Denverdad
Allowing Ads
I've been using this technique at 50 F to develop my 1960s tri-X but using dil A and even a slightly higher concentrations and trying to keep the film in as short a period of time as possible.
I wonder if there is a difference for you with dilutions. meaning why not test with A, F and H dilutions to see if they improve things further. I don't have a densitimeter to help out with the science here.
...I don't have a densitimeter to help out with the science here.
I don't think anyone thinks that anyone on APUG thinks that using electronics of any sort for purposes like testing or controlling or evaluating or anything else that isn't a substitution for analogue photo processes is in any way heretical or, more importantly, somehow anti-APUG.I meant to address this part too - in full disclosure I don't have one either! My "densitometer" is actually a scanner which I pressed into service for the task. I know that will raise some eyebrows but honestly I spent quite a while working on the scanner, verifying its linear response and working on my scanning and processing methods until I was sure that I was obtaining meaningful and consistent density measurements with it.
Jeff
Thanks Bernard. I think there are a few references online for how to go about this should you find the need as I did. But feel free to ping me any time and I will see if I can offer any tips.Warm congratulations for actually testing one of these "common wisdom" that gets repeated over and over on the internet. And agree with your conclusion. If I were you , I would not be dragged into trying yet another dilution/temperature combination that just might work.
I am quite interested in your use of a s***r as a d***r but am afraid such a discussion would not be kindly considered here. Could you consider posting elsewhere, e.g. on rangefinderforum or largeformatphotography? And send me a PM to alert me if/when you do so?
I don't think anyone thinks that anyone on APUG thinks that using electronics of any sort for purposes like testing or controlling or evaluating or anything else that isn't a substitution for analogue photo processes is in any way heretical or, more importantly, somehow anti-APUG.
Good work by the OP apparently establishing a reliable method for measuring the fog density on old films.
I would like to enquire if he ever tested the fog density with a developer other than HC110.
The reason for this question is that HC110 is often recommended as a developer for old films, giving low fog.
I expect this is true but don't know of any actual data.
You need to check to fog between the two temperatures when both films are processed to the same gamma. Perhaps a more practical and easier test would be to test the ASA/ISO speed of both developer temperatures on the same film. Who cares how much fog is rendered, the advantage of less fog is more useful shadow detail which is defined as higher speed.
I didnt say this earlier but I also use a tiny amount of benzotriazole with my cold developer. I did some strip testing and found significant differences with very small changes in the benzo ratio. I can look up the amount if you are interested.
The clip test you linked to on Found Film explains developing to the peak is a good idea. They write that you don't want the fog to eat into the image.
It looks to me like you demonstrated a measurable improvement in a number of factors at 40 degrees F. Better separation of tones and longer peak of density difference above fog.
The rise in fog directly reduces the speed that you should rate the film at. That is, more fog equates to lower speed. So you "should" choose the beginning of the peak to get the most speed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?