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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Irfanview Save As options (Interlaced & Transparent color) | Jennifer Murphy[_2_] | Digital Photography | 4 | December 29th 13 12:14 AM |
After processed, got total transparent slides ?!! | Steven Woody | Film & Labs | 0 | March 27th 06 06:44 AM |
Outline of transparent image | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | March 13th 06 05:12 PM |
Photoshop: Transparent airbrush?? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | December 29th 04 01:58 AM |