Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    30

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    Fx1 has this homeopatic amount of iodide that Crawley said to be paramount to the acutance mechanism...

    Never heard of magnesium but if you add sodium cloride to some developers you increase fine grain effect.... Microdol seems to work that way. I cannot confirm that this could work on all developers. But i would try .... Maybe rodinal or fx2...

    One of the 2 neofins was catechol based the other was close to beutler metol formula
    thanks for the reply!
    about caterhol that would have been "Red" neofin ?
    for the magnisium salts it is an idea --chloride [warm tone] with magnisium [metel] to tone the negetive in development just an idea !??
    simple Epsom salt ....

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    889

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    Fx1 has this homeopatic amount of iodide that Crawley said to be paramount to the acutance mechanism...
    You have to start from the position that Crawley at the time he formulated FX-1 seems to have only been partially aware of the growing body of knowledge about iodide placement within emulsions - and that FX-1 was created around the time when a lot of emulsions still had fairly 'buried' iodide. Today, it is known that higher solvency can produce higher sharpness because it can access iodide specifically placed for that purpose (and other development inhibition effects). Most of the assumptions about developers that have been repeated ad nauseam for the last 80 years seem to be based on emulsion technology that became steadily obsolete with technology changes between 1955-1965 - they'll still develop film today, but they aren't as optimal for wide ranging use. A modern high definition developer would be more likely to be based around Dimezone-S & any of HQ/ HQMS/ Ascorbate (in a specific ratio range with the Phenidone - and 'superadditivity' is much less clear-cut than people assume) with some degree of optimised solvency (not zero solvency) & with a carbonate buffer - in other words, it's not about special ingredients, but the use of the ingredients.

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    if you add sodium cloride to some developers you increase fine grain effect.... Microdol seems to work that way. I cannot confirm that this could work on all developers. But i would try .... Maybe rodinal or fx2...
    NaCl (20g/l?) is added to increase the silver solvency of Microdol/ Microdol-X (the '-X' is an anti-dichroic stain agent - specifically Chlororesorcinol)/ Perceptol beyond the 100g/l of sodium sulphite they contain. Any of these developers will do a better job at the metol exhaustion/ solvency access to development inhibiting iodide to improve sharpness effects than wasting effort with either Rodinal or FX-2. Beutler is sharp, but there has been extensive research done since then - and PQ developers can be made to better balance granularity: sharpness. Certain PQ developers (Ilfosol 3?) may be worth experimenting with NaCl addition - but I would reckon that Ilford already has experimented very extensively with various silver solvents when formulating both DD-X and Ilfosol-3 & with feedback from high precision MTF sharpness/ RMS granularity measurements, rather than guesstimates based off 1950s formulae (at best).

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R View Post
    FX-39 is an MQ-carbonate developer, likely an “evolution” of the PQ FX-37.
    Which tends to suggest that (at the point in time he formulated FX-39) Crawley was not terribly aware of the effects on sharpness of adding HQ to Metol only developers - nor that PQ developers can be balanced to be sharper than Metol only.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    178

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Crawley had the curious habit of having 2 kind of sharpnesses... One closer to acutance the other closer to resolution.

    Fx 1 keeps giving me the utmost sharpness effects acros to fomapan... Shity tonality though...

    Negative tone can be important as seen with tanning devs... And although microdol, perceptol and fx5 tend to have a brownish cast (provinha the amount of physical development), its not the tone that matters the most...

    Atomal, metolal and others also give a brownish cast but i do not see a benificial effect on its own...

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    30

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    You have to start from the position that Crawley at the time he formulated FX-1 seems to have only been partially aware of the growing body of knowledge about iodide placement within emulsions - and that FX-1 was created around the time when a lot of emulsions still had fairly 'buried' iodide. Today, it is known that higher solvency can produce higher sharpness because it can access iodide specifically placed for that purpose (and other development inhibition effects). Most of the assumptions about developers that have been repeated ad nauseam for the last 80 years seem to be based on emulsion technology that became steadily obsolete with technology changes between 1955-1965 - they'll still develop film today, but they aren't as optimal for wide ranging use. A modern high definition developer would be more likely to be based around Dimezone-S & any of HQ/ HQMS/ Ascorbate (in a specific ratio range with the Phenidone - and 'superadditivity' is much less clear-cut than people assume) with some degree of optimised solvency (not zero solvency) & with a carbonate buffer - in other words, it's not about special ingredients, but the use of the ingredients.



    NaCl (20g/l?) is added to increase the silver solvency of Microdol/ Microdol-X (the '-X' is an anti-dichroic stain agent - specifically Chlororesorcinol)/ Perceptol beyond the 100g/l of sodium sulphite they contain. Any of these developers will do a better job at the metol exhaustion/ solvency access to development inhibiting iodide to improve sharpness effects than wasting effort with either Rodinal or FX-2. Beutler is sharp, but there has been extensive research done since then - and PQ developers can be made to better balance granularity: sharpness. Certain PQ developers (Ilfosol 3?) may be worth experimenting with NaCl addition - but I would reckon that Ilford already has experimented very extensively with various silver solvents when formulating both DD-X and Ilfosol-3 & with feedback from high precision MTF sharpness/ RMS granularity measurements, rather than guesstimates based off 1950s formulae (at best).



    Which tends to suggest that (at the point in time he formulated FX-39) Crawley was not terribly aware of the effects on sharpness of adding HQ to Metol only developers - nor that PQ developers can be balanced to be sharper than Metol only.
    The input with the info for this subject I have more understanding how intricate the chemistry is...

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    889

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    Crawley had the curious habit of having 2 kind of sharpnesses... One closer to acutance the other closer to resolution.
    When did he state this? The problem is that people pronounce 'Crawley states...' without realising that he was writing for the better part of 50 years & his views seem to have changed (though not always keeping pace with the science) quite a bit over that time. The 'Image Content' analysis method that the industry seems to have adopted from the 1970s aims to relate MTF sharpness to RMS Granularity to visual perceptions of prints made from emulsions developed in the candidate developers in a scientifically meaningful way - i.e. if your MTF goes up massively, does that impact on granularity (for various reasons) and does that make the resultant print both sharper but less tonally attractive to the viewer (under double blind test conditions)?

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    Fx 1 keeps giving me the utmost sharpness effects acros to fomapan... Shity tonality though...
    What may be happening is that FX-1 is essentially developing some of the emulsion a lot, rather than all of the emulsion a bit (i.e. it has issues accessing development centres) - this problem is known (& leads to some quite nasty tonality & extreme sharpness) with Phenidone only developers, but hasn't been noted with Metol only developers, though I'd need to check how low a metol concentration has been tested.

    Quote Originally Posted by ruilourosa View Post
    Negative tone can be important as seen with tanning devs... And although microdol, perceptol and fx5 tend to have a brownish cast (provinha the amount of physical development), its not the tone that matters the most...

    Atomal, metolal and others also give a brownish cast but i do not see a benificial effect on its own...
    'Staining' developers seem to produce a dye from the oxidation of a dihydroxybenzene or trihydroxybenzene in the absence (or near absence) of sulphite, rather than what is observed from the effects of the more severely solvent developers. There seem to have been real questions in the 1940s/ 50s in the industry over the longevity of those dye images - which you'd think would give people pause for thought as to why staining developers weren't pursued further, but other dye imaging systems were (i.e. chromogenic B&W - which can really deliver meaningful compensation via specific coupler behaviours, rather than the marketing bluff of someone trying to poison people with pyrogallol).

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    178

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    My understanding comes from reading the bjp anuals, since 1960... Anchell and troop also refer this 2 kinds of sharpness, um MTF therms low frequency and high frequency.

    Regarding fx1 i really do not care, when i use it, my aim is not tonality, i use for developing my canon Demi, Olympus ft and chaika negs, all half frame. Mostly for grain effects and non figurative work.

    I have tryed most pyro or catechol developers and although i find some differences regarding highlight rendering, some grain softening on some tones, acutance effects and some added surprises in printing (some good), i really do not find any magic bullet, just different negatives... But they are different!!! And i have negatives from the 80's that still have the green pyro stain...
    Regarding poisoning... You are right... But be careful with that hidroquinone and that paraphenilenediamine....

    I usually develop most things in a divided mq or pq dev with a carbonate second Bath... Some times fx1 sometimes ds10x, sometimes id62 (the print developer), sometimes 510pyro or dixatol...
    I want to use fx-16 but no pinacriptol and glycin went bad.. any alternatives? Anyone?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Neofin Blau 1974 info sheet set# 1.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB001.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	58.2 KB 
ID:	226517

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB002.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	78.3 KB 
ID:	226518

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB003.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	60.7 KB 
ID:	226519

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB004.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	126.5 KB 
ID:	226520


    Bernice

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Neofin Blau 1974 info sheet set# 2.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB005.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	97.3 KB 
ID:	226521

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB006.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	96.5 KB 
ID:	226522

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB007.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	102.1 KB 
ID:	226523

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB008.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	104.2 KB 
ID:	226524


    Done,
    Bernice

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    30

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Neofin Blau 1974 info sheet set# 2.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB005.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	97.3 KB 
ID:	226521

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB006.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	96.5 KB 
ID:	226522

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB007.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	102.1 KB 
ID:	226523

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeofinB008.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	104.2 KB 
ID:	226524


    Done,
    Bernice
    thanks for the info-sheet -abit diffeceult to read but ok

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    30

    Re: replacement for tetenal neofinBlue

    How can I post a photograph [negetive ] test from 9x12.5 worked in modified neofinblue ???

Similar Threads

  1. Tetenal to be closed - what next?
    By Bob Salomon in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 19-Feb-2019, 14:32
  2. Tetenal E6 three baths
    By Gabriele Campagnano in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 4-Oct-2016, 11:05
  3. T-MAX 100 and Tetenal Ultrafin*?
    By Lenrick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4-Mar-2016, 10:04
  4. Developing with Tetenal C41 Kit
    By Matei Bejenaru in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 15-Aug-2009, 06:48
  5. Tetenal RA-4 Instructions?
    By c.d.ewen in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-May-2008, 06:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •