 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2004More E6 Questions: "Tom??"
Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus the other? I've heard that Fuji requires a slightly longer first developer bath and my initial testing confirms that. I use Kodak chemistry, btw.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus > the other? I've heard that Fuji requires a slightly longer first > developer bath and my initial testing confirms that. I use > Kodak chemistry, btw. Also is a precision .1 analog versus a digital .1 thermometer, better or the about the same? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference : > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus : > the other? I've heard that Fuji requires a slightly longer first : > developer bath and my initial testing confirms that. I use : > Kodak chemistry, btw. : Also is a precision .1 analog versus a digital : .1 thermometer, better or the about the same? A digital thermometer actually accurate to .1 degree costs more then you can afford to pay. The way to get that type of accuracy is to buy a good mercury thermometer and send it out to be calibrated at the temperatures you will be using it at. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference > : > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : Also is a precision .1 analog versus a digital > : .1 thermometer, better or the about the same? Well, it's consistency of temperature that's important, +/- 0.5F for the first developer. So, you need a thermometer accurate to +/- 0.25 degrees. I just use the built in Jobo digital and occasionally check solution temps with an analog (kodak) thermometer I've checked against the Jobo (i.e., if the Jobo is set to 100F and my analog reads 99.5, I read the 99.5 as 100F.) I've found the Jobo to be very reliable plus it's 0.25 +/- accurate. > A digital thermometer actually accurate to .1 degree costs more then you > can afford to pay. The way to get that type of accuracy is to buy a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ------------------- > fwp@deepthought.com : > : > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference : > : > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > : Also is a precision .1 analog versus a digital : > : .1 thermometer, better or the about the same? : Well, it's consistency of temperature that's important, : +/- 0.5F for the first developer. So, you need a thermometer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : (i.e., if the Jobo is set to 100F and my analog reads 99.5, : I read the 99.5 as 100F.) Like you said getting things consistant that's important. Have you had your Kodak thermometer calibrated at a lab? : I've found the Jobo to be very reliable plus it's 0.25 +/- : accurate. That accuracy is part of why a Jobo costs what it does. At the same time .25 is a long way away from .1 in terms of price. I used to work at a calibration lab and spent ten years as an instrumentation engineer. I've seen the price of probes that were capable of .1 and a twenty dollar digital thermometer from Radio Shack isn't going to do it!! :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference > : > : > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Like you said getting things consistant that's important. Have you had your > Kodak thermometer calibrated at a lab? No. And there's no need. It's consistently agreeable with all my other themometers and accurate to within +/- 0.5F. The precision does vary somewhat though. > : I've found the Jobo to be very reliable plus it's 0.25 +/- > : accurate. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ------------------- > fwp@deepthought.com > : I've found the Jobo to be very reliable plus it's 0.25 +/- > : accurate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that were capable of .1 and a twenty dollar digital thermometer from Radio Shack > isn't going to do it!! :-) B&H lists a Jobo analog thermometer with a .1 degree of accuracy for around 55 dollars. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > : I've found the Jobo to be very reliable plus it's 0.25 +/- : > : accurate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > that were capable of .1 and a twenty dollar digital thermometer from Radio Shack : > isn't going to do it!! :-) : B&H lists a Jobo analog thermometer with a .1 degree of accuracy for around 55 dollars. An analog thermometer isn't digital/electronic. :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > An analog thermometer isn't digital/electronic. :-) Nooooooo its not, however my initial question ask whether the analog would be suitable given that its .1 accurate. Since Tom answered that .5 is what he uses I assume that .1 is fine. Take care Greg SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : : > An analog thermometer isn't digital/electronic. :-) : Nooooooo its not, however my initial question ask whether the : analog would be suitable given that its .1 accurate. Since Tom : answered that .5 is what he uses I assume that .1 is fine. An analog thermometer is fine. I have a couple that I use. The one I use day to day is a Besler dial thermomter. The second one is a laboratory grade thermometer that I use to check the Besler with every now and again. I send it out for calibration every couple of years. In my case that's not such a big deal as I still have friends that work in calibration labs and they do it for me at no charge. :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Analog vs. digital? I can certainly think of several electronic devices which are NOT digital. Including some early computers! The thermocouple some electronic thermometers use is an analog device as are whole categories of electronic components. Digital does not always entail more accuracy than analog. A non-digital, non-electronic rectal thermometer is graduated to .1 degree F. and remains accurate over it's life if not abused or broken and can be occasionally calibrated against a certified lab thermometer. On the issue of control strips, it doesn't matter which brand you use as long as you use only one brand and use them in a compulsively consistent manner. On the issue of first developer times for Kodak vs. Fuji films, check for the latest info from Jobo, since it was their info that started this whole controversy, but my understanding is that the first developer time to use depends on the brand of chemicals you use also. I use one brand of chemicals, one time and temp and adjust my EI's from film to film for consistent results. Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > > > An analog thermometer isn't digital/electronic. :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Take care > Greg > Analog vs. digital? I can certainly think of several electronic devices > which are NOT digital. Including some early computers! The thermocouple [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > chemicals, one time and temp and adjust my EI's from film to film for > consistent results. Thanks thats a good tid bit also. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Greetings; > Analog vs. digital? I can certainly think of several electronic devices > which are NOT digital. Including some early computers! The thermocouple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > F. and remains accurate over it's life if not abused or broken and can be > occasionally calibrated against a certified lab thermometer. The type of thermometer to use depends upon several factors, not least the type of photographer you are, but I'll get to that later. These factors are just as significant whether it is slide (E6) or negative (e.g. C-41, mono) under consideration. If you are using the thermometer in processing slide or negative film which you will eventually either project or print from using photographic paper, then an analog thermometer is clearly the only type that may be seriously considered. Using a digital thermometer in such processing could lead to inconsistent results between films, due to the least-significant display digit not indicating any change in temperature until such a change exceeds a certain threshold. Such small changes are of course very easily detected by experienced photographers using an analog mercury thermometer, who can compensate by becoming more or less agitated in the darkroom. From the time of the beginning of photography there have been analog thermometers of this type, they can be used under safelight and do not need any blinkenlights. If, however, you wish to use the thermometer in processing slides or negatives to *scan* (a digital process) then a digital thermometer is both sufficient and appropriate. The apparently clear 'accuracy' (you can see all those digits) is both re-assuring and will impart a better 'feel' to the film at the end of the process. Remember, since the aim here is to scan these films, the result is going to end up, in most cases, on a computer. The image processing software on a computer is very capable and it does not matter about the occasional stop or two of over- or under-development or any contrast variations. I should imagine that the best sort of model would be a small digital one that vetinarary surgeons use, since it would then be rectally-compatible with the mouse. As I wrote above, it alo really comes down to the sort of photographer you are: if you are an analog one then you need the analog thermometer which can be verified by putting your digits into the chemicals occasionally, to check. If you are a digital photographer trying out ancient materials like film, then you need a digital thermometer to accurately keep track of this difficult analog process. I trust this is confusing enough to be clear. Either type of thermometer can be used as a back-up rectal thermometer, of course, although certain contributors to this NG (on the Digital vs. Film subjects) will require the extended temperature range if used for this alternate function. Other issues to address are things like whether the thermometer can be used during the burning-in of certain areas of a print, but I feel that this might just be a little off-topic for this thread. My apologies for the long reply, I'm just out of the darkroom after some RA-4 developer overheated and I had an unfortunate infusion... ;*) My regards - F.C. Trevor Gale. > Greetings; > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > least-significant display digit not indicating any change in temperature > until such a change exceeds a certain threshold. Jobo uses a digital readout in 1/10C to monitor and control their water temperature baths, one of the most consistent methods of film procesing known. >Such small changes are > of course very easily detected by experienced photographers using an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that the best sort of model would be a small digital one that vetinarary > surgeons use, since it would then be rectally-compatible with the mouse. Someone's been drinking the fixer again. How a film "feels" is unquantifiable. When processing E6 or C41 the goal is to obtain proper density and color. You need this whether printing or scanning. Temperature control is critical to this, but it doesn't matter what type of thermometer is used so long as it's accurate to .5F/.3C > As I wrote above, it alo really comes down to the sort of photographer > you are: if you are an analog one then you need the analog thermometer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accurately keep track of this difficult analog process. I trust this is > confusing enough to be clear. john s. is that you? Or scarpitti? > Either type of thermometer can be used as a back-up rectal thermometer, > of course, although certain contributors to this NG (on the Digital vs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My apologies for the long reply, I'm just out of the darkroom after some > RA-4 developer overheated and I had an unfortunate infusion... ;*) Oh, so it's the bleach-fix you been sipping... > > Greetings; > > > > > Analog vs. digital? I can certainly think of several electronic devices > > > which are NOT digital. Including some early computers! The thermocouple <snip snip> > > Using a digital thermometer in such > > processing could lead to inconsistent results between films, due to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > water temperature baths, one of the most consistent methods of > film procesing known. Tom, I wrote that post in totally sarcastic / funny mode, surely when you read it you knew it wasn't serious? I mean, "more or less agitated in the darkroom" isn't anything like agitating the film, is it? ;*) > >Such small changes are > > of course very easily detected by experienced photographers using an > > analog mercury thermometer, who can compensate by becoming more or less > > agitated in the darkroom. From the time of the beginning of photography > > there have been analog thermometers of this type, they can be used under > > safelight and do not need any blinkenlights. <snip> > > which can be verified by putting your digits into the chemicals > > occasionally, to check. If you are a digital photographer trying out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > john s. is that you? Or scarpitti? Nope. Just me having a laugh to replace the monotony of the 'digital vs. analog, or film' threads. > Oh, so it's the bleach-fix you been sipping... Ah, I got over that, I'm fine now thanks. What sort of thermometer would you recommend for burning-in prints, though? > > > Greetings; > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you read it you knew it wasn't serious? I mean, "more or less agitated > in the darkroom" isn't anything like agitating the film, is it? ;*) Yes, I got that. But some novice will read it and believe you... > > >Such small changes are > > > of course very easily detected by experienced photographers using an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nope. Just me having a laugh to replace the monotony of the 'digital vs. > analog, or film' threads. &%@#@#%$& crossposters! %*#@%$#*& > > Oh, so it's the bleach-fix you been sipping... > > Ah, I got over that, I'm fine now thanks. What sort of thermometer would > you recommend for burning-in prints, though? One that reads in degrees kelvin... > Out of curiousity is there any or enough difference > between the Kodak and Fuji test test strips to buy one versus [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Honestly, I don't know if there is any significant difference between Fuji's and Kodak's. Fuji's are likely on Fuji film, but the whole point is to standardize so I wouldn't think it should make that much difference. It may be Fuji strips better reflect Fuji films. The whole purpose of running control strips is to have a standard and standardize the chemistry according to the AIM values, and my local E6 lab guy doesn't think it would result in any noticable difference in quality. OTOH I've always used Kodak because I'm processing Kodak film. The control strips are preexposed Ektachrome 64 film, but other Kodak films and Fuji films are typically processed commercially using these strips for chemistry monitoring. Kodak is actually changing their strips to E100G film. I don't know exactly what difference this makes other than Kodak says it will better reflect the current "population" of E100 films being shot and processed. You are adjusting AIM values, so as long as the control strips accurately adjust the chemistry you have a process in control. BTW, if you order and get the new E100 control strips vs the 64 ones some color balance adjustments are supposed to be different than they were with the old 64 strips, like adjusting specific gravity of some solutions. I haven't read about this yet but there's an update ("new control strip information ")to the E6 manual on the web site. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/Zmanuals/z119.shtml |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.