 |
 | 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 / April 2005When to Press the Button of the Timer?
In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended developing time published by Kodak to procss the roll, but a question rised, when to begin timming? right before dropping the developer or right after dropping that? BTW: 1) Using D-76 1:1 diluted, Kodak suggests 12 minus in 68F for small tank proccessing. I, however, plan to use D-76D 1:1 (buffered and diluted), can I use the same time? 2) I found Koda only suggests the D-76 1:1 for small tank, but for large tank (1/2 - 3 1/2 gallon) or sheet he did not list a processing time for D-76 1:1, can I deduce from that the Kodak do not like anyone use D-76 1:1 for large tank or sheet proccessing? If this is true, does anyone give me a reason? Thanks in advance. - narke So long as you are consistent, it does not matter. I time from when the tank is filled with developer to when it is filled with stop bath. > In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the > developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > - > narke > In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the > developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended > developing time published by Kodak to procss the roll, but a question > rised, when to begin timming? right before dropping the developer or > right after dropping that? 5 seconds in 12 minutes of developing time will make little difference. The usual advice is to start the timer and pour in and pour out when the timer stops. It takes about the same amount of time in as out and so the pour times cancel. > 1) Using D-76 1:1 diluted, Kodak suggests 12 minus in 68F for small > tank processing. I, however, plan to use D-76D 1:1 (buffered and > diluted), can I use the same time? Yes. > 2) I found Koda only suggests the D-76 1:1 for small tank, but for > large tank (1/2 - 3 1/2 gallon) or sheet he did not list a processing > time for D-76 1:1, can I deduce from that the Kodak do not like anyone > use D-76 1:1 for large tank or sheet proccessing? No. > If this is true, does anyone give me a reason? D-76 1:1 is used once and thrown away. In a 3.5 gallon tank you would still need to throw the developer out after one use - and to use up that much developer in one time would take 56 rolls of film. In large tanks D-76 is used full strength with replenisher. You need to process a lot of film to make this work. It is not unusual to be using the same tank of developer for six months. Actually the developer has been replaced many times over in six months by the addition of the replenisher.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ We used to throw caution to the wind and use D-76 1:1 in a 3.5 gallon tank line to process 35mm and 120 film but I don't recommend it for the following reasons. Kodak does not support the practice. "No one" uses sink lines anymore. One shot is both economical and consistent. Sink lines (and replenished D-76) are full of developer by-products and restrainers that reduce effective film speed. i.e. Tri-X needs to be rated closer to 200 than 400. re: when to start the timer. I pour then hit the button and pour out when the time starts, easy for me since I use a Unicolor rotary system. It matters less HOW you choose to do it and matters more on HOW CONSISTENT you do it. -- darkroommike ---------- > > In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the > > developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ MIke King wrote, > re: when to start the timer. I pour then hit the button and pour out when the time starts, easy for me since I use a Unicolor rotary system. It matters less HOW you choose to do it and matters more on HOW CONSISTENT you do it. now I decide hit the button and pour in, when the timer end and beep I start to pour out, that's more possible to get consistence to me. Thanks. - narke >MIke King wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >- >narke apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, Over time, and numerous film developing sessions, you will find results that please you best. Keeping notes as you progress helps a lot. Once you find your preferred method, stick to it consistently. The only real mistake is to fail to provide yourself a means of doing the next processing run the same way as the last. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ In a previous thread, you mentioned that you wanted to make D-76 from scratch and that one litre of stock solution might be too much for you because you only shoot around two rolls of film per month, if so , why are you using a large tank? Keith Wrote, > In a previous thread, you mentioned that you wanted to make D-76 from scratch and that one litre of stock solution might be too much for you because you only shoot around two rolls of film per month, if so , why are you using a large tank? Thanks for you remember my previous posts. I'v bought a AP tank which is 650cc for 2 reel. 650cc is great than 16 oz (the upper bound of small tank according to Kodak's publish) and less than 1/2 gallon ( the lower bound of large tank). Since the AP tank is not cheap, so I can not switch to a real small tank, that's my pain. And, because I am a newbie, so I do not want to bother myself to make a D-76D Replenisher. Can you tell me 650cc is a small or large tank? Throw off 650cc solution is a little waste to me because I got only a liter stock bottle, it can only provides 3x650cc with respect to 1:1. - narke > I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two > question about it. > 1) There is a table as below marked on the bottom of the tank, and I do > not fully understand its meaning. Can anyone explain that for me? 1 x 135 / 126 = 375cc 2 x 135 / 126 = 650cc 1 x 127 / = 490cc 1 x 120 / 220 = 590cc > My 2nd question is, can I use only 375cc solution for the processing? Yes. If you use shake agitation then when working with 1/2 empty tanks it is a good idea to place an empty reel on top to keep the film reel from rattling around. If your tank holds the lower reel in place with a center stir stick (I think yours does, is it like a Patterson?) then you don't need the 2nd reel. > I remembered people adviced that it is best to let the solution > fill the whole tank even when process one roll > in a two reel tank, that is 650cc in my case. I wouldn't worry: try it and see what happens. You should also wash hands before meals, say prayers before going to bed and call your mother on Sunday. > Actully, since the tank provides a rod (on the center top of the > cover) to stir the solution, so I never need to shake the tank > by invert it. Doesn't it come with a second cap for shake agitation? But twirling is just fine. 126 and 127 are old film sizes. 126 was the original Instamatic cartridge. The swirl agitation can cause a regular pattern of fluid flow, where the flow is the fastest the film will be darker, the result is uneven film or film with streaks. The swirl method is fine, modern reels don't have the same flow problems as they did in the 1950's. Twirl a bit one way, a bit the other, move it back and forth -- you want to have a random flow of developer over the film. > I'v bought a AP tank which > is 650cc for 2 reel. 650cc is great than 16 oz (the upper bound of > small tank according to Kodak's publish) and less than 1/2 gallon ( the > lower bound of large tank). The AP tank would be considered a 'small' tank. Large tanks are like buckets. In summary: use 375ml of developer and agitate as you please, just be sure to do it for 5 seconds every 30 seconds in the developer and 5 seconds every minute (about, it's not critical) in the fix. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ Large tank is more than just tank volume it also has something to do with the way the film is introduced to the tank and how it is agitated. The smallest tank I would consider "large" would be approximately 2 liters/64 oz would have an open top and agitation would be "lift and tip". I don't like replenished systems but they work OK if you process approximately 50-100 rolls of film per month (more is better). Less than that you don't get the full benefit of economy nor to you have the throughput to ensure consistent results. The most frugal method I have encountered (and the one I use) is to process film in a rotary processor. It doesn't need to be fancy, I use a Unicolor Film drum and reels and use an average of 100-125 ml per roll of 35mm film. -- darkroommike ---------- > > I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two > > question about it. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > I don't like replenished systems but they work OK if you process approximately 50-100 rolls of film per month (more is better). Less than that you don't get the full benefit of economy nor to you have the throughput to ensure consistent results. I agree with above. I will not reuse developer. Another question, do you reuse fixer? I am going to use F-5, but still not decide whether or not shall I reuse it. Do you and other guys have any suggestion? >> I don't like replenished systems but they work OK if you process >approximately 50-100 rolls of film per month (more is better). Less >than >that you don't get the full benefit of economy nor to you have the >throughput to ensure consistent results. >I agree with above. I will not reuse developer. Another question, do >you reuse fixer? I am going to use F-5, but still not decide whether >or not shall I reuse it. Do you and other guys have any suggestion? In general you may reuse fixer a certain number of times. Edwal makes some drops that turn cloudy when the fixer is saturated and thus no-good, so you can test before you use it. Another method is to check it using your film leader or some similar strip of film: fixer should clear the film leader fairly quickly (a little agitation helps), and when the clearing time is doubled you should throw away the fixer. As with everything your mileage may vary and there are lots of opinions on the net: GIYF. Also in the USA anyway it is illegal to dispose of used fixer down the drain; other locations may have similar environmental protections. I have to drive my bottle of old fixer down to a hazardous waste disposal site. > Another method is to check it using your film leader or some similar strip of film: fixer should clear the film leader fairly quickly (a little agitation helps), You mentioned use a film leader to test. Should I use a exposed one or unexposed one? I can not image that exposed film can be clear by the fixer, I think (if right) the function of the fixer is to clear the unexposed silvers stay on the film base. Am I right? - narke >> Another method is to check it using your film >leader or some similar strip of film: fixer should clear the film >leader >fairly quickly (a little agitation helps), >You mentioned use a film leader to test. Should I use a exposed one or >unexposed one? I can not image that exposed film can be clear by the >fixer, I think (if right) the function of the fixer is to clear the >unexposed silvers stay on the film base. Am I right? An exposed leader. I just use the piece I cut off before loading the 35 mm film onto the spool; it's already been exposed by just ambient light. The fixer will clear it fairly rapidly and the cleared strip will look like any piece of more or less clear plastic-like stuff. It helps to jostle it around a little; I just dip this cut off leader in the fixer and swirl it around for around a minute or two until it clears the film. I don't like to use a large piece, since there's no point in it (needlessly exhausting the fixer a little more). The clearing test is somewhat better than the drops since fixer can go bad even if it has no silver in it. I bought a bottle of fixer from a chain photography store in Berkeley, and I was suspicious since the bottle had instructions for fixing Panatomix X on it. I thought maybe it might be OK ("or they wouldn't sell it, would they?") but in fact it would not clear a film leader. So it would have tested fine with the drops even though it was worthless. The other thing with drops is this: what if the fixer seems OK with the drops at the beginning, but is bad after you fix one more tank of film? You'll probably have to go back and re-fix the rolls just to be safe. Still, I use drops anyway once in a while. >>You mentioned use a film leader to test. Should I use a exposed one or >>unexposed one? I can not image that exposed film can be clear by the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a little; I just dip this cut off leader in the fixer and swirl it around > for around a minute or two until it clears the film. If you want to use the clearing text to determine fixing time. It is a good idea to soak the leader in water or stop bath for a few minutes before putting it in the fixer. Film which is already wet will take a bit longer to clear than film which is dry before it is put in the fixer. The same is true for film development, a pre-soak actually requires an increase in development time. Film should be fixed for about three times the clearing time to be safe. When the fixer takes twice as long as fresh fixer to clear film it it exhausted. I'm a little cautious about overusing fixer, so I discard my first bath when it fails to fix in half the total fixing time. For me this is a little over 1 1/2 times the clearing time for fresh film. Working the first bath extra hard just decreases the life of the second bath when it becomes the new first bath. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > Another method is to check it using your film leader or some similar strip of film: fixer should clear the film leader fairly quickly (a little agitation helps), You mentioned use a film leader to test. Should I use a exposed one or unexposed one? I can not image that exposed film can be clear by the fixer, I think (if right) the function of the fixer is to clear the unexposed silvers stay on the film base. Am I right? - narke >> I don't like replenished systems but they work OK if you process >approximately 50-100 rolls of film per month (more is better). Less [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you reuse fixer? I am going to use F-5, but still not decide whether >or not shall I reuse it. Do you and other guys have any suggestion? apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, How will you be getting your F5 fixer? This is an old Kodak formula for fixer, mixed from raw chemicals. F5 is pretty much an academic curiosity now, having been supplanted long ago by Kodak F6. The largest difference is the smell, which is strong and nose-biting with F5 and nearly non-existent with F6. Some people say Kodak packaged powder fixer is F5, but I have mixed F5 and used the packaged stuff, and I can tell you F5 bites your nose much worse. If you are actually mixing your own, F6 is a better bet. However, if you are interested in mixing your own, you should explore the fixer Ansel Adams called 'plain fixer'. He published his formula in his book, 'The Print' (it is fine for both prints and film) and it is extremely simple and cheap. It also keeps just as well as F5, F6, or packaged fixers. I have articles on these subjects on my website, under the 'technical' heading in the table of contents. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >> I got a AP develop tank, I feel that's very good. But I still have two >> question about it. My news server doesn't seem to have received narke's original message, and I'm not sure about some of the attributions. Sorry if something's confused in my reply because of this.... >> 1) There is a table as below marked on the bottom of the tank, and I do >> not fully understand its meaning. Can anyone explain that for me? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1 x 127 / = 490cc > 1 x 120 / 220 = 590cc I've got an AP tank, too, but I'm not sure it's the same model. Anyhow, mine has this table on the bottom, but some of the numbers are different. Specifically, the value for one roll of 135/126 film is 325cc, not 375cc. You might want to check to be sure you read that correctly. Of course, putting too much chemistry in won't cause problems, aside from the waste of some chemistry. >> I remembered people adviced that it is best to let the solution >> fill the whole tank even when process one roll >> in a two reel tank, that is 650cc in my case. > > I wouldn't worry: try it and see what happens. I've only processed about a dozen rolls of film, but I've not had problems with using the stated 1-roll volumes. (Actually, I use 350ml because the math and graduate markings are easier for dilutions.) >> Actully, since the tank provides a rod (on the center top of the >> cover) to stir the solution, so I never need to shake the tank >> by invert it. > > Doesn't it come with a second cap for shake agitation? But twirling > is just fine. Mine has a cap, and I do inversion agitation. The tank leaks a bit, but not enough for me to consider it a problem. Leak-phobes might prefer using the rod for agitation, and move the tank around on the countertop as well. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > I've got an AP tank, too, but I'm not sure it's the same model. Anyhow, mine has this table on the bottom, but some of the numbers are different. Specifically, the value for one roll of 135/126 film is 325cc, not 375cc. You might want to check to be sure you read that correctly. Of course, putting too much chemistry in won't cause problems, aside from the waste of some chemistry. I'v checked the numbers, and I found the 1x127 is actually 460cc, others are all correct. So I decided to use 400cc for one roll processing, for the same reason as yours. > Mine has a cap, and I do inversion agitation. The tank leaks a bit, but not enough for me to consider it a problem. Leak-phobes might prefer using the rod for agitation, and move the tank around on the countertop as well. I also get a top cap (red), so it supports agiatation as well as swiring. It is the leak problem which make me double if or not I really need to agitate by inversion for I am afraid the leak solution will harm my hand. > I also get a top cap (red), so it supports agiatation as well as > swiring. It is the leak problem which make me double if or not I > really need to agitate by inversion for I am afraid the leak solution > will harm my hand. Some people are extremely allergic to certain photo processing chemicals, but others aren't. You could always try inversion agitation and if you experience undue irritation, take one or more of four steps (or maybe more I'm not considering): 1) Change chemistry. Some developers are marketed as being less likely to produce allergic reactions than others. I don't recall which developer components are the most likely allergens, though, or which specific developers are the least likely to cause problems. I'm sure you can turn this up in a Web search pretty easily, if somebody doesn't volunteer the information. 2) Wear rubber gloves. This should certainly be sufficient for dealing with a leaky tank. 3) Replace the tank. I've actually got two: a plastic AP tank and a generic stainless steel tank. The latter doesn't leak at all, but I've had problems getting the reels loaded, so I've not used it much. I don't know which brands are the most leak-resistant. 4) Switch to agitation via the rod. Of course, you might still occasionally get a bit of chemistry on your hands when mixing the chemicals, pouring them out of the tank, etc., so if you're violently allergic, you might want to do #1 and/or #2, as well. Of course, doing #4 from the outset is perfectly reasonable. I don't get the impression that most people have such strong allergic reactions to the chemicals that it's cause for serious concern, though. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking ... >I also get a top cap (red), so it supports agiatation as well as >swiring. It is the leak problem which make me double if or not I >really need to agitate by inversion for I am afraid the leak solution >will harm my hand. apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, Developer is unlikely to hurt your skin. However, some people are sensitive and get dermatitis, so it is advisable to avoid skin exposure. Developer is not an aggressive attacker, though, so a pair of ordinary kitchen gloves (such as you might use to wash dishes) will be good protection. If gloves are an unacceptable expense, an ordinary plastic bag slipped over the hand will do. If developer (or any darkroom solution) gets on your skin, there is no need to jump. Just rinse it off in plain tap water. Don't delay, and don't let it dry, but don't be concerned, either. I've had developer in my mouth (don't ask ...) without harm. It tastes horrid and I don't recommend it. Obviously darkroom chemicals must be kept locked away from children, but so should kitchen and bathroom cleaning materials, gardening materials, automotive stuff... There a few specialized darkroom materials that are potentially harmful, but an ordinary darkroom does not need to have them on hand. The worst thing in my darkroom is selenium toner. Even this is far from an aggressive attacker, and the selenium component is also found in dandruff shampoos. Actually, as far as selenium toner goes, I find the smell (of ammonia) the worst part. But my old cat's box smelled of ammonia too, and much worse, so I might be a poor housekeeper but it never poisoned me. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ ... (Actually, I use 350ml because the >math and graduate markings are easier for dilutions.) ... >Mine has a cap, and I do inversion agitation. The tank leaks a bit, but >not enough for me to consider it a problem. Leak-phobes might prefer using >the rod for agitation, and move the tank around on the countertop as well. apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, 350 ml is probably a good idea just to be sure not to use too little. Convenience counts for a lot too, in terms of reducing the chances of error, and to promote consistency. Any tank I've ever used leaked a bit. If possible, work in, or over, a sink. If it has to be a counter top instead, spread out old newspaper that can be rolled up and discarded. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > Yes. If you use shake agitation then when working with 1/2 empty tanks it is a good idea to place an empty reel on top to keep the film reel from rattling around. If your tank holds the lower reel in place with a center stir stick (I think yours does, is it like a Patterson?) then you don't need the 2nd reel. Yes, it get a lock to firm the reels on the center axis. but still like to follow you advice and put the 2nd empty reel on the top of lower loaded reel. > In summary: use 375ml of developer and agitate as you please, just be sure to do it for 5 seconds every 30 seconds in the developer and 5 seconds every minute (about, it's not critical) in the fix. Thank you! > Keith Wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > - > narke Use your AP tank as a small tank and follow the agitation instructions supplied with the film tank. Use the developing times recommended by the film manufacturer as a starting point, and don't be afraid to make adjustments to the developing times if you need to alter the contrast required for printing on to a standard paper grade. This is generally around a grade number two or three although the latter is perfectly acceptable with 135-36 (35mm-36 exposure rolls). This you will find through trial. Which type of enlarger do you use, diffuse light or condenser? Keith Tapscott wrote, > Which type of enlarger do you use, diffuse light or condenser? I want to practice developing for at least 10 rolls of film before plan to buy a enlarger. I heard condenser enlarger is more suitable than diffuse for 35mm negs, is it true? - narke > Keith Tapscott wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to buy a enlarger. I heard condenser enlarger is more suitable than > diffuse for 35mm negs, is it true? It's not really a big deal one way or the other. Condenser enlargers show dust on the negative more than diffusion enlargers. Condenser enlargers produce prints which are around one grade higher contrast for the same grade of paper. You can produce practically identical prints with each type of enlarger if you use one grade harder paper with the diffusion enlarger. People who use condenser enlargers tend to develop their film to a lower contrast (shorter development time) to compensate for the contrast increase. This arguably results in finer grain from the same materials. Reduced development requires a slight increase in exposure, so it is arguable that the speed/grain relationship hasn't changed much. The most important factor affecting grain is the film you use. All of the other factors (developer choice, development contrast, exposure, etc.) can all add up to be quite significant, but the inherent grain of the film is still dominant. I use a condenser enlarger, but I have used diffusion enlargers and I wouldn't make a big deal about it one way or the other. I would suggest that you look for an enlarger that can do medium format. Medium format does not have to be expensive, and the larger negative offers a major advantage in the quality of prints you will be able to make. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net Peter Irwin, Thanks for your advice, which lead me to a more clear way in considering of enlarger choice. I think I now can not switch to a medium format, since I only got a 135 SLR camera and I think hand a big camera wandering on the streat is not easy for me. - narke > Peter Irwin, > > Thanks for your advice, which lead me to a more clear way in > considering of enlarger choice. I think I now can not switch to a > medium format, since I only got a 135 SLR camera and I think hand a big > camera wandering on the street is not easy for me. You might be surprised. Old TLRs are remarkably handy cameras. You can get quite a nice one for less than $100. Old folders are extremely compact, and may also be had cheaply. If you get an enlarger that can handle 6x6 or larger, you leave an option open which you may wish to take sometime. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > Thanks for your advice, which lead me to a more clear way in > considering of enlarger choice. I think I now can not switch to a > medium format, since I only got a 135 SLR camera and I think hand a big > camera wandering on the streat is not easy for me. Some medium format cameras aren't all that much larger than a typical 35mm SLR, and with photographers switching to digital, used film-based equipment can be quite a bargain if you intend to stick with film. What's more, in terms of enlarger choice, an enlarger capable of doing medium format isn't likely to be much, if any, more expensive than a 35mm-only enlarger, so there's little reason to tie your hands on this score. That said, the decline in popularity of film also means that used enlargers are inexpensive, so if you buy a 35mm-only enlarger now and then get into medium format later, it shouldn't cost too much to replace your enlarger. All of this relates more to used equipment than to new equipment. The new stuff can still be quite pricey. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >Keith Tapscott wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >- >narke apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, It's a matter of personal preference. I've used both, and I like a diffusion enlarger. But I make portraits, so you can see my preferences. Diffusion is more appropriate for my uses. Before you invest money in an enlarger, try out different types, perhaps in rental darkrooms or at other photographers' places. Keep in mind that rental darkrooms are not likely to be as convenient (or pleasant) for your own purposes as your own darkroom, so don't judge the merits of darkroom work by what you see in other peoples' places. Also, since so many people are switching to digital methods, the price of second-hand darkroom equipment is falling. I recently received a free enlarger, with three lenses, so you should keep your eyes open for such a deal. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >Keith Wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >- >narke apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, The tank you have is not far from an ideal size for the type of work you are doing. Actually, 'ideal' would be hard to define in this case. You tank gives you the choice of developing one or two rolls at a time, which is a good arrangement. If you care to develop only one roll, it would be best to put an empty reel on top of the loaded reel, so when you invert the tank to agitate the bottom reel stays on the bottom. If you only develop one roll of film, you only need the amount of developer required to cover the reel, or roughly 300 - 350 ml. (A ml is a milliliter, equivalent to a cc, or cubic centimeter.) I often develop ten rolls at a time in a tall tank, and I use three liters of solution, or 300 ml per roll. I find this very convenient, and your tank is basically the same idea. Replenisher is an academic interest for most of us. If you use huge amounts of film, and must frequently develop them at short notice, then it is good to have a line of tanks ready at all times. Developer stored and used this way will need frequent replenishment. I have never used replenisher. Diluted developer, used one-shot, is much more economical for my relatively low volume of work, and it is also much easier to achieve consistent results than attempting to use a replenisher system at such a low volume of work. If you ever decide to get more deeply into using film, and developing it yourself, it is much cheaper to make your own developer (such as D-23, which has fewer ingredients than D76) from raw chemicals. The other side of this idea, though, is that you must by quantities of each chemical and store them. So there would be an initial investment that pays off slowly in the form of cheaper development over a long time. Developing one's own film can be extremely economical. Also, if you ever become a heavier user of film and need to develop many rolls, you could explore processing them in open tanks, working entirely in the dark. I do this routinely, and find it very convenient, and cheap! regards, le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the > developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended > developing time published by Kodak to procss the roll, but a question > rised, when to begin timming? right before dropping the developer or > right after dropping that? The sources I read when learning B&W processing recently said to start timing when beginning to pour in the developer and to stop timing when starting to pour in the stop bath (that is, to pour out the developer a few seconds before the end time). That said: 1) With a typical ~10-minute developing time, I doubt that 5 seconds will make a noticeable difference. 2) The recommended development times published by Kodak and others are all recommended points for experimentation to learn what works best for you and your specific techniques and preferences. As such, I'd say to just be consistent with whatever timing method you choose, and adjust the times as you learn in order to get the results you like. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking It is noteworthy that the simplest friggin question gets the most attention. i dont start the timing until i knocked the can around and got all the air bubbles out. > In film processing, I believe I need about 5 seconds to drop the > developer into the tank. And, I want to follow the recommended [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > - > narke |
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.