dk_thompson

<p>sorry--didn't understand that from your question. tmax rs and dd are both similar developers in that they're made for using in replenished tank systems. your problem is more of which one will pull the film rated at 125 EI rather than 400. with the tank I ran, I wouldn't been able to pull tri-x 2 stops. I might have done something like used a water bath halfway through to hold back the film. that's why I suggested asking the labs first. i don't think there is an answer in this for the way it's posted. it comes down to who is running the film more than which developer is best, because they're both about the same. </p>

<p>i never used a hardener with it, but the emulsion is very touchy when you work with it. still have a bunch of type 55 in the studio I work in, but we mostly use the negs for proofing. on the occasions when we did use the neg, I just processed it immediately back in the lab. used a small tray to soak it in the soln, and used the same tray to wash it in, or I put it on a hanger and ran it through the wash tank & LFN in our deeptank. the pack film 665 uses a 12% soln and is a little different, mostly in the proofing end. the 55 you can proof without clearing. I shot a ton of type 55 when it was in production. it's pretty forgiving in terms of clearing. the only trick is to wear some gloves or else you'll track sodium sulfite all over the place. it dries as mentioned above--a fine white powder. very slippery stuff on your hands as well.</p>

<p>to make the 18% soln, take the 16 ounces and mix it into 2000ml (70 ounces) of water. use it at around 70 degrees or so. doesn't take that long to clear a negative--couple of minutes. usually a little bit of gunk will be holding on--you can lightly pull that off. wash it for about 5 minutes, dip in wetting agent and dry. you can reuse the solution for a pretty long time, basically until it stops working.</p>

<p>i think you'll do best to contact the labs and just ask them if they're willing to pull your film by probably more than a stop if you're shootingt at 125EI. I say this from experience running deeptanks with TMAX RS. I would pull by 25% to get good negs off TX shot at 320-400EI. TMAX RS is a great tank developer--lasts a long time and is very clean working, but it doesn't handle films like TX or PX as good as the t-grain or delta films. The other thing is whether the labs are doing one-off runs of film, or running everything together etc. if all the film is run at the same time, then you can get good enough negatives, but in my experience here, you need to be shooting box speed in TMAX RS for that. not 125 EI. more like 640 or so for TX for a "normal" run. just my opinion--think you're looking at a custom run one way or the other. hope this helps. can't say much about DD other than that it's Ilford's replenished tank developer.</p>

<p>if you have problems with that url--the number for that artifact is 19XX.319.15. search on that. there are some others in that string of numbers--.18 etc. some of those are cased ambrotypes. i don't have much input into this database, but that image is one of mine. same with those ambrotypes.</p>

<p>you won't be able to scan it, because as noted above it's basically like shooting into a mirror. a daguerrotype is different from an ambrotype or tintype. it only looks like a positive when the light hits it exactly right, otherwise it can appear as a negative image. when you shoot them--you have to use a view camera or something (post processing) to correct the perspective. the basic setup is to have a black card on one side of the piece, and rake light across from the other side. i've always done it using a 4x5 view camera and used swings to correct--tilting the union case over to one side facing a black card. I think you might be able to do it using a digital camera shooting through a black card ( the card will mask out the camera and it might be big enough to reflect back into the piece--if you can offset it and then crop into it, but this is a big waste of image resolution--tilting it is probably better. here's a real low res scan from a database of something I shot on 4x5 chrome film. it's a toyo view camera aimed straight down on a daguerrotype propped up at an angle towards a black card. front & back swings corrected it. the lens here is a 150mm G-claron, this was probably on fuji provia 100F.<br>

<a href="http://collections.ncdcr.gov/dcr/ShowFullImage.aspx?19XX.319.15~0">http://collections.ncdcr.gov/dcr/ShowFullImage.aspx?19XX.319.15~0</a><br>

hope this helps. my opinions only as always.</p>

<p> </p>

you can cross polarize that stuff the same way as film, but you need a digital camera with a polarizer on the lens and copystand lighting,

with the ability to use polarizers on

your lights. I don't see any particular advantage besides longevity for rollfilm or the ability to cross-polarize in this scenario. with sheet film--

yes--there is still a definite advantage from an archival and a higher resolution point of view if you have a good setup. no denying you can do

finer contrast controls with scanning, but film in some ways is nicer, because of the ability to knock out surface textures, and the longevity

factor as well. expect about 50 years for acetate roll film in decent environment, 2-3x that for polyester. the final decision I guess is in the

ouput--do you want to print them in a darkroom or digitally, or will you scan the film for digital output? same goes with how much retouching

you want to do, and whether you can

extract the detail out of them with filters and development, or whether you can do a better job with the scanner. If you have the original prints,

then consider them to be the "archival" copy--as long as they're in decent shape. I work in an archive type environment and believe film to be

more long lived than a lot of the prints I have had to copy--but in practical terms, looked at within the life of how the copies would be used? I

would copy them however you feel most comfortable with. My opinions only/as always.

i think mohr's still around, try this link:

 

http://199.236.98.111/processor_14st.html

polypropylene is safe--the boxes would be okay. better than sleeves in many ways, except for the handling. sleeves have

problems with slip agents and other additives, even if they're labeled as "archival". best way to use sleeves for slides is to

use a mylar D single slide enclosure to hold each slide, then insert it into the page. this way the slide gets protection from

handling as well as potential damage from the page itself.

sure--that's one way--I run a deeptank line using tmax rs, although I experimented with XTOL several years ago in a smaller tankline. I used about 80ml per 8x10 sized rack, if memory serves correct. if it became overly dirty with sludge and whatnot, I strained that out, cleaned the tank and kept going. about every three or four months, I also did some aggressive replenishment of sorts--I drained out maybe a third of tank and topped it off with fresh chemistry. I would do that if my throughput dropped--the amount of film run in slower periods--as a way to try to keep the activity up. I use TMAX RS in a deeptank, and we run for about 4 months or so and then start over, we usually hit about 60-70% capacity in that time, never using it all the way--it's better to dump it a little early. XTOL--I was able to go for about a year more or less.

 

what I would do is don't add any replenisher for the first run. let that chew up the developer a little bit. the first few runs will be a little hot in terms of contrast--and then it will start to fall off in activity a little bit, at that point--replenish. you want to keep it at this state, the best way to monitor all this is with control strips and a densitometer, but you can eyeball it as well, if you know what a good neg looks like. if the contrast & speed fall off--add more replenisher. if it's too hot, back off. it will depend a lot on how much film you run through it on a regular basis. If it winds up that you don't use it enough--you'll use more replenisher in the end, and it may not be all that economical. whether you take some out & replace, or just add it, doesn't really matter that much. some people do, some don't, only really matters if you stand to overfill the tank, or you need to add more to make up for lost volume from carryover. hope this helps.

the storage temperature, relative humidity and exposure to light (dark storage) are

important. b/w film is more susceptible to humidity--color leans towards temp. every ten

degree drop in temp, doubles the life expectancy, but the RH should be pretty low as

well--30-50% or so. basically, if you freeze the film, at low RH and it's kept in the dark,

it will last longest--not as easy as it sounds, if you plan on accessing it much, or have

a lot of it to store as well--but it can be done on a small scale with a frost-free

refrigerator or freezer and the appropriate kind of enclosures--Light Impressions,

Gaylord Bros, University Products, Metal Edge and others all used (still do?) sell

"freezer kits" for film. Some like Gaylord or Hollinger had pamphlets also, outlining

storage issues. Probably currently, the best source for information would be the Image

Permanence Institute, in addition to a bunch of free downloads, like the "Preservation

Calculator" and the abbreviated version of the acetate film storage guide, they have a

publication on color film storage that is more current than Wilhlem's book, although

that's really quite good as well, and worth it for the parts about enclosure products and

cold storage. Hope this helps--my opinions only/even at home.

 

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/shtml_sub/cat_pubs.asp#color

EPY is an older film, like EPN (which I still shoot--cases in the freezer), it's known for accurate color rendition and was/is used for textiles and a lot of studio work like furniture, as well as interior architecture. I have shot Fuji 64T as well, and it's very close to it's EI, if not a little hot--64-80 EI. I don't particularly have a preference over 64T or EPY--it would probably come down to the subject matter. Anything with blues or blue-greens that needed accurate color repro, I would go with the kodak. same for daylight--EPN over anything else any time. hope this helps.

jack--the one-step dupe film kodak made, is long gone. discontinued a few years ago. the other way to do it, is by going through two steps. enlarge the neg and make an interpositive onto a sheet of film the size you need, and then contact that to get the working negative. when they make, or made, I guess--more archival duplicate negatives, this was the preferred method because of the control over the final negative. contrast and density can be fine tuned during the two steps---a panchromatic film was used for the positive, mostly because you could filter out stains and such on old negatives. the negative would have been made on ortho film. since you have modern negs to work with, you could use ortho film for both steps--this way you could work under a red safelight and use a film like Ilford Ortho Plus., or some of the ones that Freestyle sells.

 

I used to dupe negs using the kodak films, and doing a little of the two-step stuff, I always used ortho plus. In talking with kodak, looking for a replacement for the dupe film, they recommended TMX. TMX would probably work, but the places that do neg duplication, recommended that Delta 100 or PX be used instead. I talked with a guy who duped plates once, and he described using Kodak Pro Copy for both steps--Pro Copy is gone now as well, but with that you could control the contrast by exposure--so the shadow & highlight contrasts could be manipulated in both the positive and the negative.

 

I don't know if these methods are applicable really anymore in light of digital output. You do get a pretty "archival" master though using the two step method. The positive is the archival file, and the dupe neg is somewhat expendable. If you look at alt-photo process books and sites, you can find information about two step duplication. hope this helps.

the motion picture film is more hazardous than the still, because of the amount of base

material, and it's usually stored rolled up in cans as well. afik, there is no recorded

incident of a spontaneous combustion with smaller cut films and amateur roll films. kodak

did a study where they basically cooked a negative in an enclosed case and it took a

couple of days for it to self combust. the problem with nitrate is that it can't be

extinguished easily though, and burns very readily. it's also somewhat of an irritant in

certain quantities if you handle it much. treated as a hazardous material in an archival

sense. you can't ship it easily. you can't get rid of it easily either. probably the immediate

concern would be to isolate it from other photo materials--the offgassing can harm them.

old acetate negs deteriorate as well, just not the same way or with the same precautions.

good luck. lots of info is available--check with local archives or libraries etc. my opinions

only/not my employers.

if you can find them where you live--buffered/acid & lignin free paper envelopes are best. you want to try to keep the offgassing from reaching other materials. glasseine might be okay in a non-archival sense, especially acid-free glasseine. i've used regular 100% cotton envelopes before as well, and just changed them every couple of years. the important thing is to keep them cool & dry and not sealed up, and away from everything else as well. those ones that are turning the amber color and the example that's sorta bubbly in a way--those are farther along in deterioration than the others. you could sort out the negs that way, based on condition and work with those first. hope this helps. my opinions only.

try 15...10M is about a grade 2, or the equivalent of no filtration. 20 is just shy of 2 1/2.

the difference between the two, imho, is not enough to blow out a background. best way

to judge it is to use the filtration cheat sheet that would come with the paper--kodak,

agfa, ilford etc have (had) them. the corresponding CC numbers for the filer pack--grade

numbers. follow that as you would if using PC/VC filters. Start there, and if you can get the

concept of the VC filters--dialing in filter packs will be pretty easy. If that doesn't help--

start by looking at how contrast works in the first place--back to basics. skip the yellow/

magenta filters and use VC filters. hope this helps.

start with 64 ounces of water in a mixing container. add the part A (large bottle) to this

while stirring. stir a bit--minute or so--and then add the part B (small bottle or foil packet

depending on age) while stirring. stir for another minute, thirty seconds, or whatever--

don't overdo it. now add water to top off the amount--should be around a quart or

slightly less--stir that up & voila! you have a working solution of TMAX RS, stock or

replenisher depending on how you use it from there. if you choose to replenish--get

another box of the concentrate and repeat. one becomes the working solution, the other

the replenisher. the working--add 45ml per 135/36 or 8x10 equivalent of the replenisher

after use. you can get about 80 rolls of 135/36 out of a gallon of RS, and use for a few

months as well, if you do it right. Hope this helps.

they have an RC and a fiber version of that paper. the rc can be processed in machines using 2000RT or polymax RT, so it's reasonable to assume that it will be sorta like MGIV. RC papers are actually used in archival settings--they're accepted into preservation survey programs and the like, and have been for about 25 years or so now. The c-prints haven't made it yet, but some pigmented inkjets have. the problem with assuming that c-prints will be the same as b/w rc is the way the emulsion (silver halide) can be attacked in a b/w print and the way the dyes can fade in a c-print--it's not the same kind of deterioration. I would do as John Shriver suggested--get a print made and do an HT2 test on it, or maybe a better way would be to soak it for a few minutes in water, and then selenium tone (try 1:9 or stronger). If it isn't processed right, it will stain. If it is--the toning will only help it.

you might want to look into a small freezer kit--this isn't an endorsement of this product, btw, it's just what a quick google search turned up:

 

http://www.metaledgeinc.com/Products.tpl?cart=116546659356962&id1=21&id2=48&startat=1&--woSECTIONSdatarq=48&--SECTIONSword=ww&ran=08

 

you can get some more good information & tips here from this guide:

 

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/shtml_sub/msqr.pdf

 

hope this helps

try dunning photo:

 

http://www.dunningphoto.com/

I don't think relying on digitization alone is the way to go, if the original media is film.

one could digitize for access, and then use cold storage for the longterm storage if the

originals are on film--this is actually pretty much what is being done by archives & some

stock houses like Corbis (bettman collection). I work in part of this field--and one of the

places near me, just bought a Kodak film recorder of sorts, that will image electronic files

to polyester based b/w microfilm for longterm storage of the digital records themselves.

This is really where things are going in terms of archiving.

actually nothing is permanent, really, unless you go to the extremes of storage--which is basically freezing or below in a climate controlled vault or in an underground storage facility. outside of that, then, the best chance in terms of film is b/w silver halide on a polyester base, toned using sulfide, or polysulfide. acetate based b/w films don't have the same stability as the polyester based ones, but unfortunately a lot of popular b/w roll films are still on acetate, whereas the microfilm used in archiving and most b/w and some color sheet films, are on polyester.

 

the acetate films suffer eventually with a breakdown of the base, which is dependent on the temperature and humidity in storage. the dryer & colder it is, the longer the film will last. out in "normal" type conditions, the lifespan is relatively short compared to the polyester based films, regardless of how well they're processed or how "archival" the storage enclosures are. the color films have issues with the dye stability and in terms of light & dark storage, and the temperature--the colder & darker it is, the longer they last. With b/w, the silver halide emulsion is relatively stable, but still faces the same problems as prints in terms of pollution & contaminants--so that's why toning is sometimes included, but they moved away from selenium in the past decade or so, to the sulfide toners, after problems occured with selenium--plus the sulfide toners won't jack the d-max up like the selenium, since it has to be used in a strong dilution to be any good.

 

you can find a lot more information about this, if you're serious, by looking at the various preservation surveys run through archives--b/w film is what is used, although it's a mix of roll films and sheets. For archiving records, books and newspapers etc--all that is done on microfilm and there are extensive spec's they use for how the film is processed, how it is checked for quality, how to store it etc. In the end of that, the "life expectancy" (LE) measure of that is said to be 500 years. Much longer than any fiber based, resin coated or even b/w rollfilm out in normal conditions, which is pretty much why microfilm is still being used even in this digital age. my opinions only/not my employers.

wild guess--VPH?

XTOL can be replenished in the same way as TMAX RS.

I work in an in-house lab and we run tmax rs in a deeptank, mostly everything we run

now is 4x5. my repl rate is about 50ml for a 4-up rack. kodak spec's are about 45 or so. I

usually repl to top off the tank, in that if I will overfill it by the amount, depending on the

time period of the tank's life, I usually scale back the repl so i don't overfill the tank. if it's

later on, I often pull some out & replace.

 

used to run control strips, haven't in a while, as our use is dropping and we never come

close to exhausting the tank. I used to run a tank for a month and dump. as our use

started declining, I went to 6 weeks, and then 8. three months now is my limit, regardless

of how much we run. I know of a lab or two in town, that run it for 6 months though, with

much higher throughput. I always figured it at about 80 rolls per gallon though, and

actually dumped it when we hit 75%.

 

as for when to replenish? do the first run or two without replenishing--it will run a bit hot

at first, and you may need to cut your times by 10% or so. as the tank seasons, or gets

used up a bit, you'll see the activity drop a bit--this is when you want to start

replenishing. without running control strips, what I would do would be to eyeball your

contrast more or less, at whatever your "normal" time--with TMAX RS, it will be about 6-7

minutes at 75 degrees for most modern films. older films run at shorter times often. some

films can't be run easily...so eyeball the contrast, and adjust the repl around that. when

you start, use as little as possible--eventually you'll hit a sweet spot and you can use the

tank for a long time. in the end, you'll see the tank turn very cloudy--it will turn this way

early on btw, so don't worry--but it will begin to get milky and the contrast will drop off,

and if you try to continue to repl, more & more will be needed--it may be possible to just

turn the tank over completely by vigorous replenishment and keep on going, my opinion is

that it's not worth it. just dump & start over. it's not that expensive really--if you use a 3.5

gallon tank, you have to accept that. otherwise use a smaller tank.

 

hope this helps. btw-great tank developer for t-max, so-so with other films.