PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   In The Darkroom (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Film almost transparent (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=127016)

Franssoa February 23rd 14 12:14 PM

Film almost transparent
 
Hello,

Please excuse my poor English, I speak french.

I own a Lubitel 166B, and I've tested the Caffenol processing.

I used the classic recipe (C-H), with a 1mn vinegar+water stop bath (I
need to buy acetic acid) and a 5mn fixing using Ilford Rapid Fixer. The
result was an almost transparent film : http://hpics.li/d38c698

I tested my washing soda, and he have a 20% water. So I tested a 2nd
film, adjusting the washing soda quantity and processing 16mn instead of
15mn... for an almost identical result.

Is a transparent film a sign of a too short processing ? Must I let the
caffenol acting for a 30mn time to be sure ?

franssoa

Richard Knoppow February 23rd 14 05:54 PM

Film almost transparent
 

"Franssoa" wrote in message
...
Hello,

Please excuse my poor English, I speak french.

I own a Lubitel 166B, and I've tested the Caffenol
processing.

I used the classic recipe (C-H), with a 1mn vinegar+water
stop bath (I need to buy acetic acid) and a 5mn fixing
using Ilford Rapid Fixer. The result was an almost
transparent film : http://hpics.li/d38c698

I tested my washing soda, and he have a 20% water. So I
tested a 2nd film, adjusting the washing soda quantity and
processing 16mn instead of 15mn... for an almost identical
result.

Is a transparent film a sign of a too short processing ?
Must I let the caffenol acting for a 30mn time to be sure
?

franssoa


It can be sign that the developer did not develop. If
there are edge markings on the film it indicates the film
was developed but not exposed, if no edge markings the
developer did not work.
I am skeptical of these odd developers. There are
plenty of conventional developers that work very well.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL




Jean-David Beyer February 23rd 14 10:40 PM

Film almost transparent
 
On 02/23/2014 11:54 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:

"Franssoa" wrote in message
...
Hello,

Please excuse my poor English, I speak french.

I own a Lubitel 166B, and I've tested the Caffenol
processing.

I used the classic recipe (C-H), with a 1mn vinegar+water
stop bath (I need to buy acetic acid) and a 5mn fixing
using Ilford Rapid Fixer. The result was an almost
transparent film : http://hpics.li/d38c698

I tested my washing soda, and he have a 20% water. So I
tested a 2nd film, adjusting the washing soda quantity and
processing 16mn instead of 15mn... for an almost identical
result.

Is a transparent film a sign of a too short processing ?
Must I let the caffenol acting for a 30mn time to be sure
?

franssoa


It can be sign that the developer did not develop. If
there are edge markings on the film it indicates the film
was developed but not exposed, if no edge markings the
developer did not work.
I am skeptical of these odd developers. There are
plenty of conventional developers that work very well.


I do not remember who said it (Kenneth Mees?) that the plethora of film
developing formulae gives us many means by which identical results may
be obtained. Start with D-76d or something and change only if you need to.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B Registered Machine 1935521.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://linuxcounter.net
^^-^^ 16:35:01 up 11 days, 18:11, 2 users, load average: 4.23, 4.23, 4.38

Richard Knoppow February 24th 14 08:02 AM

Film almost transparent
 

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...
On 02/23/2014 11:54 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:

"Franssoa" wrote in message
...
Hello,

=

I do not remember who said it (Kenneth Mees?) that the
plethora of film
developing formulae gives us many means by which identical
results may
be obtained. Start with D-76d or something and change only
if you need to.


Attributed to Kenneth Meese but I don't remember where I
first saw it. I must agree, Kodak did a lot of research on
reliable developers, their characteristis are well
established. Almost every manufacturer of film, paper,
chemicals, had some version of the Kodak formulae. The main
differences were in AGFA formulas which sometimes specified
potassium salts in place of sodium. The main reason was that
AGFA produced enormous amounts of potassium as a by-product
of their chemical industry. They also had a couple of
patented reducing agents (like Rodinal). For the most part,
until the relatively recent evolution of ascorbic acid and
Phenidone derivatives, most formulas used Metol (originally
an AGFA trade-name, called Elon by Kodak) and hydroquinone
in various ratios depending on the results desired. While
some very modern formulas, like Xtol, are somewhat superior
to the old ones its not be a lot so one can do very
satisfactory work with D-76 (preferably in its buffered form
published by Kodak as D-76d) for film and D-72 (formula
version of Dektol) for paper. I am fascinated by the use of
eccentric developing agents like tea or coffee. They may
have properties as reducers but are thoroughly inferior to
the half-dozen agents that were found over the last century
and a half. Even the use of pyro is somewhat eccentric
because M-H formulas are more reliable and generally longer
lasting. Its fun to experiment but for serious work an
established and reliable developer is very desirable. There
are not many left in packaged form. I am not sure what
Kodak is currently offering but I think T-Max RS, which is
an active developer which is its own replenisher, Xtol,
which yeilds somewhat finer grain than T-Max and similar
developers from Ilford. Ilford also offers Perceptol, an
extra-fine-grain developer identical to Kodak Microdol-X
which is now discontinued.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL




Geoffrey S. Mendelson February 24th 14 09:44 AM

Film almost transparent
 
Richard Knoppow wrote:
Attributed to Kenneth Meese but I don't remember where I
first saw it.


I think the problem was the original poster was in a location where film
developers were no longer available and it was impractical to mail order
them.

Caffeine and vitamin C developers have the advantge of being made from
easily available household items, no one is going to become suspicious
if you buy a kilo of either.

There also was a flurry of activity at one time using the active ingredient
in Tylenol as a developer, but in many places it is very expensive, even
as a generic medication.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379


Franssoa February 24th 14 01:44 PM

Film almost transparent
 
Le 24. 02. 14 09:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson a écrit :
I think the problem was the original poster was in a location where film
developers were no longer available and it was impractical to mail order
them.


Thank you (all of you) for your replies.

I know there is plenty of good products manufactured by Kodak, Ilford,
Agfa... and I have used some of them .... a lot of years ago.

I wanted only test the Caffenol as a more ecological alternative. It's
only as an hobby, and I don't care much the quality (I know the quality
would be a lot better with commercial products).

My original post was only to try to discover where was a failure and how
to correct it.

This film ( http://hpics.li/d38c698 ) is almost transparent with my
recipe and 15mn processing, and I was curious if I can go to 30mn ?

I think I'll just try, and report results to you.

franssoa

Jean-David Beyer February 25th 14 02:55 AM

Film almost transparent
 
On 02/24/2014 03:44 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Caffeine and vitamin C developers have the advantge of being made from
easily available household items, no one is going to become suspicious
if you buy a kilo of either.


I would not bet on that. Someone I used to know wanted to identify
whether or not some wild mushrooms were the psychedelic ones or not, and
she wondered if I could get some para methyl aminophenol sulfate for her
to use for testing. I sent her a small film can of the stuff. Not
something I would do. I do not even know if she ever used it or not. But
if word got out in a restrictive society, they would probably make it
illegal.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B Registered Machine 1935521.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://linuxcounter.net
^^-^^ 20:50:01 up 12 days, 22:26, 2 users, load average: 4.02, 4.32, 4.34

Franssoa February 25th 14 09:56 PM

Film almost transparent
 
Le 24. 02. 14 13:44, Franssoa a écrit :

This film ( http://hpics.li/d38c698 ) is almost transparent with my
recipe and 15mn processing, and I was curious if I can go to 30mn ?


Same recipe at 22°C (~72°F) with 30mn processing, and the result is a
lot better : http://hpics.li/f94af73

franssoa


Richard Knoppow February 28th 14 07:22 AM

Film almost transparent
 

"Franssoa" wrote in message
...
Le 24. 02. 14 13:44, Franssoa a écrit :

This film ( http://hpics.li/d38c698 ) is almost
transparent with my
recipe and 15mn processing, and I was curious if I can go
to 30mn ?


Same recipe at 22°C (~72°F) with 30mn processing, and the
result is a lot better : http://hpics.li/f94af73

franssoa

Very good, I would not have thought this developer could
work so well.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL




franssoa February 28th 14 09:42 AM

Film almost transparent
 
Le 28. 02. 14 07:22, Richard Knoppow a écrit :
"Franssoa" wrote in message
Same recipe at 22°C (~72°F) with 30mn processing, and the
result is a lot better : http://hpics.li/f94af73

franssoa

Very good, I would not have thought this developer could
work so well.


Thank you, yes I'm happy with this results.
Now I have to manage the focus (and exposure) on my Lubitel. More than
30 years with an autofocus and automatic camera give bad habits...

franssoa


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com