Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)

Nick Zentena wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:

:
: If I were to use high dilutions of Rodinal it would require tray processing. Every now
: and then I consider tray processing film. The my senses come back to me and I load the
: film in my Jobo. :-)


: Large volumes of developer is one reason I've avoided buying a Jobo
: machine. Luckily the tanks work just fine on a motorbase.

??

I'm not sure what you mean by the large volumes of developers needed when using a Jobo
processor. While the full capacity of the tanks is large only half of the volume of the
tank is used when putting it on the processor. Remember when processing the tank is
horizontal and the continuous rotation of the tank assures that film is in the
chemistry and properly developed.

As an example the 1520 tank I use when processing roll film has a capacity of two rolls
of film and 240ml of chemistry (~8US ounces).
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean by the large volumes of developers needed when using a Jobo
processor. While the full capacity of the tanks is large only half of the volume of the


No I meant the processors can't handle large amounts of developer. Don't
they max out at around 1litre of solution? The small one is about 600ml. I
use alot more then 600ml for a tank of film. Often more then 1litre of
developer.

Nick

Frank Pittel wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean by the large volumes of developers needed when using a Jobo
processor. While the full capacity of the tanks is large only half of the volume of the


No I meant the processors can't handle large amounts of developer. Don't
they max out at around 1litre of solution? The small one is about 600ml. I
use alot more then 600ml for a tank of film. Often more then 1litre of
developer.

Nick

Frank Pittel wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote:
: Before you spend a lot of money on a specialty developer, try a highly
: dilute conventional developer, with reduced agitation. I've seen
: significant contrast compression in TMY using HC-110 Dilution G (1:119
: from USA syrup), 15 minutes at 70 F, and agitation reduced to every 5
: minutes -- in fact, *too much* compression, even for harshly lit
: full-sun scenes. It should be easy to increase contrast enough to get
: negatives you like in your light, but the above dilution and agitation
: compensate enough to provide nicely pictorial contrast even with
: document films like Agfa Copex Rapid.

Fortunatly I didn't spend a whole lot of money on the developer. Even then it only cost
~$10. What effect does the very high dilution have on grain size??


In my experience, very little; grain is a tiny bit bigger than TMY in
Dilution H (probably because of reduced solvent action at the higher
dilution), but much smaller than Tri-X, and softer looking than Tri-X
grain -- some might call it "mushy" but I rather like the rounded,
pebbly appearance at 2400 ppi scan compared to the very salt-and-pepper
look of Tri-X in low solvency developers.

And the high level of compensation offsets the upswept curve of TMY in
HC-110, so your highlights don't become unprintable despite retaining
detail.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Frank Pittel wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote:
: Before you spend a lot of money on a specialty developer, try a highly
: dilute conventional developer, with reduced agitation. I've seen
: significant contrast compression in TMY using HC-110 Dilution G (1:119
: from USA syrup), 15 minutes at 70 F, and agitation reduced to every 5
: minutes -- in fact, *too much* compression, even for harshly lit
: full-sun scenes. It should be easy to increase contrast enough to get
: negatives you like in your light, but the above dilution and agitation
: compensate enough to provide nicely pictorial contrast even with
: document films like Agfa Copex Rapid.

Fortunatly I didn't spend a whole lot of money on the developer. Even then it only cost
~$10. What effect does the very high dilution have on grain size??


In my experience, very little; grain is a tiny bit bigger than TMY in
Dilution H (probably because of reduced solvent action at the higher
dilution), but much smaller than Tri-X, and softer looking than Tri-X
grain -- some might call it "mushy" but I rather like the rounded,
pebbly appearance at 2400 ppi scan compared to the very salt-and-pepper
look of Tri-X in low solvency developers.

And the high level of compensation offsets the upswept curve of TMY in
HC-110, so your highlights don't become unprintable despite retaining
detail.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Nick Zentena wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:

:
: I'm not sure what you mean by the large volumes of developers needed when using a Jobo
: processor. While the full capacity of the tanks is large only half of the volume of the


: No I meant the processors can't handle large amounts of developer. Don't
: they max out at around 1litre of solution? The small one is about 600ml. I
: use alot more then 600ml for a tank of film. Often more then 1litre of
: developer.

That's what I hoped you meant. I always thought it was well known that Jobo processors
used very little chemistry. It becomes a problem when using very dilute chemistry. One
thing that you can do is use a larger tank and put in less then the maximum amount of
film. While you have to be careful about the capacity of the developer I've found that
both Kodak and Ilford ( the only chemistry I've used with my processor ) are very
conservative with their capacity numbers. For example according to Kodak when diluted
1:9 Tmax-rs has only enough capacity to develop two 4x5 sheets of film with the volume
of developer I can put in the tank. However with careful experimentation I found that
I can process the six sheets that the tank will hold. I of course only use the
chemistry one shot.

You are correct that the CPE (the one I have) can handle 600ml of chemistry and the CPP
and CPA processors can handle 1liter of chemistry.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: jjs wrote:
: : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : ...
: : jjs wrote:
:
: : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : :-)
:
: : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
:
: The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: get a lot of here in the midwest.

: Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!

Some of us like some tonality in their prints. We have also learned that the best way
to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative. The closer the
tonal range of the negative matches the tonal range of the paper being used the easier
the printing will be and the better the final results.

When the highlights are blown out on the negative the is nothing to print. The same way
that there's no way to get detail in the shadows where the negative is clear.

It's a shame you took down the images you once proudly bragged about. They were the
perfect example of who you can't properly expose, develop film and your printing is at
the level of a beginner of someone that is bad at printing.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote:


You are correct that the CPE (the one I have) can handle 600ml of chemistry and the CPP
and CPA processors can handle 1liter of chemistry.


When I got my first tank I figured I would get a processor but I got a
motorbase first. Turns out the motorbase does everything I need. I then
thought I'd get a processor if I ever wanted to do colour but now it seems I
can live without. The only thing I miss is doing one roll of film or maybe
a few sheets of 4x5. With my setup I'm using 640ml of chemicals or more so
one roll isn't that pratical.

Nick

Frank Pittel wrote:


You are correct that the CPE (the one I have) can handle 600ml of chemistry and the CPP
and CPA processors can handle 1liter of chemistry.


When I got my first tank I figured I would get a processor but I got a
motorbase first. Turns out the motorbase does everything I need. I then
thought I'd get a processor if I ever wanted to do colour but now it seems I
can live without. The only thing I miss is doing one roll of film or maybe
a few sheets of 4x5. With my setup I'm using 640ml of chemicals or more so
one roll isn't that pratical.

Nick

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: jjs wrote:
: : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : ...
: : jjs wrote:

: : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : :-)

: : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
:
: The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: get a lot of here in the midwest.

: Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!

Some of us like some tonality in their prints.

Correct, not overly-contracted pieces of **** such as the likes of
John Sexton and you produce.

We have also learned that the best way
to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative.

Yes, not overdeveoped or underdeveloped. Normally developed, moron.

The closer the
tonal range of the negative matches the tonal range of the paper being used the easier
the printing will be and the better the final results.

Of course. And water is wet, I hear!


When the highlights are blown out on the negative the is nothing to print.

Then don't include them in the composition, idiot! You want 'tonality'
while trying to encompass 77 stops of range on a film that cannot
handle it, so you use N-56 devlopment, and complain that the prints
lack 'snap'. Duh, you're a ****ing moron.

The same way
that there's no way to get detail in the shadows where the negative is clear.

Right. Film's latitude is limited, ****wit.