Tuesday, July 13, 2010

We will return on August 1

Or thereabouts. Plenty of other things to do in hot July than play with reagents and lenses. Internet traffic and even car traffic has dropped in the past couple of days as the annual lull begins, leading up to September.

How about someone mixing up some reagent, and sending in a result? We'd like to see it.


awldune said...

Not surprised you could use a break!

Does this reagent require a film with quick development time? I am curious to try it but only have FP4 and HP5 handy.

Also, can the soapy ammonia be found in hardware stores or is it something you'd need to get from a formulary source? I have the other ingredients on hand.


Bob Crowley said...

I think you could add a few drops of Dawn dishwashing soap if you can't find ammonia at the grocery store with soap in it. It really doesn't matter I am sure.

Give the FP4 7 minutes at 75F. The slowness is caused by the way the emulsion is made, and certain emulsions take longer for the chemicals to penetrate. Also, this is a self terminating process, so you can't really overdo it. If you see some silver in your reagant afterward don't worry, as I have used the same reagent three times or more and the only downside is you need to use more sodium sulfite afterwards with the older reagent. You might lose 1/2 stop of speed, but don't reject a slightly thin negative until you have a chance to scan it in or print it.

This is so quick to mix and not critical! It works!!! All hail Quaill and his experiments that led to this.

awldune said...

Thanks, I will try to test it out in the next week or so. Would it make sense to expose the film at 50 EI?

Bob Crowley said...

I wouldn't bother trying to adjust speed right away. The processing is so quick and easy I'd run a roll through on some test subjects and take a look. I am sure you will get usable negatives.

awldune said...

This might be an obvious question, but can I scale up the recipe if I maintain the proportions? I am planning to try 4x5 in a BTZS-style tube, but am not sure it will cover fully with only 25ml of fluid. Double that would seem safer.

awldune said...

I tried doubling the recipe (8ml HC110, 6ml fix, 30ml ammonia, 2g sodium sulfite.)

Wish it didn't stink quite so much! Might be an incentive to try the NaOH.

I am getting negs that are thin overall but have usable shadow detail. Will try to post a scan later.

Bob Crowley said...

Yes by all means you can double it if you think it won't cover the film or scale it up any amount you need.

Bob Crowley said...

I started out with the negs a bit thin, maybe one stop. So, you did it! Great place to start - easy to do too.

Don't put your nose over the ammonia! It's not that bad, is it? But you are right that is another reason to use a different alkali.

My old 55 negatives - the best ones - are actually thin. I can "read a newspaper through them".

awldune said...

To see what I am getting:

Reagent results have relatively thin highlights even when massively overexposed (did not show overexposed results, but they are basically the same). Wonder if temperature accelerates development versus fixing at different rates, i.e., higher (or colder?) temp might allow developer to work longer before fix kills it off? My house is 75F.

Negs seem to have a slight "warm" tone compared to regular diluted HC. Have you noticed this.

Bob Crowley said...

Not a bad result for a first try! You do have quite a contrast ratio there, I assume, between the lamp, which might be very bright, and the background. I'd want to see how that film does out in daylight too before changing exposure.

Thanks for doing this! I would like to see some more, maybe you could try the Ilford too, and when you get something you like, let me know and I will do an article about it with details on how it was done. Also you might think about your scanner settings, which make a big difference with B&W negs, maybe get a test negative you can refer to later. I used that old t55 image of Hemlock Gorge that is part of the masthead.

awldune said...

When you say try the Ilford, did you mean Pan F or Ilfotec HC? This test was on FP4.

Certainly that negative can be scanned and photoshopped better. That is basically a straight Jpeg from my DSLR of the neg on the light table.

Do you have a thread going at APUG? I bet you could drum up some more testers there.

Bob Crowley said...

Right - I meant the Pan F that we got nice results with on the DF negatives.

Please mention this wherever you think is appropriate - this is about all I can do because of time limitations, and we have to finish other unrelated projects in the lab that have priority.

Anonymous said...

awldune - i dpn't see the grain or problem with this good work

awldune said...

To me it seems OK but maybe not as good as Bob's results with Pan F. I'm trying to get some Efke 25 to try.