as mixing goes, I mix in glass, Griffin beakers, so container contamination is not an issue. I've also mentioned I filter the chemicals the next day. </p>

<p>Hmm...poor grades for most of you; kudos to those who asked pertinent questions related to the information I left unstated. </p>

<p>This still leave the black speck problem unresolved, though. </p>

<p>I brew up most of my black and white chemicals from scratch, though there are a few I still purchase in the package; one of these is Kodak's standard F-5 powered, hardening fixer that I use with my film. It works wonderfully--of course--and I've used it for many years. But something I've noticed recently that's a little disquieting is that there are tiny little black specs to be found floating in the freshly mixed solution.</p>

<p>I'm meticulous in the way I whip-up my chems, and I have always used distilled water for everything except the washing cycle (though the water is doubly filtered during this process), so these little black nits aren't a result of filthy conditions or improper mixing.</p>

<p>Lo and behold I've seen these same little black specs in the sodium sulfite I purchase from a local chemical supplier that I use in almost all of my chemical solutions. I suspect that stuff comes from China, because the bulk sodium thiosulfate they sell me that I use to make non-hardening paper fixer, does. So am I to gather that Kodak is obtaining this same black-spec-filled sulfite for its F-5, and perhaps it's other chemicals? Or answer me this: are Kodak chemicals now made in China? </p>

<p>Whatever these little nits are I do know they certainly didn't drop out the south-end of north-bound insects, because if they were insect poop with would dissolve quite handily with little problem (might give the film a nice patina...who knows?). And honestly, I filter all of my solutions the day after they've settle down from mixing, so these specs honestly don't present any problem to me.</p>

<p>I'm simply curious. What are my insoluble nits, and where did they come from?</p>

<p>I learn far more than I contribute to this forum, and that's its beauty. Barry Thornton is a new name for me, and I'm glad I clicked on this posting.</p>

<p>As for my own experience with divided development, I've been using David Vestal's, D-76 formula from Anchell's<em> Darkroom Cookbook</em>. Since my concern over the years has been exactly how to develop tropically--68 degrees F is simply impossible to maintain in the Southern U.S.--I've since stopped using sodium sulfate as an anti-swelling agent. I no longer use a stop bath, either. And I have to say that after trying out Rodinal, HC-110, Microdol-X, a few Illford solutions, and what-have-you over the years, I am now producing wonderfully consistent negatives with Tri-X and Plus-X that I've never achieved before. </p>

<p>If I know I'll need to increase the developing contrast of a particular roll of film I will develop it alone, and simply increase the agitation. Another little technique I use is allowing the developing tank to sit for a solid minute immediately after final pour-off of solution B. This way the film has a chance to exhaust all development in the highlights without allowing the shadows to get too dense. </p>

<p>If you've found the performance in D-76 that pleases you Karen, don't change (I have, and I won't). Of the four chemicals used in D-76 only metol and hydroquinone will have to be ordered, and they're really not that pricey if you order them by the pound, at least.</p>

<p>The sodium sulfite and borax are as cheap as dirt when purchased from a local chemical supplier. And since the sulfite is a skin irritant I always use Nitrile gloves--and eye protection--when I mix and use my chemicals. But let your students do that. I'm a teacher as well, and a firm believer in child labor. </p>

<p>When I preview and san as 'normal' it reduces the entire scan to one simple, tiny frame, Stuart. I don't think I've accomplished anything.</p>

<p>Reading further into the minutia of problems, it appears that extremely dark backgrounds and astronomical shots fall under the category of 'unrecognizable films'. And from there I still haven't found how to remedy my solution.</p>

<p>I've been thrilled with the ease and service of my new Epson scanner, however, I've run across a little problem that I can't find a solution to in the help guide.</p>

<p>Whenever I scan negatives where I've photographed someone against what is essentially a totally black background (and this has also happened with night shots), the scanner will not properly index on my negatives. Invariably I'm getting cut off scans with some of the next frame scanned as well. Try as I might I can't seem to find the proper solution to aligning the scanner path to compensate for this. All I'm reading in their help guide is how to crop the image in the scanner, not how to adjust the scan path.</p>

<p>Which one of you wisened heads has an easy cure for my little problem?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I agree, John and Craig. And thank <em>most</em> everyone for the sage advice. And again, yes, most of the responses here have only confirmed my original assumption that display rights would necessarily be retained by my school district.</p>

<p>As far as Jerry's somewhat incoherent comments go: if my hobby dissuades some of the kids from shelling out their precious few dollars to a mall hack for fuzzy, miserable-looking photographs, then I'm damned happy to put a small dent in his/her business.</p>

<p>You're quite a harsh critic, John. My original interest was in providing an online gallery where the kids could have access to their pictures without having to dig through so many awful snapshots that clutter our site's photo stream. As it is now you have to click on a handful of links before you get to my work; the kids are getting lost in their attempts. I'll ask the tech-guy at school if he can add a specific link to take searchers directly to my galleries.</p>

<p>I'm obviously guilty of not being humble about my work, certainly compared to the unedited, often blurry and out-of-focus pictures that are uploaded to the school's site willy-nilly. My work has not only been appreciated by administration but enthusiastically embraced by them. For inner-city kids whose previous photographs have been only those snaps taken by throw-down, digital toys or by shopping mall hacks with their diffusion lenses my pictures are--quite honestly--remarkable by comparison.</p>

<p>As far as the <em>creepiness</em> goes? Gee, I don't know. My purpose isn't to market photos to anyone. Actually, it's for a rejuvenation in film photography after a many-year long hiatus and a radical switch from large-format, urban squalor work to small format, street-photography. I was very much involved in Houston's amateur photography scene years ago, and was both a supporter of and participant in FotoFest. I'm re-honing my skills to return to the fray.</p>

<p>As far as the studio idea? No thanks. Other than having sold the occasional print in the past--and perhaps will do so again in the future--the idea of hanging up a shingle and doing studio work would only put me off my beloved hobby. </p>

<p>Good advice from everyone, thank you. And yes, the way I'm doing it now is handing a flash drive to an administrator who then edits out whatever she thinks is inappropriate (mostly of kids she doesn't like!). From there the drive is handed off to the tech-guy who uploads them to the school's flickr account. So yeah, the things wind up in the public domain anyway.</p>

<p>Technically my fingerprints have been washed clean, though by my request the tech guy has listed my name on those various files where the pictures reside. Be damned if I'll allow anyone else to claim credit for my work! Other than this I have never displayed any student image on my personal site.</p>

<p>I only wish the kids could get to my named files without having to wade through dozens of files containing hundreds of unedited, pedestrian uploads from my colleagues. Why should I be humble, here?</p>

<p>I have a question that no doubt several of you wiser heads can answer. I'm a middle school teacher, and this past year I'm been lending my talents in capturing images of the kids for our school's website. All parents are required to sign a media release form at the beginning of each school year in order for their child's image to appear in school publications, newspapers, or even on television.</p>

<p>Now that school is over for the year, I'm still scanning my negatives and Photoshopping the images. I've emailed a number of the pictures to some of my students, those whose email address I have.</p>

<p>To get to my question: Would it be legally permissible for me to create a folder in either Myspace or on Flickr and post other students' pictures? (I don't have log-in access to the school's website). For those students who will receive word-of-mouth that their images are floating out there in the Cloud...could there be a backlash on me, legally? Or since I'm not benefiting financially from this (not even being reimbursed for film) am I allowed to post whatever tasteful images I wish?</p>

<p>I have to add my two-cents worth here on Tri-X development. I don't know where you live, Jun, but in Houston maintaining 68 degrees Fahrenheit is simply impossible, especially since the wash water remains at 80F most of the the year. There are countless developers out there, and I've tried many of them over the years. But in my broiling climate it was an impossible battle to maintain conditions.</p>

<p>Tropical development was a natural for me. Damn the ambient temperature. I cooked along happily by adding sodium sulfate to my scratch-made D-76 until I read about divided D-76. I'm now a convert, and my life has never been simpler. Here's David Vestal's formula I use:</p>

<p>Solution A: 2g Metol, 100g sodium sulfite, 5g hydroquinone to make a liter.<br>

Solution B: 50g sodium sulfite, 2g borax to make a liter.</p>

<p>I pre-soak the film in water for 1 minute, then soak in Solution A for 4 minutes. Actual development in Solution B is done for three minutes, and after emptying the tank I allow it to rest in my kitchen sink for a full minute so the developer can exhaust itself in the highlights. Then I pour in Kodak's F-5 fixer for 10 minutes. All chemicals are mixed with <em>distilled </em>water.</p>

<p>As a school teacher, I now have this summer off, so I've been giving experimentation with pyro some thought. But short of having a chemical revelation, I'm convinced I've found just the right Tri-X formula for life.</p>

<p>I have little patience for black and white film photographers who say that powders are too messy and complicated. Hell, film's a mess; if they feel that way, then they should succumb to the witless ease of digital photography.</p>

<p>Personally, I'll never do black and white any other way.</p>

<p>And yes, whichever way you choose to develop, practice with a few sacrificial rolls first. Your Italian work is too damned precious to screw up. </p>

<p>I'm in need of a better flash unit for my Leica M4-P than the Nikon Speedlight I'm currently using. It will be used off-camera on a flash bracket (an old Vivitar); I can't stand walking around with a top-heavy camera. Since my camera has no circuitry to fry am I still in danger of damaging my it if I get my hands on a Vivitar 285 with its high trigger voltage? Be damned if I want to have to send my body off for another expensive repair.</p>

<p>Since there is no TTL communication between camera and flash I'm open to suggestions on a generic, hot-shoe coupler. I don't like the idea of that P.C. cord getting in the way as it is so near the eyepiece.</p>

<p>No, I don't use Indicator Stop, Frank. The only proprietary chems I use are F-5, because it's worth the 5 bucks a package not to go through the hassle of making a 5-ingredient fixer, Kodak Selium toner, Photo-Flo; but because the latter leaves surface scum my wetting agent for film is Edwal's LFN. I play the role of Henry Jekyll for all the rest of my chemicals. </p>

<p>I'll simply use two trays of F-24 this weekend when I print. And yes, I'll certainly have to dial down the amount of selenium I use in my toning bath since it will no longer have to penetrate a hardened emulsion.</p>

<p>I think you might have cured my problem. Funny that neither Adams nor Anchell mentioned this problem with a two-tray, non-hardening second bath. Thanks for letting me pick your brain, Frank.</p>

<p>Hmmm. You've made a valid point, Frank. As it is I'm using so much Kodak Selenium toner to penetrate that initial hardening caused by the first, F-5 bath that the ammonia smell is nearly driving me out of the darkroom, even with the fans blowing and the door open. I neither squeegee nor otherwise touch the emulsion on my prints, so perhaps I can simply do away with the Kodak product and its hardeners in the first fixing bath. As adventurous as I've been with chemicals I'm still little more than an acolyte to Ansel Adam's scripture of procedure.</p>

<p>I think you've opened my eyes, here.</p>

<p>I've been mixing F-24, non-hardening fixer as a second bath in conjunction with pre-packaged F-5 for my fiber paper for some time now. I often test the effectiveness of the F-24 by using using it to fix a test strip for about 30 seconds, whereupon I pull it out, drain and rinse it and expose it to strong light. Days later there's no obvious degradation of the image, so I'm reasonably assured the archival nature of my full fixing sequence should be adequate (ask me in a century). </p>

<p>But I still don't know why this stuff goes cloudy on me. Kodak's F-5 is terribly milky when it's mixed, but then it settles down the next day to a delightfully clear mixture. But since I make only a few prints on weekends I often filter and pour my fixers back into their respective brown glass, gallon jugs for use next time. The F-5 remains clear, but the F-24 (made from scratch according to Hoyle: Anchell's recipe in the Darkroom Cookbook) turns into what appears to be weak dishwater even after only a handful of prints.</p>

<p>I searched the archives on this site and back in '05 there was this same complaint. The solution proffered to the questioner was to add a bit of acid to the mixture. But duh...this is a non-hardening fixer, after all. The sulfite and the bifulsite play the role of preservatives, so I believe. Is this cloudiness an indicator this solution is degrading, as would a straight sodium thiosulfate solution? This chemical is too much of a hassle to make to declare it a use-and-dump elixir.</p>

<p>Do any of you wisened alchemists out there with your collective wealth of chemical lore have a contemporary answer for me? </p>

<p>They're not exactly bands, Mukul. I probably misstated what I meant. But there are several absolutely straight, tiny scratches that go across the negative. Actually, there are over a dozen of these lines, and looking at that offending negative I attempted to print last night these scratches extend across the entire 5-shot negative strip; and as a consequence across the entire five feet of film! And no, Lex, My scanner is not causing this problem, because this phenomenon exists on strips of negatives I haven't scanned. I have an 8x loupe that confirms this damage is physical.</p>

<p>So, Will. You think maybe it's the pressure plate that's leaving these scratches on the backside of the film? That would make sense, though I had convinced myself it was on the emulsion side. I like your technique, but I'm afraid if I buff off any anodizing layer from that plate I'll cause reflections problems on the negatives. I will definitely look in to the Teflon lubricant, though.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how your suggested technique would work, Bob. Since it's a Leica once that film cassette is in the camera it's not coming out until the film is rewound, so I wouldn't know where in the process the film's being scratched: on the advance or the rewind. </p>

<p>I suppose I need to do a side-by-side comparison with a roll of film right out of the box. I can cap the lens and run a roll through the camera, then develop it along with that virgin roll. But I'm sure not having exposed emulsion to contrast against the scratches wouldn't be of much help in determining the problem, but I'll try it.</p>

<p>I'm printing with an old Omega D-2 with a condenser head and a filter drawer. I know that cold light heads will often diffuse dust and scratches, and I actually have an equally old Omega cold light head for this enlarger; but I do need that filter drawer. Hey, I just thought of something: I could try placing the filter atop the negative carrier and see if that worked. </p>

<p>Thinking out loud here. I just wish this were a problem I could solve with my Dremel and an emory wheel!</p>