|
I've often wondered -- is there any point in cutting off the taped bit of a 120 leader? I usually wrap the tape over onto the other side of the film so there's no sticky stuff exposed but I typically load from the non-cut side anyway, so I'm wondering if it typically fits through the spool sprocket ball bearings. I've accidentally poked holes in my (tiny) changing bag twice now, fumbling around with scissors. If it's not necessary then I can skip that entire step. I'd check now but I don't keep my cuttings around after I do the fixer test. As for cutting it on an angle, I found that my reel actually helps me load even if it IS at an angle. I have enough lip that I can line up the film by feel without even worrying about whether I'm putting in both sides of the front at the same time. A godsend. That's about the only thing I like about my AP setup. The tank cap is a leaky sonofabitch so I'm going to try and replace that soon  Since the cap actually leaks a fair amount, do you guys have any idea whether agitating the film with the central-spinner agitator that came with my tank would have the same effect as inverting the tank? It adds a slight up and down motion for what it's worth.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:I've often wondered -- is there any point in cutting off the taped bit of a 120 leader? I usually wrap the tape over onto the other side of the film so there's no sticky stuff exposed but I typically load from the non-cut side anyway, so I'm wondering if it typically fits through the spool sprocket ball bearings. I always just peel the tape off my 120 film. I'm probably just paranoid but I imagine the chems reacting with the tape in a weird way or breaking it up only to stick at random spots on my film. I know it's unlikely but I feel better peeling it loose.  I've had several oldtime photogs tell me that every tank leaks at the cap to some extent. I have 3 different models and they all do. I have an old plastic single reel tank with the central spinner and it's the only way to agitate with that model as the chems would all pour out if inverted. Its always worked fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
So typically when I invert it's something like four inversions in ten seconds. I guess if I were to start spinning instead I'd just have to do it with a medium touch for the same ten seconds? Sort of like when I invert I don't tip it gently but I also don't shake it like I'm having a seizure. I don't mind the developer leaking a little, but when it comes to fixer I'd rather not have my hands smell like chemicals for the rest of the day. I might try peeling the tape off next time. I'm really paranoid about touching the exposed film though, and leaving fingerprints or something by accident. I'm sure it's not that hard not to paw at your film but I'm always worried that the more I fiddle with it the more chances that I put my fat rear end thumb on something important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:[Note: once the developer has done its job, the film is basically insensitive to light, although you still want to keep it in the tank/in the dark to be safe] Good writeup! I just need to  about the technical details here because they are not quite right.When you expose the film, the light creates a latent image on the film. It chemically alters the grains of silver halide in the film, but it doesn't turn them black yet. It's sort of like the light is checking off a little box saying "turn this one black" for when the developer gets to it. What the developer does is convert those grains with tiny alterations into nice dark grains of oxidized silver. It doesn't react with the grains that haven't been exposed to light. However, if you take the film right out of the bath and hold it in the light, the developer that has been absorbed into the emulsion will keep working, and as the light hits the unexposed grains they will be developed. So if there is any developer still on the film, you'll fog it a little by exposing it to light. The stop bath reduces the pH of the developer enough to kill it instantly and prevent it from doing any more work. So, once you've poured in the stop, you actually can run around with the film gleefully in the light of day and it shouldn't have any effect. Some people say that sudden, massive dilution of the developer (ie., pour it out and fill the tank with water) does the same thing but I use stop anyway. Then the fixer -- what it actually does is clear away all the grains that have not been developed, whether or not they have been exposed. It does also "set" the results in the sense that if you don't remove all the other silver, it will slowly develop itself over time with exposure to light and turn the whole film foggy. You're right about it picking up silver and being a Very Bad Thing to put in with the fishies and algae. So yeah -- don't take the film out when it's done developing until you have actually stopped the development somehow, and fix until clear (you can watch this happening if you like) and then double that time. Don't do it too long though or you will scour away ALL the silver and your negatives will be blank. Film chemistry is fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
HC-110 is very versatile. You can dilute it as much or as little as you want for very controllable development times in regards to pushing/pulling. The other nice about it is that it comes in liquid form so all you need is a graduated cylinder or syringe and you can very easily mix up a one shot batch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 10:36
|
|
|
It also lasts a really long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 11:30
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:HC-110 is very versatile. You can dilute it as much or as little as you want for very controllable development times in regards to pushing/pulling. The other nice about it is that it comes in liquid form so all you need is a graduated cylinder or syringe and you can very easily mix up a one shot batch. Okay, thanks! You guys are the best. Also I didn't realize you had to invert, so now my negatives have a wavvy line 2/3rd the way up Oh well, thats life, live and learn I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 15:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That's a good writeup, but one or two things are a little off. Pompous Rhombus posted:3) Agitate as needed over the time you're developing the film. I do 2 gentle inversions every 60 seconds, with a good rap or two on the counter at the end to dislodge any air bubbles. This isn't quite right. Every film will have an agitation cycle on its data sheet. Tri-X, for instance, is 5 seconds every 30 seconds, and Pan-F is 5 seconds every 60 seconds. You should check the recommended agitation for each film you use and refer to that as a starting point. Most important, however, is to always make sure you do it the same way every time. Pompous Rhombus posted:[Note: once the developer has done its job, the film is basically insensitive to light, although you still want to keep it in the tank/in the dark to be safe] No. Developer develops the exposed silver. Unexposed silver is still very much sensitive to light and you film can still fog from light prior to fixing. Pompous Rhombus posted:7) Rinse: fill tank with water, agitate it like you're shaking a querulous infant. Pour out, repeat. I usually do 1-2 cycles of this over a couple of minutes, then take the outer lid of the tank and just run water through it from the sink. You're basically removing excess fixer here.  NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!Where is your perma wash? The cycle you describe is not nearly enough washing to remove your fixer. These negs will have no archival properties. After you fix: -1 minute water bath -2 minutes wash aid (perma wash, hypo wash, hypo clear- all the same thing) -5 to 6 minutes running water wash Without perma wash, it would take water alone something along the lines of an hour to remove the fix from your negs. The longer your film stays in the wet, the more the grain swells and becomes apparent, which is why the perma wash is so valuable. It gets rid of the fix without requiring the long wash times. Most importantly though, you need to get rid of the fix on your negs. Check out my writeup on the steps from a few pages back: McMadCow posted:Alright, I'm going to write up the steps for small tank developing just in case it isn't clear to everyone. Appologies if this seems too elementary, but at least someone in the IRC channel was skipping a couple of very important steps and ruining the archival quality of their negs as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:21
|
|
) for 1 or 2 minutes with water. WHEN DO YOU NEED TO DO THIS? When your development times are extremely short (under 5 mins) or if you're using an extra large developing tank that takes a long time to fill. Presoaking lets the emulsion take up the developer faster, eliminating inconsistencies or streaking caused by either or the two situations described previously. 
|
I've never heard that about permawash being so necessary, I don't know many people who use it :-\ Edit: I thought it was mostly for prints Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jun 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've never heard that about permawash being so necessary, I don't know many people who use it :-\ All that fixer is slowly eating your negatives as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Where is your perma wash? The cycle you describe is not nearly enough washing to remove your fixer. These negs will have no archival properties. That's interesting to know. I don't use hypo clear, but when I do the final wash I let it sit in cool running water for 35-45 minutes (yeah yeah wasting water). When I'm shooting film I do like a grainy look so I was never upset with what I got. Incidentally, this the cycle that this ancient Kodak book I have recommends if you're not using hypo-clear, and I am coincidentally using all Kodak chemicals on Kodak film. I haven't noticed anything even on my oldest negatives, but do you think my film is still going to fall apart over time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
My photos are mostly terrible so they deserve to be eaten away in five years' time. But I'll be buying some wash aid shortly, thanks McMadCow!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:42
|
|
|
^^^ Sadly, my first negs from 5 years ago are still going strong. It's like a reminder of past crappiness.orange lime posted:That's interesting to know. I don't use hypo clear, but when I do the final wash I let it sit in cool running water for 35-45 minutes (yeah yeah wasting water). When I'm shooting film I do like a grainy look so I was never upset with what I got. Eh, if kodak says 35-45 mins of water bath without perma wash, I'd say you're probably safe. The point is, it's way longer than the short wash (and no perma wash) that some people have been doing here. I wouldn't be surprised if you're getting heavier grain as a result, but since you like that look I'd say no harm no foul.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Would it make any difference if I went back and re-washed them in hypo clear? I'm pretty sure I have some sitting in my "hey why don't you get a functioning enlarging lens and start making prints with that huge 4x5 enlarger making GBS threads up your closet you lazy rear end in a top hat" box. Edit: jesus, 35-45 minutes of running water? That's criminal wastage 
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
Yes, seconding this question because I have some negs of my dog that passed away that I'd rather not lose, even if it wouldn't happen in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
There's also the ilford method, whcih uses alot less water. Fill tank, invert 10 times, dump. Repeat with 20 and 30 inverts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
Stregone posted:There's also the ilford method, whcih uses alot less water. Fill tank, invert 10 times, dump. Repeat with 20 and 30 inverts. Oh, that's what I've been doing up until pretty recently (just found it kinda tedious). Didn't know it was from Ilford though, just read it somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Would it make any difference if I went back and re-washed them in hypo clear? I'm pretty sure I have some sitting in my "hey why don't you get a functioning enlarging lens and start making prints with that huge 4x5 enlarger making GBS threads up your closet you lazy rear end in a top hat" box. I don't see why you couldn't give it a shot. The only thing I'd worry about is scratching your negs because you can't get them on a reel once they're cut. So you need to find a way of keeping them safe under all the running water once they're perma washed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Edit: jesus, 35-45 minutes of running water? That's criminal wastage It's a waste, but it's not like I crank the thing open and let it fly. The stream of water is about 1/8" wide, if that. I should definitely get some hypo-clear though -- didn't realize it made the washing so much shorter. Oh, and one other thing. I have some Minox film (9.5mm wide, about the width of one of those fat rubber bands) that I need to flatten out. It's on a fairly thick base and the narrowness of the film itself makes the curling worse. I am intending to re-wash it to get it all limp, but then -- how do you recommend I dry it so it goes nice and mirror-flat like the negatives I get back from the lab? orange lime fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Stregone posted:There's also the ilford method, whcih uses alot less water. Fill tank, invert 10 times, dump. Repeat with 20 and 30 inverts. Yeah, this is what I do, if Ilford says it's good enough, then it is good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
orange lime posted:It's a waste, but it's not like I crank the thing open and let it fly. The stream of water is about 1/8" wide, if that. I should definitely get some hypo-clear though -- didn't realize it made the washing so much shorter. I also have problems with my minox negs - originally hang-dried. Mine have curled length-wise, so that is impossible to get the whole image in focus with my film scanner. I guess I'll have to rewash and flatten them somehow. But how?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Check out my writeup on the steps from a few pages back: This really should be linked on the first page of the thread for people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
i dont really even measure the 'correct' amounts of developer, reuse it, don't use hypoclear, or know temperature and things generally come out v  v
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
I'm probably overly anal about my developer ratios for someone who's so lax about the other parts of his development process. But yeah, so far the only time I've seriously hosed anything up was that one time I used the wrong timer for developing. Everything else was virtually foolproof, regardless of which developer I used. HC-110 is amazing. I can't believe this old bottle is still kicking. My fixer is also going on strong nearly a year after initial mixing, though I don't really run that much film through it to deteriorate it. Anyone have any good info on re-using developer though? Always interested in learning something new. Is it just as easy as pouring your used developer into a jug and pouring it back in for the next roll, or do you need to treat it somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
That's exactly what I do every time I process 4x5. The issue with me is that I develop in lovely tupperware containers I got at a 99cent store which I probably have to put too much developer in to process each given sheet. I don't actually know, but i figure there's plenty of unused dev so I just pour it back. I don't do this for roll film though. After going through almost a gallon of HC-110B and about 20 sheets of HP5, I haven't really noticed any issues. I do have some issues with Acros but I don't know if it's related because I dilute to HC-110E and then process - but again, I don't measure my dilution accurately. Also, my scanner's leaving lines and all the repair places are closed on weekends. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:That's exactly what I do every time I process 4x5. I use dilution H (one-shot) and a Combi-Plan for my 4x5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
pipedream: one day when i'm rich and move to somewhere that doesn't have local E6 i'm just gunna get a jobo processor and do color film that way. ughhh: http://cgi.ebay.com/JOBO-ATL-2-FILM-PROCESSOR-/110549648842?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19bd45c5ca#ht_2009wt_1137 guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jun 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
250 is actually not that unreasonable. Wow. edit: I mean, I'm sure it'll go for more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:250 is actually not that unreasonable. Wow. quote:Shipping: $250.00 UPS Ground | See all shipping details Craigslist is your friend for darkroom stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I forgot about shipping 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
You need a huge amount of sink space/water line hookup anyway which I will never have till I buy a house lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Do you think $465 is too much to pay for a Nikon FE2? I really want one, and it's in LN condition which I also like, but it's a huge step up in price from EX condition which goes for like $175. I hate paying such a high premium but I want it in nice condition. Just not sure if it's really worth it. Seems like a lot of money.
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Jun 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Do you think $465 is too much to pay for a Nikon FE2? I really want one, and it's in LN condition which I also like, but it's a huge step up in price from EX condition which goes for like $175. I hate paying such a high premium but I want it in nice condition. Just not sure if it's really worth it. Seems like a lot of money. If you're talking about KEH, just get the BGN condition one. BGN at KEH is still damned good by anyone else's standards and a good way to get a working camera at a good price. If you want a museum piece that you'll never use, get a LN. If you plan on using the camera, don't bother paying the premium for LN because it'll end up in BGN condition or worse by the time you sell it off. I only buy BGN stuff there unless there's only a small difference between grades price-wise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 08:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I think if it came in too nice I would have been afraid to use it and get it damaged. Whenever I travel into the city to photograph I always bang up my gear a little, it is almost unavoidable. I will try out the cheaper version and see if I want to eventually spend more on the nicer one. Thanks for the advice!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 09:16
|
|
|
That sounds way too expensive in my ears, I got one in good condition for 150. I wouldn't have payed that much for one, But it's a really good camera. The whole Nikon F-series is really good, just get one of them and you should be set for 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 10:08
|
|
|
Why the FE2 in particular?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Why the FE2 in particular? Of the FM/FE/FA series, I like it the best. I think it's the most attractive camera and it has a good balance of features. But I also liked several others, including the FM2N and the FM3A, as well as a few others. In the end I had to settle for one. If I like it I'll buy some more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I've done several searches and have come up with a variety of options, but I'd rather ask you all before I commit to anything. I'm in the process of sorting out around 1500 or so strips of 35mm negatives for somebody, and eventually scanning selected photos. I'm putting them in archival notebook sleeves from Print File (the ones that hold 7 strips per page and that can be scanned as contact sheets) and getting them organized/categorized with those sleeves and scanning them in and generating a full digital catalog. The stuff from the mid/late 1980s on came in their own sleeves. The stuff before that came in envelopes where the negatives were placed all in one compartment/envelop, all together. Question #1 I've got a few dozen where they are heavily stained for whatever reason. Is PEC-12 worth trying? http://www.photosol.com/pec12.htm I really don't have a way of determining what stained them - if it was just humidity/water damage or chemicals. Question #2 - Most important I've come across probably 40 or so strips where they are stuck together (usually just 2-3 stuck together). I don't know if they had some water get in there and make things moldy/damp and stick them together (high humidity as well), or if they were placed in there wet by whoever developed them or what. They are older and considered valuable. Everything I've read says soaking them in some water and perhaps some of Kodak's Photo-Flo. Is that the best solution (no pun intended)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Of the FM/FE/FA series, I like it the best. I think it's the most attractive camera and it has a good balance of features. But I also liked several others, including the FM2N and the FM3A, as well as a few others. In the end I had to settle for one. If I like it I'll buy some more. DO you need 1/4000 and shutter prio? evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:
400 Tri x in the summer 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:20
|
|