Now then! Have I spotted a problem here?Originally Posted by onnect17
1:1:500? If we are talking 1 of Solution A and 1 of Solution B and 500 of water that would probably be wrong.
1 of solution A plus 12.5 of solution B made up to a total of 500 with water would be correct.
Attachment 104759
RR
Sorry, I meant 1:500.
BTW, I read some posts from Jay here where he mentions some issues with OA and TMX and also with processors.
I like 510-Pyro better, IMHO. During tests with small tanks, some edges did look sharper than PC-HD but I stopped using it after finding what it seems small pinholes in the 35mm negatives. It also works just fine with the Jobo, which it's a "must" in my case.
Approaching success, I think. I mixed another batch using the potassiums rather than the sodiums. Yes, I know others have had success with the sodiums. Using Delta 100, I was able to produce a negative, albeit very thin. I developed at 68F for twelve minutes agitating every two minutes and got a thin negative. Next I developed at 70F for fourteen minutes and produced a better negative, but still thin. Then I did the unconventional. I doubled the amount of Solution A and developed at 70F for 12 minutes. It produced a negative wherein I could finally see the definition of the mortar between my floor tiles in the basement but I am concerned because, to do so, I had to go way outside the formula. Plus, I think the negative is still a little thin. I'm tired so tomorrow I will extend the development time to 14 minutes and see what I get.
Question: with the staining, should a properly developed and exposed negative look roughly the same as concerns density, but brownish, as with standard developers, Xtol for example?
I think part of the reasons for thin negatives is the film speed. Those few rolls I have successfully developed in the Potassium variant have been exposed at about half box speed.
Negatives developed with Catechol looks thinner than negatives developed in Xtol so please don't let that deceive you. In my experience with Pyrocat a thinner looking negative still took longer to expose than a negative developed in a solvent developer.
That is one thing I still need to try. Going by the suggested dev times I have developed a few rolls that looks nice without extended time. Just very inconsistent so far.
Next time I will cut a roll in half and give half the roll two more minutes to see what the difference is.
Here is a comparison of a sheet of 8x10 xray film developed in OA with intermittent agitation and a sheet given stand development in a BTZS tube.
The stand negative is pretty ugly, tonally, and the bromide drag is a drag... but edge effects are stunning. I much prefer the tones of the intermittently agitated film.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/andy8x10
Flickr Site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andrew.oneill.artist/
How much (in ml) working solution are folks using per each 4x5 sheet of film? Please chime in! And thanks!
Peter Collins
On the intent of the First Amendment: The press was to serve the governed, not the governors --Opinion, Hugo Black, Judge, Supreme Court, 1971 re the "Pentagon Papers."
I like to use 500ml of working solution for 4 sheets of 4x5.
RR
Thanks for posting the results of your tests!
I wonder how they compare to 5 secs /min.
Hi
Anyone know what should be the temperature of the 750ml of distilled water to which Catechol and Meta are added.
Thanks
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks