Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Photomechanical Process

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ken Smith - 21 Jun 2004 23:41 GMT
I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
latent image is formed, to what the developer acually does, fixer,
etc. Whats a good book for a full on explaination that I can reherse
for my next cocktail party when the smartass grand inquisitor backs me
into a corner and I can't explain the workings of my own craft?
Jean-David Beyer - 22 Jun 2004 00:23 GMT
> I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
> latent image is formed, to what the developer acually does, fixer,
> etc. Whats a good book for a full on explaination that I can reherse
> for my next cocktail party when the smartass grand inquisitor backs me
> into a corner and I can't explain the workings of my own craft?

I suggest an artical entitled Mr. Wm. T. Innes in "The Inland Printer",
page 1031 of the September 1927 issue. Unless you have access to an
extremely good library, you will not be able to get this.

You can also read a little about it in "Autobiography of an Amateur
Inventor" by Frederic E. Ives, published privately in 1928 and a 1934
edition was also printed. Very hard to find. George Eastman House is
likely to have a copy. The library of Bell Telephone Laboratories used to
have a copy and might copy it for you for a fee.

You could also look up U.S. Patents 237,664,  245,501,  495,341,, but
these all preceeded the ruled glass half-tone screen that he also invented
for this work. Max Levy of Philadelphia ruled the screens for him.

IIRC, I have tried to explain this in the past in this newsgroup. You
would have to look it up in Google or something.

The only one I could find is this one, but it is not the one I have in mind:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:rec.photo.darkroom+insubject:halftone+au
thor:Jean-David+author:Beyer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=370E7B16.C81B07D1%40exit109
.com&rnum=1


Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 19:00:00 up 3 days, 18:24, 3 users, load average: 4.09, 4.15, 4.11

David Nebenzahl - 22 Jun 2004 04:28 GMT
On 6/21/2004 4:23 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

>> I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
>> trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:rec.photo.darkroom+insubject:halftone+au
thor:Jean-David+author:Beyer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=370E7B16.C81B07D1%40exit109
.com&rnum=1

I think you gave the right answer to the wrong question there.

This might be closer to what the O.P. was after:

http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.shtml

Signature

According to the New York Times, last year White House lawyers concluded
that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even
kill people in the interest of national security--so if that's legal,
what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?

- Jay Leno, The Tonight Show, 6/10/04

Jean-David Beyer - 22 Jun 2004 16:05 GMT
> On 6/21/2004 4:23 PM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.shtml

I did not bother describing lith development of litho films because that
part is well-known. The O.P. wanted to start with how the latent image is
formed, and that depends on exposing the grains of the litho film so that
the images of the diaphragm of the camera or enlarger used to make the
little dots whose diameter varies depending on the intensity of the
element of the original subject or negative. Once the negative is properly
exposed, straight litho development does the rest. Now back in about 1880
when the process was devised, litho films did not really exist and it took
a great deal of trouble to get enough contrast to make this work. Ives not
only devised the crossline screen, but also figured out how to develop the
stuff with the materials of the day. And when the materials of the day did
not work well enough, he devised new ones.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 11:00:00 up 31 min, 3 users, load average: 3.24, 3.31, 2.96

Paul Repacholi - 22 Jun 2004 16:08 GMT
> I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
> latent image is formed, to what the developer acually does, fixer,
> etc. Whats a good book for a full on explaination that I can reherse
> for my next cocktail party when the smartass grand inquisitor backs me
> into a corner and I can't explain the workings of my own craft?

Keepers of the Light. Hum, does the `the' belong in there??

Signature

Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.
                                            West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Nicholas O. Lindan - 22 Jun 2004 20:01 GMT
> > I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> > trying to explain the photomechanical process ... [what book
> > should I read for the next time some] smartass grand inquisitor
> > backs me into a corner and I can't explain the workings of my own craft?

Hmmm, you mean how to please a smartass?  I wouldn't, but if
you feel you have to, I recommend:

"How to Win Friends and Influence People", Dale Carnegie.
Quote: "Everything depends on sincerity.  When you can
       fake that you have it made."

I.E., 1) Dump the inquisitor on someone else.  2) Feign confusion and
ask him to help you out.  3) "Is that your wife in the corner playing
deep throat with your best friend?"

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Ken Smith - 24 Jun 2004 15:29 GMT
> > > I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> > > trying to explain the photomechanical process ... [what book
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> ask him to help you out.  3) "Is that your wife in the corner playing
> deep throat with your best friend?"

 Wow, I just checked back to this article today to look for one title of one
 decent photo book, and all I've got so far is all this yammering, first from
 a look how eccentric and smart I am guy, then this drivel. You guys have a
 little bit too much time on your hands, and are not the least bit helpful.
 Of course you simply MUST write back to tell me what a turd I am, Its your
 newsgroup reason to be, but how bout dropping a standard 1950s library
 title that covered the original question, or even part of it, when you do.
Jean-David Beyer - 25 Jun 2004 02:05 GMT
>   Wow, I just checked back to this article today to look for one title of one
>   decent photo book, and all I've got so far is all this yammering, first from
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   newsgroup reason to be, but how bout dropping a standard 1950s library
>   title that covered the original question, or even part of it, when you do.

I tried to give you an answer.

The problem is that there are no recent books on the subject because no
editor would dare publish such a book now for fear of not selling any,
other than to relatives of the author. There was one about 40 years ago,
but that author, while no doubt experienced at making printing plates, had
no fundamental scientific understanding of what was going on. His view was
that the crossline screen worked entirely by diffraction, which is not the
case, though diffraction is a factor, especially with the finer screens.

Similar to the case of Mees and James "Theory of the Photographic
Process". No books like this are likely ever to be written again. There is
just no demand for such stuff.

So unless you want to track down F.E.Ives' Bolt Court Technical School
lectures in London in the late 19th century (1898), The Journal of the
Franklin Institute in May 1888 (I have not read this, so it may describe
an earlier opto-mechanical process), or the Inland Printer article I cited
previously, you are out of luck.

If you are reasonably smart and understand geometric optics, you can
re-invent the ruled crossline screen and, realizing each aperture is a
pinhole of a pinhole camera and the lens of the copy camera or enlarger is
the subject, and that litho film is clear for less than a certain
exposure, and opaque at greater exposures.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 20:55:00 up 2 days, 10:26, 4 users, load average: 4.18, 4.20, 4.10

Ken Smith - 25 Jun 2004 15:11 GMT
> >   Wow, I just checked back to this article today to look for one title of one
> >   decent photo book, and all I've got so far is all this yammering, first from
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> the subject, and that litho film is clear for less than a certain
> exposure, and opaque at greater exposures.

 Sorry for my less than appreciative response to your information. Although I
 did say 50's, ( which implies 60's in this case ) publication. I realise there
 would not likely be current material on the subject. I posted here with the
 question originally because I have a feel for the group, and know that quite
 a few guys here have been at it a long time, and I expected a favorite tome
 existed out there that really set the facts straight. Remarkable that there
 wouldn't be, is'nt it? I did order from the library loan, The Encyclopedia of
 Printing, and Photomechanical Process Vol. 1&2 by Luis Nadeau. I'm not trying
 to impress anyone, I just figure I've been in this field too long to NOT know
 the basics of whats going on. Thanks to this group I have become a homebrew
 addict, and have seen a marked jump in my quality.
Jean-David Beyer - 25 Jun 2004 16:20 GMT
>>>  Wow, I just checked back to this article today to look for one title of one
>>>  decent photo book, and all I've got so far is all this yammering, first from
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>   a few guys here have been at it a long time, and I expected a favorite tome
>   existed out there that really set the facts straight.

I thought I tried to do this, short of writing a textbook on sealed
crossline screen half-tone theory and practice.

I found an on-line article about this. It contains the usual errors, but
you may find it useful. I found it with Google.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles08/advertising-14.shtml

> Remarkable that there
>   wouldn't be, is'nt it? I did order from the library loan, The Encyclopedia of
>   Printing, and Photomechanical Process Vol. 1&2 by Luis Nadeau.

I never got around to looking at that book, so I do not know how good it is.

> I'm not trying
>   to impress anyone, I just figure I've been in this field too long to NOT know
>   the basics of whats going on. Thanks to this group I have become a homebrew
>   addict, and have seen a marked jump in my quality.

Do you seriously want to make screened half-tones? I do not know where you
would get the screens. Max Levy & Company gave me two screens, which was
very nice of them considering they were probably worth somewhat more than
$1000 each (about 8"x10"; one 65 lpi and the other 150 lpi). Just because
my great grandfather had Max Levy himself rule the screens he used.

I make half-tones, usually from 4x5" B&W negatives, in my enlarger. I put
the negative in the enlarger in the usual way, put an 8x10 sheet of
Kodalith film in the easel and place the screen above it. I adjust the
height of the screen and the aperture of the enlarging lens to get the
contrast I want, and set the exposure time (quite long: around a minute
sometimes) to get the required exposure.

One very interesting thing is that if the highlights need burning in, I
can just stop down the enlarging lens and expose more. This will print in
the highlights, but will not affect the shadow areas at all.

In fact, there are problems (related to "curve shape" of the screen and
litho film combination) with exposing from flat art or solid objects
(i.e., positives) that are eliminated if working from a negative. So, once
you know what you are doing, it is easier to make a half-tone positive
than a normal paper print.

One problem with doing this is that the dots are "soft"; i.e., the edges
are not really high enough in contrast. But I normally want a negative
halftone, so I contact print the positive halftone onto another sheet of
litho film and if I adjust the exposure correctly, the dots are as they
should be and are "hard".

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 10:45:00 up 3 days, 16 min, 6 users, load average: 4.07, 4.10, 4.12

Ken Smith - 26 Jun 2004 01:14 GMT
> Do you seriously want to make screened half-tones?

 All I ever said was that I wanted to understand how the latent image is
 created and what the developer does to the film. I gather by using the term
 photomechanical process, I fall into the half-tone world. Sorry. I did not
 know what other term to use. What after all is the exposure/ development
 process called? Once again I have created a question/ problem, that I did not
 intend thereby causing you to go to great lengths in explaination, and me to
 bite your head off. Anyway, there must be a decent text on this small amount
 of information. It's probably even explained at length by R.K. somewhere in
 the archive.
Jean-David Beyer - 26 Jun 2004 14:28 GMT
>>Do you seriously want to make screened half-tones?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>   of information. It's probably even explained at length by R.K. somewhere in
>   the archive.

If that is what you meant, consider reading "The Theory Of The
Photographic Process", Third Edition, by Kenneth Mees and T.H.James.
Published by The Macmillan Company 1966. No ISBN: this was before ISBN
numbers. C.E.K.Mees was the head of Kodak's Research Department for many
years. George Eastman bought the company he worked for (Wrattan and
Wainright) in order to get him to work for Kodak.

It is my opinion that no book as authoritative as that one will ever be
published again, unfortunately.

There are entire chapters on various subjects:

1.) Properties of Silver Halides
2.) The Silver Halide Grains
3.) Gelatin
4.) The Relationship Between Density and Exposure
5.) The Mechanism of the Formation of the Latent Image
6.) Disposition of the Latent Image as Determined by Variation of
    Exposure and Development Techniques
7.) Reciprocity, Intermittency, and Low-Temperature Exposure Effects
8.) Latent-Image Effects Involving Reversal or Desensitizatioin
9.) The Action of Nuclear Particles on the Photographic Emulsion
10.) Photographic Effects of Electron Beams, X-Rays, and Gamma Rays
11.) Sensitizing and Desensitizing Dyes
12.) Spectral Sensitivity and the Mechanism of Spectral Sensitization
13.) The Developing Agents and Their Reactions
14.) Electrochemistry of Developers
15.) The Mechanism of Development
16.) The Kinetics of Development
17.) Principles and Chemistry of Color Photography
18.) Processing Following Development
19.) General Sensitometry
20.) The Interpretation of Sensitometric Results
21.) The Sensitometry of Color Films and Papers
22.) The Theory of Tone Reproduction
23.) The Structure of the Developed Image.

591 pages. That should help.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 09:15:00 up 3 days, 22:46, 4 users, load average: 0.14, 0.13, 0.09

Helge Nareid - 18 Jul 2004 20:54 GMT
>If that is what you meant, consider reading "The Theory Of The
>Photographic Process", Third Edition, by Kenneth Mees and T.H.James.
>Published by The Macmillan Company 1966. No ISBN: this was before ISBN
>numbers. C.E.K.Mees was the head of Kodak's Research Department for many
>years. George Eastman bought the company he worked for (Wrattan and
>Wainright) in order to get him to work for Kodak.

Minor correction - the company was "Wratten and Wrainwright", which
was operating as Kodak UK after the takeover. The "Wratten" name
survived as a brand name for gelatin filters manufactured by Kodak,
according to a process invented by Wratten.

>It is my opinion that no book as authoritative as that one will ever be
>published again, unfortunately.

There is a 4th edition, which has Kenneth Mees dropped from the author
list. The first author is listed as T.H. James, and it was published
in 1977. According to Amazon, the ISBN number for that edition is
0023601906. I have seen (but unfortunately do not own) both editions.
As far as I remember, the 4th edition unfortunately omits the emulsion
making chapter, which arguably makes the 1966 vintage 3rd edition the
most valuable.

Signature

- Helge Nareid
 Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
 For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address

Jean-David Beyer - 18 Jul 2004 22:19 GMT
>>If that is what you meant, consider reading "The Theory Of The
>>Photographic Process", Third Edition, by Kenneth Mees and T.H.James.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> making chapter, which arguably makes the 1966 vintage 3rd edition the
> most valuable.

I have only the 3rd edition. There is nothing specifically about emulsion
making in there. In Dr. Mees's preface to the earlier editions, he
apologizes for having nothing about emulsion making in there because
everything he knew about it (probably lots) he gained in confidence.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 17:15:00 up 2 days, 2:55, 4 users, load average: 5.46, 5.45, 5.43

Helge Nareid - 18 Jul 2004 22:44 GMT
>> There is a 4th edition, which has Kenneth Mees dropped from the author
>> list. The first author is listed as T.H. James, and it was published
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>apologizes for having nothing about emulsion making in there because
>everything he knew about it (probably lots) he gained in confidence.

My recollection may well be wrong here. I remember an apology as you
describe in the 4th edition, but I thought it referred to that
particular edition alone. It is some years since I last read it, but I
seem to recall that it referred to the emulsion making section having
been removed for that edition. Not having easy access to university
libraries any longer, it is difficult for me to verify this. I am
currently looking for a copy of both editions, but since both are long
out of print, I am not at all sure that I will be able to get them.

Signature

- Helge Nareid
 Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
 For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address

Jean-David Beyer - 19 Jul 2004 01:48 GMT
Helge Nareid wrote (in part):

>>I have only the 3rd edition. There is nothing specifically about emulsion
>>making in there. In Dr. Mees's preface to the earlier editions, he
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> currently looking for a copy of both editions, but since both are long
> out of print, I am not at all sure that I will be able to get them.

From C.E.Kenneth Mees PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (July 1942):

  One omission in the book requires explanation. Abook on the theory of
photography should contain a chapter on emulsion making, discussing
various methods of procedure and their effect upon the finished product.
The author's knowledge of this subject has been acquired in confidence,
however, and he is not entitled to publish the material with the frankness
which alone would justify any publication.

So I think it was missing from the start. There is no such chapter in the
third edition, and, while I am aware that a fourth edition was published,
I have never seen it.

Amazon seem to have several used copies of the third and fourth edition

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0023601906//104-5484106-1971138?c
ondition=all


Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 20:35:00 up 2 days, 6:15, 3 users, load average: 4.02, 4.07, 4.02

Helge Nareid - 19 Jul 2004 22:49 GMT
>Helge Nareid wrote (in part):
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>third edition, and, while I am aware that a fourth edition was published,
>I have never seen it.

Thank you Jean-David. I read that apology in the 4th edition and
erroneously assumed that it only applied to that particular edition.

>Amazon seem to have several used copies of the third and fourth edition
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0023601906//104-5484106-1971138?c
ondition=all

I have managed to obtain a copy of the third edition through Amazon
(indirectly) - even though I have not received it yet, and I am
currently on the track of a copy of the 4th edition. I should warn
people that Amazon (at least amazon.uk) is not overly particular about
which edition they get you - I put in an order for the 4th edition and
got the 3rd. Since I want both editions anyway, that's all right, but
be warned.

I have also managed to source a copy of C.E.K. Mees' autobiography,
"From Dry Plates to Ektachrome Film", which I remember as an excellent
read. The seller said he is shipping it today.

Signature

- Helge Nareid
 Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
 For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address

Donald Qualls - 25 Jun 2004 03:20 GMT
>   Of course you simply MUST write back to tell me what a turd I am, Its your
>   newsgroup reason to be, but how bout dropping a standard 1950s library
>   title that covered the original question, or even part of it, when you do.

Well, I won't tell you you're a turd, because I'm really not very good
at that sort of thing.  And I can't give you a 1950s reference -- but if
you'll settle for 1960s, try to find a suitable copy of Encyclopedia
Americana.  The major article in that tome on photography illustrates
the energetics of latent image formation and development about as well
as anything that doesn't require an advanced degree in photochemistry to
understand, to the point it was understood ca. 1963.  There might well
be better versions of this article in newer editions of the Americana,
but since I've never seen a newer edition, I can't say for certain -- I
do know, however, that the Americana we had at my school when I was in
5th grade was the 1963 edition, and had an exceptional article that was
completely understandable to a very bright ten year old, but technically
correct (to the science of the time) insofar as I've ever been able to
check it.

While you have the encyclopedia, it's very much worth your time to check
out the major article on Color by Edwin Land...

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Michael Scarpitti - 25 Jun 2004 14:36 GMT
> I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
> latent image is formed, to what the developer acually does, fixer,
> etc. Whats a good book for a full on explaination that I can reherse
> for my next cocktail party when the smartass grand inquisitor backs me
> into a corner and I can't explain the workings of my own craft?

What do you mean by 'the photomechanical process'? That term usually
refers to printing with inks from plates burned with UV, etc.

If you mean 'chemical photography', try 'The Science of Photography'
by Baines/Bomback.
Ken Smith - 26 Jun 2004 01:21 GMT
> > I found myself a little tongue tied and embarassed the other day
> > trying to explain the photomechanical process in full from how the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> If you mean 'chemical photography', try 'The Science of Photography'
> by Baines/Bomback.

 Yes, my mistake. I never should have used the term, photomechanical
 process, for all I am interested in knowing is how the latent image is
 created and how developers and fixers work. In my defense however, I did
 state in the original question those three interests despite the use of
 the photomechanical term.
Michael Scarpitti - 26 Jun 2004 19:23 GMT
> > What do you mean by 'the photomechanical process'? That term usually
> > refers to printing with inks from plates burned with UV, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>   state in the original question those three interests despite the use of
>   the photomechanical term.

Then see the book I refered to. It covers all of that.
Michael A. Covington - 26 Jun 2004 21:44 GMT
> >   Yes, my mistake. I never should have used the term, photomechanical
> >   process, for all I am interested in knowing is how the latent image is
> >   created and how developers and fixers work. In my defense however, I did
> >   state in the original question those three interests despite the use of
> >   the photomechanical term.

Ah!  That's what I thought you might have meant.  Here goes.

We'll deal with simple black-and-white photography first.

The film is coated with an emulsion made of gelatin with tiny crystals of
silver halides (silver iodide, silver bromide, and/or silver chloride)
embedded in it.

When exposed to light, the silver halide molecules go into a different
energy state.  Roughly speaking, one of the electrons changes orbit.  In
order for this to be useful it has to happen to several electrons in the
same crystal.

This enables the film to "remember" where the light hit it.  If you wait too
long, two things happen: some crystals start reverting to their original
(unexposed, low-energy) state, and some crystals go into the high-energy
state without being exposed to light.  That's why we always have doubts when
somebody wants to develop a 50-year-old roll of film they found in the
attic.

But back to the story.  The film is processed in developer, stop bath, and
fixer.

The developer is a chemical that reacts selectively with the crystals that
are in the high-energy state, turning them into metallic silver, which is
black.  Thus the film blackens where the light hit it, and not where the
light didn't hit it.  That's how you get a negative image.

The stop bath is simply a rinse with a small amount of acid in it to stop
the developer from working after it has had the right amount of time.

The fixer dissolves the silver halides that weren't turned into black
metallic silver.  This makes the image permanent (removes everything that is
still light-sensitive).

Then the film has to be washed, with or without chemicals (Perma Wash, etc.)
to help get it clean, because left to itself, the fixer would eventually
react with the black silver grains and bleach them.

That's how you get a negative.

To make a print, you take a sheet of paper with a very similar coating (but
less sensitive to light, because you're going to have a lot of light
available, and because you want to use a safelight when handling it).  You
simply project the negative onto the paper, then develop, stop, and fix the
paper.  A negative of a negative is a positive... and you have a picture.
The printmaking stage also allows you to adjust the overall brightness and
contrast of the picture.

If you want slides (positive images) from your film, the process is a bit
more complicated.  Basically: (1) expose; (2) develop; (3) instead of fixer,
use "bleach" (not Clorox!) to remove the developed silver grains, leaving
the un-exposed silver halide crystals in place; (4) "expose" the remaining
silver halide (either by exposing it to light or chemically) to put it all
into the high-energy state; (5) develop again; (6) fix.  This is called
reversal processing and gives you a film that is black where the light did
*not* hit it, i.e., a positive.  Black-and-white slides are uncommon
nowadays, but they can be made.

You want color?  OK, you need a more complicated process.  The film is in 3
layers for the 3 primary colors.  In each layer, the silver grains are
attached to chemicals ("dye couplers") which will form dyes of the
appropriate colors when the silver is developed.  So you develop in color
developer (forming dyes as well as a silver image), then "blix" (bleach and
fix, removing the undeveloped silver halides *and* the developed silver,
leaving only the dyes).

That gives you a color negative.  For technical reasons relating to the
characteristics of the dyes and the desire to use a dim orange safelight,
the negative also has an orange dye layer included.  It is used with color
printing paper that has very low sensitivity to orange light, and the orange
dye layer compensates for this.  Apart from that, color paper works like
color film.

If you want color slides, you use a reversal process with color couplers in
it.  (Or if it's Kodachrome, something much more complicated which I'll
leave for someone else to explain!)

Clear skies,
Michael Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
Jean-David Beyer - 26 Jun 2004 23:44 GMT
>>>  Yes, my mistake. I never should have used the term, photomechanical
>>>  process, for all I am interested in knowing is how the latent image is
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> order for this to be useful it has to happen to several electrons in the
> same crystal.

Not the way I understand it. The incoming quantum of energy must knock the
electron clear out of the atom and it must travel to an imperfection in
the crystal (grain) for the grain to become developable. IIRC, at least
three quanta of energy must be absorbed by the crystal in a reasonably
short time or the electrons will recombine. The charge at the
imperfections in the grain become the development centers where
development starts and ultimately changes almost the entire grain of
silver-halied to silver metal.

> This enables the film to "remember" where the light hit it.  If you wait too
> long, two things happen: some crystals start reverting to their original
> (unexposed, low-energy) state, and some crystals go into the high-energy
> state without being exposed to light.  That's why we always have doubts when
> somebody wants to develop a 50-year-old roll of film they found in the
> attic.

[snip]
Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 18:40:00 up 4 days, 8:11, 5 users, load average: 5.74, 5.34, 5.10

Michael Scarpitti - 27 Jun 2004 04:10 GMT
No. The silver halide breaks down into metallic silver and halogen
when exposed to light. The gelatin holds the halogen away so it cannot
recombine with the silver. Developer amplifies this split. You need to
read more.

> > >   Yes, my mistake. I never should have used the term, photomechanical
> > >   process, for all I am interested in knowing is how the latent image is
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
> Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
> www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
Donald Qualls - 27 Jun 2004 06:38 GMT
> No. The silver halide breaks down into metallic silver and halogen
> when exposed to light. The gelatin holds the halogen away so it cannot
> recombine with the silver. Developer amplifies this split. You need to
> read more.

I doubt this, Michael.  While this is the mechanism in a printing-out
processes like kallitype, it does not take place with developing-out
processes as used in modern films and papers, or occurs in such
miniscule quantity as to be undetectable even by tests like magnetic
resonance -- which has never been successfully used to detect an
undeveloped latent image.  Reduced silver in the patter of the exposed
image, even in picogram quantities, would show up like a beacon in MRI.

Developers fog because they're reducing unexposed silver, and
selectivity -- the ability of a developing agent to develop exposed
silver without reducing unexposed halide -- is a desirable trait; if
your proposed mechanism were responsible for latent image formation, a
developer would need only to be a reducing agent catalyzed by metallic
silver or a free halide radical -- and there would be little or no
advantage to the complex organic chemicals we use.  Selectivity wouldn't
be an issue, because there wouldn't be any reduced silver in unexposed
areas.

Finally, if the gelatin is rigid enough on a molecular scale to keep
halogen from migrating and recombining with the silver, it would be too
rigid to allow the halogen radical to move away from the silver in the
first place, and recombination would be immediate.

Michael Covington's explanation was correct, as far as is undertsood at
this time and allowing for the level of detail provided.

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Jean-David Beyer - 27 Jun 2004 12:55 GMT
>> No. The silver halide breaks down into metallic silver and halogen
>> when exposed to light. The gelatin holds the halogen away so it
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> undeveloped latent image.  Reduced silver in the patter of the exposed
> image, even in picogram quantities, would show up like a beacon in MRI.

I doubt MRI is sufficiently sensitive to detect two silver atoms on a
silver-halide grain. That is about the amount of silver deposited in a
latent image center (although more silver is better). Typically, more than
one development center is created on a normal silver-halide grain, but not
many compared to the number of silver-halide "molecules."

> Michael Covington's explanation was correct, as far as is undertsood at
> this time and allowing for the level of detail provided.

I do not believe so. I cannot imagine that exciting a silver halide
"molecule" to a higher energy state can possibly be the long-term
explanation for photographic effects. Recall that exposed undevelopped
films can be developped 40 years after exposure. When an atom is excited
to a higher energy state, say by reception of a quantum of energy, it does
not tend to stay in that state for days or weeks, much less years. The
random thermal actions in the material should undo that much quicker than
that. All the research I have read, both print-out and developing-out
latent images, indicate that the production of silver atoms (and
consequently free electrons, etc.) is the mechanism of the production of
the development centers.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 07:45:00 up 4 days, 21:17, 5 users, load average: 4.03, 4.07, 4.08

Michael Scarpitti - 27 Jun 2004 19:35 GMT
> > No. The silver halide breaks down into metallic silver and halogen
> > when exposed to light. The gelatin holds the halogen away so it cannot
> > recombine with the silver. Developer amplifies this split. You need to
> > read more.
>
> I doubt this, Michael.  

Read 'The Science of Photography' before you say anything else. Siver
halides DO break down into silver and halogen (on a microsopic scale)
and this action makes the crystals developable. The halogen is trapped
by the gelatin, and improvements in latent image keeping properties of
emulsions derive from perfecting this.

> While this is the mechanism in a printing-out
> processes like kallitype, it does not take place with developing-out
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Michael Covington's explanation was correct, as far as is undertsood at
> this time and allowing for the level of detail provided.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.