Vanbar Imaging here in Australia are advertising red LED globes that have been tested darkroom safe. They are on feebay and are rated at 620nm?? Was looking to make the change to led
Printable View
Vanbar Imaging here in Australia are advertising red LED globes that have been tested darkroom safe. They are on feebay and are rated at 620nm?? Was looking to make the change to led
I have to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
I was photographing and processing both at home and for a photography store in the 1930's when panchromatic films were just being introduced for the amateur. Most films were orthochromatic. D-72, the predecessor of Dektol, was used ONLY for paper. By the way, Dektol is not a basically hydroquinone developer, it depends on metol to hold down the contrast. The most common developers available packaged for film were D-76, and its derivatives from manufacturers other than Kodak. A very popular one for all films was Panthermic.Many advanced workers developed their orthochromatic and panchromatic films in Pyro ABC, or its derivatives. In the store where I worked in the darkroom we developed ALL FILMS in D-23 stored in a deep tank. All films were developed to completion.
An article in a popular magazine in the early 1950's, I have forgotten which one, had a title similar to "Developing Film in D-72". This article has been quoted and misquoted dozens, or hundreds of times.
Can x-ray and other orthochromatic films be developed in Dektol or other paper developers? Yes.
Was it the developer of choice in "ancient" photography? No.
Well,I'm quite a bit younger than you are. I'm 78, and I started developing film when I was 8 years old (1946). We, my grandfather and me, used D-72 Dectol for film, and so did lots of other people. It was written on the can it came in "for developing plates and papers". There was no developer of choice in 1946. You used what you could get. We couldn't get Rodinal, but we could easily get Dectol, so we used it as I described in my post. We mostly shot Plenachrome which is an ortho film, more or less like x-ray film. Plenachrome was a multi-coated emulsion, which made it easier to use than x-ray film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/...or-highlights/ Hope this helpsQuote:
Originally Posted by SuXarik
I think it is one stop under-exposed. Can't be under developed when you develop by inspection, right? Unless you haven't learned yet to leave it in the soup a little beyond where you think it's developed enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Yes it can be under-developed. one has to learn which side of the film to view, and it does vary with the kind of film, even more critical is the importance of learning what a properly exposed negative looks like under the very dim safelight. I see too many "experts" on this and other forums giving out misleading information about this technique. When I learned how do develop by inspection I had to learn to do it correctly or get fired. I won't go into the details here because full and accurate information is quite lengthy. When I taught it students were expected to attend sessions twice a week and practice at least two time in between. The best way to learn is find someone who truly knows what they are doing and pay their price to learn from them. It is not learned in an hour or two. Maybe an hour or two every day for a month for most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
While I learned to do this about 70 years ago, by no means am I an expert. I thought the third sentence in my reply covered that little detail. But of course it is not a little detail. When I had to learn how to do it from my grandfather, I either learned how to do it correctly, or I got no more film to shoot. While I was learning, my grandfather gave me one sheet of film to shoot. Until I learned to develop at least adequetly, that was it, one sheet of Plenachrome. Only then was I allowed to develop roll film. by the tray method. I was fascinated by the development process because to an eight year-old it seemed to be magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuXarik
Would be easier to figure out if gave us information on
- developer
- time
- type of development
- curves of scanning
- scanner
- what is the meaning of life
There are great many variables. I would stick with underexposed a bit but it also could be result of ba scanning :)
Here is what happened with Fuji HR-T at ISO 80, in Sprint Systems 1:9 for 6 min.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/615/2...8553c13c_b.jpg8x10 HR-T008-1 by Alex C, on Flickr
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/599/2...c226e4ef_b.jpg8x10 HR-T007-1 by Alex C, on Flickr
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/669/2...7381798e_b.jpg8x10 HR-T005-1 by Alex C, on Flickr
Going to try and use a more dilute developer and less agitation next time around.
Amfooty,
If you are trying to home in on the best development time for you, do one or the other, not more dilute and less agitation in the same test.