Recent content by michaelbothager

I am using a GFX 100s with a Novoflex bellows/Schneider lens setup - highly recommended. Pricewise it is in the same range (here in Denmark) as the GFX 120 Macro, but optically better. Novoflex Adapter Fuji G-Mount Camera to BALPRO 1 (FUGPRO) NOVOFLEX 25MM EXT TUBE FOR BALPRO (PRO25 ) NOVOFLEX...

If you are asking me, it is not relevant for my original question. I was merely wondering about the discrepancies in Tri-X development times in the two data sheets, nothing else. But I haven't got a darkroom (unfortunately), so I scan on a Imacon PIII. This may be a possible reason for the...

Don, assuming this is the 400 speed Tri-X in 1981, both stock and 1:1 times matches the times from the current D-76 sheet. To me, it seems likely that the D-76 sheet hasn't been updated when Kodak changed Tri-X to 400TX. If it is different contrast indices (CI's), as MattKing suggests, I would...

Hello all Could not find anything conclusive in the archive, or my search skills are lacking. The official Kodak development times using D-76 in stock/full strength are different between the Kodak tech data sheets. D-76 data sheet (J-78, December 2017) says 8 minutes at 20C. Tri-X data...

Thank you for the input.

I am wondering about which aesthetic reasons other photographers have for using D-76 in stock. Which subjective qualities of the final image have you found? I’m contemplating to try out stock D-76 with Tri-X (have been using 1+1 so far). I know that there are going to be some differences...

Just wanted to say thank you for all the suggestions and replies. Much appreciated.

So the deficit is negligible?

Bill, thank you – but this is over my head. I develop for 9:45, the standard time from Kodak's spec. I've not looked into Contrast Index etc. (yet ;o) )

Yes, that is my worry, will the slightly less amount of developer (14ml less pr roll compared to Kodak's specification) require any compensation, or is the discrepancy so small that it is negligeble.

Hi Everyone I tried searching, but could not find anything solid. Whn developing Tri-X in D-76 dilluted 1:1, Kodak states in the specs for the developer, that it should be 473ml final solution (236ml stock & 236ml water) for a single 120 (or 135) film, and likewise 946ml for two 120 films. But...

I'm did that, and some of the air bells was on the bottom reel. No atter how hard, within reason, or banged, rapped etc. the air bubbles would cling to the top of the reels. The only way I could get rid of the bubbles was to use the stirring/twizzle stick, but this gives uneven development of...

Yes. I guess that it becomes an issue to a very few Paterson users. Luckily, most don't have this issue. Yes. I'm not pursuing this any further, since it seems to be an exclusive issue with me, and I've decided to go with stainless steel instead. Thank you you reply.

Thank you for your replies. I get air bells on both reels. It's not surge marks. No amount of rapping/thumping/hitting the tank dislodges them. So a combination of the water available to me and Paterson reels is just not working. I'm now switching to stainless steel, don't have any issue...

Hello all Two questions about issues when developing in a Paterson Super System 4 tank with 2 reels and 120 film, using inversion agitation. a) Surge (cavitation) marks, do they always appear on the same edge of the film, like at the upper edge of the reel? b) Air bubbles, do they also occur...