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

Film almost transparent



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 14, 11:14 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Franssoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 23rd 14, 04:54 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old February 23rd 14, 09:40 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default 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  
Old February 24th 14, 07:02 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old February 24th 14, 08:44 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 450
Default 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  
Old February 24th 14, 12:44 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Franssoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 25th 14, 01:55 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default 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  
Old February 25th 14, 08:56 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Franssoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 06:22 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old February 28th 14, 08:42 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
franssoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.