A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kodak rapid selenium capacity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 3rd 04, 03:05 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak rapid selenium capacity


"Dan Quinn" wrote in message
om...
(Fred) wrote

Dan wrote:
Is that the only reason you are using KRST? You're

not interested
in the archival properties it can confer?


Acutally that's the reason I started using selenium.


Any addition of selenium will extend a silver images

already long
lifespan. I doubt any disagreement of that.

A just perceptable, subtel
darkening in the shadows will not confer archival

properties. That
amount will not protect the most vunerable highlight

areas.

Are you saying that the archive effect of the toner is

proportional to
the toning effect?


At least that is the conventional wisdom. To read

quickly an
explanation of the preferential toning behavior of

selenium, one
might think thin areas of silver are immune. Perhaps

the dense areas
exert some sort of gravitational pull and hoard the

selenium untill
they've had their fill.


I like the idea that the selenium toner serves to

protect the print
from oxidizing gases. The implication is that the

protection covers
the whole spectrum of silver density on the print even

though the
selenium increases the shadow densities in prints with

little
or no change in the image tone.


I believe that implication correct, but for some reason

though, tests
have showen that the highlight areas are still vunerable.

Keep in
mind we have to start a very long lasting base silver

image.


Silver-gelatine with no after treatment can last

generations,
even a century or more in good condition. I think

there are quite a
few who do tone but not for it's lengthening the life

span
of the print.
BTW, have you considered dilution and carry out of

the solution
when costing that KRST?

Dan

I just divided the suggested number of prints capacity

by the cost.
I've never used selenium toner untill last week. I

guess if I want
more toning effect from selenum, I'll try a warmer tone

paper.

Nelson's Gold Toner may be your ticket. It is a sulfide

plus Gold
toner. I've read that it can be used at room temperature

although more
usually at 100-110 F. Ready-Mix can be bought from

Photographer's
Formulary. Cost per print is a small fraction of KRST. For

more
Info search this NG for, nelson's gold .
I compound all my own chemistry. I've all the chemicals

for Nelson's
but have yet to mix the toner. I'm wraped up in refining

my print
developer test methods and testing some new formulas.

Dan

Nelson's is a good toner where partial toning is desired
because it does not split tone. It also gives a somewhat
different color than other direct toners. The best source of
instructions is the patent. Some of the reprinted
instructions in Kodak handbooks leaves out the very
important step of refixing the prints after toning. This is
vital if they are to be permenant.
The patent number is USP 1,849,245 This is available from
the U.S. Patent and Trade-Mark Office site at
http://www.uspto.gov you will need a browser plug-in to
display the fax tiff files. The best is Alternatiff,
available as freeware off the web. Do a Google search to
find it. The tiff files can be viewed off line and printed
using the Windows imaging program.
A good toner for protective purposes is Kodak Brown Toner
or Agfa Viradon. These are both concentrated polysulfide
toners. Both tone uniformly. The color of the image will
depend on the color of the original but the shift is greater
on cold tone papers than from KRST. A visible change is
sufficient to impart substantial protection to oxidation.
Both toners must be used with a 10% sulfite bath following
toning as a sort of stop bath. Polysulfide toners have the
peculiar property of toning faster as they become exhausted
or diluted, so, any toner retained in the paper when it
enters the wash bath will continue to tone untill
substantially washed out. If washing is too slow it will
cause a peach-colored stain in the highlights. The sulfite
bath eliminates this problem. The current toner recommended
by IPI for microfilm use is a polylsulfide toner. KBT,
Viradon, or Kodak T-8 will all work. While KBT is used at
100F for rapid toning it will work at room temperature but
very slowly. This may actually be an advantage if one wants
just slight toning. No fixing is required after a
polysulfide toner. The main drawback to these two toners is
odor. The odor is not too strong unless the toner becomes
exhausted but there is still some "rotten egg" odor.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #12  
Old February 3rd 04, 07:42 AM
nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak rapid selenium capacity

(Fred) wrote in message ...
What is the useful capacity of Kodak rapid selenium toner? The label
indicates at least 100 8x10 per gallon diluted 1:3.

I've been using a 1:20 dilution. Is the logic such that the quart
mixed with 20 quarts to make 5.25 gallons 1:20 would still do only
about 100 8x10 prints.

Seems this is expensive stuff to use. My quart cost $23.79 usa.
Thats 24 cents for each 8x10.

Fred


Fred the above lead me to read the label. I am glad I never did
before,. I am talking more than 30 years. 100 per gallon at 1:3 is
absurd. I use 2 min 1:15 on almost anything for the color change in a
variety of paper developer combinations which all result in different
effects. The rare exceptions are when I don't like the color change.
It gets dumped when it gets scungey. That means dozens of prints from
2 oz in a quart. Since I bought the last gallon in July of last year I
have done literally hundreds of prints, most of which properly went in
the trash barrel (the best piece of equipment anyone can have). There
is still about a fifth left. The lower dilutions like 1:5 and 1:7 that
are used ocassionally don't seem to last in the tray, at least not by
my scientific smell test.

Archival importance I doubt because a number of my prints virtually
all Kodabromide F toned as above, hanging on the wall for 25 years
with no protective glass all exhibit a slight yellowing in the
highlights when compared with the same stored in the file cabinet.

Finally, your $23.79 is steep. I just paid $16.18 at Samy's in LA.
They didn't have gallons which ran me $52 or so last year. Freestyle
advertises that they will ship ground at normal fees without the
additional hazardous material add on.

Hope this helps

Nick
  #13  
Old February 3rd 04, 03:30 PM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak rapid selenium capacity

(nick) wrote in message om...
(Fred) wrote in message ...
What is the useful capacity of Kodak rapid selenium toner? The label
indicates at least 100 8x10 per gallon diluted 1:3.

I've been using a 1:20 dilution. Is the logic such that the quart
mixed with 20 quarts to make 5.25 gallons 1:20 would still do only
about 100 8x10 prints.

Seems this is expensive stuff to use. My quart cost $23.79 usa.
Thats 24 cents for each 8x10.

Fred


Fred the above lead me to read the label. I am glad I never did
before,. I am talking more than 30 years. 100 per gallon at 1:3 is
absurd. I use 2 min 1:15 on almost anything for the color change in a
variety of paper developer combinations which all result in different
effects. The rare exceptions are when I don't like the color change.
It gets dumped when it gets scungey. That means dozens of prints from
2 oz in a quart. Since I bought the last gallon in July of last year I
have done literally hundreds of prints, most of which properly went in
the trash barrel (the best piece of equipment anyone can have). There
is still about a fifth left. The lower dilutions like 1:5 and 1:7 that
are used ocassionally don't seem to last in the tray, at least not by
my scientific smell test.

Archival importance I doubt because a number of my prints virtually
all Kodabromide F toned as above, hanging on the wall for 25 years
with no protective glass all exhibit a slight yellowing in the
highlights when compared with the same stored in the file cabinet.

Finally, your $23.79 is steep. I just paid $16.18 at Samy's in LA.
They didn't have gallons which ran me $52 or so last year. Freestyle
advertises that they will ship ground at normal fees without the
additional hazardous material add on.

Hope this helps

Nick


There is no reason that KRST can't be used until it stops toning.
It should be filtered every so often because it will accumulate bits
of gelatin and other glop from the paper. Coffee filters work fine and
are cheap.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

  #14  
Old February 3rd 04, 05:00 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak rapid selenium capacity


"Richard Knoppow" wrote

Coffee filters work fine and are cheap.


And the cheapest coffee filters work the finest.

I bought some fancy Melitta filters (for making coffee)
and they have little _holes_ in them, something about
"letting the flavor through".

--
Nick Lindan
  #15  
Old February 4th 04, 04:57 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kodak rapid selenium capacity

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:00:51 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:


"Richard Knoppow" wrote

Coffee filters work fine and are cheap.


And the cheapest coffee filters work the finest.

I bought some fancy Melitta filters (for making coffee)
and they have little _holes_ in them, something about
"letting the flavor through".



feb304 from Lloyd Erlick,

I agree about the cheapest paper filters.

But it's possible to use them inconveniently (solution flows through
very, very slowly) or conveniently.

'Conveniently' allows air to stay 'behind' the paper filter. If the
filter is put into an ordinary funnel, it will stick to the smooth
surface and filtering will take place only at the bottom over the
hole. Therefore, either use a funnel made for coffee filtering - it
has ridges inside meant to prevent the filter from sticking to the
funnel - or get one of those permanent stainless or plastic filters,
put the paper filter inside it, and put the whole thing into a plain
funnel. This will be even faster than the ridged coffee funnel. (The
permanent filters are a bit coarser than paper, so the paper filters
are better for toner.)

When I drank coffee (sigh) I cut a chunk out of an old cotton t-shirt.
It filtered my coffee for years, and rinsed clean in a moment. For
toner, I like a disposable filter.

regards,
--le
_______________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits,
2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1,
Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada.
---
voice 416-686-0326

http://www.heylloyd.com
_______________________________________
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.