dk_thompson

Sal, I'll have to dig out Wilhelm's book, but it really doesn't

matter. We shoot for long term files. Unless we had a cold storage

vault here, I don't think color negs are going to outlast chrome film.

The majority of our transp. wind up printed in publications, and

textbooks, or else we dupe them down to 35mm and send these out in

mass publicity releases, or

use in slideshows. When we do exhibit production, we make Cibachromes,

or Cibatrans for this. I know it can be done digitally now, but we can

get it all done cheaper trad. with the vendors we use. I know it seems

like a no-brainer to shoot negs. for prints, but we shoot to document

our collection, and as a long-term file, not necessarily a fine art

print.

The film is more important for a long-term file.

The only drawback to Provia is that it's on an acetate base. Polyester

based films have much better stability than acetate. But, like I said,

with a state-of-the-art cold storage vault, all types of negs/prints

last a whole lot longer. On a less than scientific note here, I can go

to our pretty nice neg. files (not a cold vault) here, and pull out

some VPL that's not too old, and it looks kinda crappy. Along with XP2

rollfilm that loses density with age, and gains contrast...

Ellis, yeah that's a good speed for NPH, I've done alot of event

photography on NPH in roll sizes. Looks great at 320.

Edward, the majority of our stuff is done on either TMX or Provia 100,

but we do on occasion shoot NPS (at 120EI), and NPL (tungsten, at

120EI or so too). Since we're a museum, we don't shoot a whole lot of

color neg (stability reasons), but NPS looks great in 4x5. I don't

think Fuji has any 400 speed color neg. films(4x5), you may have to

check Kodak for that.

Hmm. Well, are you having problems with it? I've always found it to be

right on 64, or even a little hotter than that...

Stewart, sure I can give you some tips on all that. We've been running

a tankline here for at least ten years or so...we used to use D76,

replenished with D76R, but started having problems with it after a few

years. (not the same tank..) Our solution was to change over to TMAX

RS. But, TMX is our primary sheet film, so depending on what you use,

this may not be the best. So, what are you shooting? And what size

tank are you thinking of using?

Conrad, yeah it is expensive stuff, but it works. Rather than shooting

the neg. like a slide dupe, why don't you just make a high-quality

print (good range of tones) and just shoot a 4x5 copy neg. of it?

That's a

pretty cheap way to do it (providing you shoot 4x5..)You might also

want to look into Ilford Ortho Copy film for making an enlarged neg.

Yes, a flash would be the same as a "bump", takes me back to my stat

camera days...There's another Kodak film that I've never used, that's

called 5360 duplicating film. This is a one-step ortho film as well,

Freestyle has it listed at $6.95 for 50 4x5 sheets. I think it's

probably a graphic arts film on an actate base, but I'm not sure.If

you have a polaroid back, you could also use Type 55 in 2 steps as

well. I use this for internegs using a color head, and it works pretty

good.

Conrad, I've done a fair amount of this, mainly duping old nitrate

negatives, using Kodak Professional B/W Duping film- SO-132. This is a

one-step continuous tone Ortho film, with the speed of Azo pretty

much. You can get it in sheets starting at 4x5. Most of the negs that

I'm working on are usually from old roll film cameras, so I've used

this stuff mainly by contacting the film emulsion to emulsion. But, it

is possible to enlarge onto it as well. It's just pretty slow. I use

an old (modified) Burke & James contact printer for this, but in your

case, you should be able to get by with an enlarger. If you have some

Azo on hand, you can use this to get an idea of what your exposure

might be. I use DK-50 in a tank to dev. this stuff, and follow up with

selenium toning the film for permanence. This last step is optional,

but earlier versions of this film had some stability problems with

repeated light exposures, so if you were doing this for a long term

use, you might want to tone them (as any neg. really). The current

tech. sheet from Kodak lists D-76, and Xtol times as well. You can

also do it in 2 steps, although people used to use Super-XX pan, or

Commercial film for this. I suppose you could try Ilford Ortho if you

wanted to go this route. I suggest you try to get a copy of Kodak's

"Copying & Duplicating in B/W and Color". This is a great book, and

covers all this in detail. Agfa made a duping film as well, but I

think that's been discontinued too. I'm sure people will tell you to

do this digitally, but it is possible to make a fine dupe the old

fashioned way too. Let me know if you have any questions.

David, I don't have a definititive answer for this, but my gut feeling

is that if the 45C will take the 550, then it will take the smaller

405 back. These pack film backs are sorta thick, like an inch and a

half or so. So, the back has to be able to open far enough to

accomadate them. They don't work too well with some cameras. The 45C

looks very similar to the Omega 45D we have where I work, and we used

to use the 405 back with that, so...but, you really can't use the 405

back on some older cameras, like Speed Graphics with spring backs, and

even later ones with Graflok backs. They just won't open far enough.

My advice might be to just go for a 545i back, even if you're trying

to save money, because the 405 only has like 3x4 (about) image size,

and you'll have to use a mask on your ground glass for critical

composition (if you're picky) or just live with cropping out the edges

of your shot for proofing. Like I said, not a definitve answer, you

might want to check with Toyo again. Hope this helps.

Scott, we have a 545i holder here at work, and I have an older 545 at

home. The older 545 does have a more rugged construction, but it's not

as easy to service as the newer 545i holder. By this I mean, if you

have to take the holder apart if it gets jammed (which sometimes

happens) The lack of a timer doesn't seem that big a deal to me. Alot

of times I just count out the time. The pack film holders come in 2

sizes. There's a larger 550 size (I've never used this) and the

smaller 405 pack. I've also got one of these, they're pretty

economical, but can be a pain to fit into some older cameras. You also

can't check focus on Type 665 film without clearing the film, unlike

Type 55, so if you're using this stuff to check focus on a shoot, you

might want to consider this. The 405 image area is also smaller, so it

won't accurately reflect what your entire frame (maybe not a big deal

though), but neither does the 545 back either. You have to be careful

to check the groundglass, and not trust the polaroid blindly...(I have

learned this the hard way...)One last plus for the 545 holders is that

they have the biggest selection of film available to them. Hope this

helps.

Well, sorry for the confusion. Yes, they are the same manufacturer (i

guess) just from different time frames. Our Omega is a 45D. Our Toyo

is a 45GII. Two pretty different cameras. I don't know if Omega ever

had a model with rack & pinion fine focus. Maybe the last generation

models had this, I don't know. I wasn't meaning to be overly critical

of either model, I use them both almost daily. The Omega is a good

camera, it's pretty simple. Not a whole lot to go wrong. It's nice in

a way, because you can just use a few allen wrenches to tune it up

when it gets loose. The Toyo is a bit more complicated. What I was

referring to is the actual track part of the focus. You can't really

see this unless it's disassembled. It's kind of a bad design, that has

a certain amount of "slop" to it, that leads me to believe that if it

were (I hate to say this) a more expensive camera like a Sinar, I

imagine the design/materials would be better. I use this Toyo daily in

a working studio. As does another (and at times as many as 2 other)

photographers. So, if you were to use say just half that time, you

might never have a problem. That's what I meant with my comments about

a "working" camera. The Omega just lives on our copy stand now. That's

it's life, and it does it well. If I were starting out, I wouldn't

hesitate to suggest getting one of these, it's a reliable camera.

(even though we had to go to another source to get a new bellows). So,

that's my clarification. I wasn't suggesting that Mr. Norman buy an

Omega. I was trying to draw a corollary between simpler cameras, and

rugged field use. I Hope this clears things up.

Yeah, I've got one of the Gravity Works washers too. I finally broke

down and bought one a few years ago after using homemade washers, and

I even got one of those film baskets they make too. These are kind of

nice for washing off the rack. The thing I like about it is that in

really insures a change of water, you don't have to stand there and

monitor your film. I wish they made one for a 4-up size hanger though.

I'd love to get rid of our quick-dump tank here at work. As to whether

or not it's better than any of these other suggestions, I don't really

think so. It works really well though.

Yeah, you need to be using TMAX RS too. I haven't used TMAX dev. with

the sheet film, so I can't comment on what this "fog" is that you all

are talking about, but TMAX RS works great in a tank (replenished).

Very clean.

I have to agree with Pete. I'm not 100% sure (without actually seeing

your film) but it doesn't sound like an agitation problem exactly. One

thing I've noticed with hangers is if you don't have a sufficient

water flow rate (providing you're washing them on the hangers)

sometimes scum from the wash will cling to the edges of the clip on a

hanger. If you don't provide a little agitation in the wash tank as

well, this stuff will dry as a deposit on your film...and will

eventually leave a stain (not good). Several years ago we had an

intern here who kept getting these odd marks on his film, that weren't

agitation marks. In the end, this is what it turned out to be. At the

time, though, it took a while to figure out. Good luck with whatever

it is.

Conrad, yeah I think they probably do. At least anyone running a large

E6 tank line would be concerned with pH at some point, as well as

spec. gravity. I have never done this for a b&w deep tank, I haven't

run a b&w control strip here in at least 7 years...we do check the sp.

gravity when we mix up our E6, though. Not all the time, but it is

important to do everything the same way (with that proc.). As far as

pH, we don't have a meter. But we do "tweak" the color biasing on the

color dev., based on what our control strips say. For us, we usually

have to add Sodium Hydroxide to the c.d. to adjust the pH. I think if

you wanted to test the actual chemistry (i.e. mixed Xtol), you would

need an electronic pH meter. I've got a book here that lists a model

that's good for E6, it's a bit dated, but it's under $100. I'm sure

you could pick one of these up from a science lab supplier. If you

were just checking your water, you could probably use a tropical fish

water test kit, to check for hardness, pH, stuff like that. If you

wanted to check the sp. gravity, Kodak can probably tell you which

hydrometer to use for that. They do have a process manual for b&w but

it's not available online. (the E6 manual is pretty $$ too). They do,

however, have a publication online (Pub. O-3) that's called "B&W Tips

and Techniques for Darkroom Enthusiasts". There's alot of good info.

in here regarding repl. developers, etc. It's interesting how they

talk about adjusting dev. times in TMAX RS by tweaking the pH as well.

Again, what does it all mean. You got me!? But, I think the message is

that this stuff is sensitive to just how it is mixed up, if it's

anything close to E6, it could be very finicky....

You can get the Xtol MSDS sheet online from Kodak's professional site.

I don't know about TF-2, but any manufacturer of chemistry is required

by law (US) to supply their safety sheets, so it shouldn't be too hard

to get this info. Hope this helps.

Ellis, Okay we ran our first control strip since last November today.

My boss saw the little comment I made the other day so...anyways the

strip came out almost perfect. The speed in the blue (LD) was a little

off, but it was still within tolerance according to Kodak. The film's

been looking great, so I guess we'll run more strips and see if this

is a trend.

<p>

The problems were were having earlier were centered around the purity

of the nitrogen we were using, the pH of the color dev. and a pre-wet

on the machine. Once we got all this hammered out, our film has been

looking real good. It is interesting that Kodak has reformulated their

smaller E6 kits. Since they've eliminated formaldehyde from the

stabilizer, they now skip the wash between the color dev. and the

pre-bleach. I've talked to a few people who still run their Wing Lynch

machines this way, but according to Kodak, the pH is very important of

the color dev. carried over to the pre-bleach. They said it would

affect the long term stability of the magenta in the film, and that

the new final rinse is really close to just photo-flo...

Is there anyone out there in this group who's running E6, especially

in a Wing-Lynch??

Steve, sorry that my answers caused the topic to drift so. My gut

reaction (again I am not a Jobo user) would be that if you are only

going to be doing b&w, and that's all you ever think you will do, then

why pay for the extra control? Unless of course this cooling solenoid

can actually function in a water-chilling capacity. This might be nice

if you live in are with not so cold tap water, and you are trying to

run a water jacket in the summer time. I suspect it has more to do

with E6/C41 proc. though. One thing to think about is whether or not

you'd be limiting yourself in some way, if you did decide to run color

someday. Hope this helps, and no more comments from me on this one..

Conrad, I don't know if you're interested in any of this, but if you

view the tech. data on the Kodak site, they have some pretty extensive

tips about mixing Xtol. It almost reminds me of mixing up E6, the way

they describe it. In addition to being sensitive to hard water, they

give you the aim points for what the specific gravity, and the pH of a

"correctly" mixed up stock (straight working) soln. of Xtol should be.

Now, I haven't done any of this with my tank line, but I haven't had

any problems either. The reason why I don't run TMX through this is

that I am very used to the way TMX responds to TMax RS (it's what we

run where I work), so when I ran it through my Xtol line, the results

were a little different, and I like to be able to use developers I can

predict. Which is not to say that Xtol won't work, it's just I like

TMAX RS alot. Now, when I mix up E6, I worry about pH, specific

gravity and water quality alot. If you look at the specs. for other

developers like D76, T Max, etc. Kodak mentions nothing about this

stuff up front. Now, it could be that in a process control manual,

they have this info., but not on the general tech. sheet. What does

any of this mean? I don't know, I'm not a chemist, but there has to be

a reason why they list it there.

<p>

Ken, I have never seen that. Isn't PEC-12 usually used for non-water

soluable marks? I was going to suggest that maybe you were picking it

up in your wash water (or any other step), but since it sounds like it

only happens with TMX in Xtol, I'm stumped.

I, too, agree with the others. We have both types of easels, and were

trying to save money by ordering the Beseler in 16x20 size, but in

retrospect I wish we had gone with a Saunders. I'm more inclined to

just not use that easel at all when making prints that big, as it's

never had the "feel" that the Saunders easels have.

Well, that answers my question I guess. When I have shot tech pan, I

used it to copy old faded charts/maps- not necessarily a pictorial use

I

guess, so that's where I was coming from. I was using stuff like D-11

to boost the contrast. The concept of contrasty negs. with Diafine is

new to me, but maybe I'll try some tech pan, and just see how it

looks. Are you doing this in roll film? If any of you all are

interested, the divided dev. article I was talking about was in the

Dec. '93 issue of C&D mag. It was by Steve Anchell, so I assume all

this stuff found it's way into his two books. Thanks again for

reminding me of the nature of tech pan, let me know how your tests

with other films play out.

Geez you all are making me nervous about my tank line (Xtol) here in

my home darkroom. I've been running a small tank line (1 gal. tanks

with floating lids) for about 2 years now. I change out the stop/fix/

perma wash monthly, but I've only started completely fresh twice. I'm

a low volume user, so I aggressively replenish, and probably turn the

tank over every other month or so. This way, I don't have to preseason

the dev. I was using TMAX RS, but I read an article about Xtol, where

they were basically saying Kodak had developed it as a long life deep

tank dev. So, I thought I'd give it a shot. Kodak has alot of info. on

their site about Xtol in deep tanks. You can get aim points for

specific gravity, all that process control stuff. I've found it to be

a great developer for trad. films, but have less success with TMX in

4x5, so I still have to default to TMAX RS for that. I use the 5 l

packs for the repl. & keep it in a spigot tank with a floating lid. I

have encountered the caking problem, but only in the smaller packs.

The only thing I really don't like about it, is the fine dust involved

with mixing it up. I have to immerse the bags in the water, and just

be careful. If I get excessive buildup in the tank, I just filter this

out. Except for the problems with TMX, I've found this to be a

reliable dev. But then, I'm using it in a straight stock solution, not

diluted as you all are. It's just been the cleanest, longest lasting

tank dev. I've ever used.

Ellis, yeah I know that's a bad habit...we really don't have that much

of a problem with control. It's frustrating in a way with a one-shot

machine, because so much of your "control" is lost anyways. We have to

occasionally correct the pH of certain solutions, and we're really

meticulous with mixing, as far as no contamination (everything in it's

mixing containers), and we check sp. grav. with hydrometers. We had

the most problems, for about a year at least we seemed to be running

about 5 pts. magenta, we were running plots daily, and were on the

phone with Kodak/Fuji guys alot. We got it down finally to 2.5 pts.,

and then Kodak changed their chemistry to the new 1.5 liter kits (we

have a 5 gal. Wing Lynch), and we get this chem. really cheap on a

state contract. So, we had to retune it all to this new stuff. But

actually it seems to be so much better. There are some new changes in

the process (ha ha, don't you hate it when they do that?), so our card

won't work exactly the same (we have to step over a wash between the

color dev. and the pre-bleach!), but this new stuff runs really good.

So, long story I guess (boring too), but we've gotten a bit lazy. The

biggest problem we have now, is with our Intellifaucet,

which has gotten real buggy...

<p>

I'll look into the filter. Both of us (2 photographers) did our

prerequisite stint in the High Point furniture studios, so we do some

fancy flagging of the lights with all sorts of home-made dots &

fingers...but we shoot strobes instead of the hot lights you'd find

over there. Some antiques can really suck up alot of light, it's

amazing really. Thanks for the advice, I'll chastise my boss on Monday

about the E6 proc. control!

Bill, I haven't shot Tech Pan in ages, so I can't comment too much

about that, but I'm curious about your results anyways. Why did you

limit the time in the second bath to 45 sec.? With Diafine, you can

sometimes increase contrast just a bit (not too much), by using more

time in the first bath. But this would usually be 3-5 min. per bath.

With really minimal agitation. I think the reason why your negs are

contrasty probably has to do with the low time in the second bath,

along with whatever your EI was. Because you say there is thin shadow

detail in some of the shots. It may be hard to tell what the best EI

for Tech Pan would be without going for a longer time in bath B. But,

then again, that may be a good way to add contrast too. My experience

with Diafine is centered more around trad. films, and some TMY/TMZ.

Ocassionally we'll shoot exhibit documentation photos, and use Diafine

to tame the excessive contrast of a dark gallery. We really just place

our exposures at whatever the deepest shadow is that we want detail

in, and just let the highlights fall in place. It works really well.

TMY can be shot at EI 500, or even it's reg. speed. A thicker film,

like Tri-X, can be shot much higher, like maybe two stops. I'd be

curious to know what your film would like at say, 5 minutes in bath B.

Good luck with your further experiments!

I've heard many stories like that too. But I really am a deep tank

person myself for b&w. I only mentioned the Wing Lynch because I could

never bring myself to pay as much money for a Jobo, despite all the

fantastic things I keep reading about them. Yes, you could buy a

rotting wing lynch for less than the cost of a manual jobo, and they

probably would all come from newspapers that have gone digital...6

rolls a day is nothing in a deep tank. Even a home made setup using

PVC drain pipe tubes could handle that & be left up permanently (as

was done at newspapers too.) Oh well, I'm not trying to stir up

trouble

here, really, but it just seems like by the time you get everything

set up, and attend to the processor, and knock it down/dry the tubes

out for another run, that you could have just run the film through the

tanks and have been done. I better stop now while I can...

Jan, thanks. I may try that next time we shoot a contrasty scene. We

routinely shoot things like old dark wooden washstands with marble

tops...alot of flagging off lights. Maybe we can squeeze out a bit

more latitude this way? So, you're just cutting back about a minute in

the first dev. right? I guess the actual amount of that pull would

rely on the type of chrome film you were shooting though. (Kodak vs.

Fuji) We can figure out the color shift. We really only mess around

with the densitometer if our color starts getting way off. As we're

using a Wing-Lynch (one-shot) it's not like we have the same controls

that you probably have in a tank line. Thanks for the tip, it might

save the day for us sometime.