Liquid emulsions.. who is doing it?

Ryuji, the dye in question is a fine ortho sensitizing dye for all but AgBrI emulsions apparently. When placed on the AgBrI, the dye aggregates and shifts absorption max to longer wavelengths. The dye sensitizes in the red region when that happens.

Chemistry is available to prevent this, but I elected to avoid this route for simplicity sake and just switch dyes.

The effect with this dye was diagnosed long ago by one of Kodak's premier dye researchers. I discussed this with him on the phone and via e-mail just recently to confirm that I was indeed seeing the problem, ie a classic case of "J" aggregation.

The coatings using the dye on AgBr and AgCl are magenta in color, and the coating using AgBrI and this dye are cyan due to the aggregation. That is classically symptomatic of this type of aggregate and indicates red sensitivity.

I was spectrally sensitizing, doctoring and doping emulsions when you were in diapers Ryuji. Please consider this. I am also in the position of the young boy who lived near Albert Einstein and had Dr. Einstein help him with his math homework. When I have a problem that I cannot solve, I have friends who can help me and who know a lot more about the subject than I do.

Oh, and when I asked you for help finding a source for a better sensitzing dye and a better gelatin, did you give me one? No. When you asked me for my source of gelatin after I finally found a good one, I remember giving you name and telephone number.

And, as far as I know, Erythrosin does not form a "J" aggregate. I would have to check my notes, but the data I have says no. It has been used on AgBrI emulsions to impart ortho sensitivity, but it works best on AgCl. It is very touchy and difficult to use however, as we both know. Its main advantages are cost and availability.

PE

while chefs bicker, guests starve

I have been watching this thread with mounting sentiments of fascination and dread. Ron is making oranges. Ryuji is making apples.

Why, when they come together, can't they agree either to serve their principal dishes in the form of sequential courses at a grand photographic banquet, or in the alternative, collaborate on a delicious macedoine des fruits?

Instead we always, and only, seem to get served, in the end, a gall cocktail of uncertain provenance. Where is the harmonious succession of splendid courses we expect from such distinguished chefs de chemie?

Thanks to Bill Troop for low-pressure injecting that bit of sense into this discussion. There's no reason not to have two or three or more threads discussion different emulsion formulations with different goals in mind.

Now that y'all three esteemed presences are here, let's not have a replay of the debates that we can all read in the photo.net archives. Welcome to APUG!

Dear Bill,

How we make emulsions is irrelevant as long as each of us makes ones that are good for own applications. That's that.
But posting nonsense, repeatedly, on multiple online discussion boards is a completely different story. You must know it very well from our private discussions and my criticisms about your and others' book that I do not like nonesense, sometimes even when it's no more harmful than usual marketing hypes. Ron's hogwash's like negative campaign in politics and it is a very purposeful one. I know where you are going with your analogy, but please don't ask me for collaboration for your commercial projects, or any project that involves nonesense.

Best regards,

Ryuji Suzuki

billtroop said:

I have been watching this thread with mounting sentiments of fascination and dread. Ron is making oranges. Ryuji is making apples.

Why, when they come together, can't they agree either to serve their principal dishes in the form of sequential courses at a grand photographic banquet, or in the alternative, collaborate on a delicious macedoine des fruits?

Instead we always, and only, seem to get served, in the end, a gall cocktail of uncertain provenance. Where is the harmonious succession of splendid courses we expect from such distinguished chefs de chemie?

Click to expand...

Bill asks:
"Where is the harmonious succession of splendid courses we expect from such distinguished chefs de chemie?"

The Chefs are too busy removing and analyzing the poison from the blow fish sushi I am afraid!

Bill, I share your observation. However, make no mistake, the ripple rises from the east!

I find it rather discouraging to see one player always attack those with more knowledge, experience and leadership, (even a senior emulsion specialist no less!) with the disrespectful My Grass is Greener than Yours!

When Ron gets his variables under control, and you start sharing your stuff with each other or independents like myself, things will be much clearer.

Ron has only been working on this subject for a short time, although he brings with him much valuable experience.

The other guy has been at it much longer and it is no surprise if he seems to be overly proud of his arguably mediocre achievements.

I disagree with the contention of one actor that you can judge a book by its spine.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how much technical Jargon you master,
It is so easy to sound like an expert, it is not as easy to act like one.

The rude and provoking comments of one of the actors in this play
"Your story is phony...your story sounds like a poorly written fiction."
is both offensive and un-professional.

Since this person is a not a professional, perhaps this default can be overlooked?

We read "There is no point to muck around with ancient formulae endlessly."

Thats right.
I looked into the future and saw where this was leading and predict (suggest) that this person consider teaching us how to make one's own electronic paper.

No need to dilly-dally around with this stuff dreamed up in the mid-18th century!

Warnings by one poster that
"Slow chloride emulsions are easy to make but not easy to get good tonality with very low fog and decent Dmax. With the simple methods, both shadow and highlight will come out too soft compared to the midtone contrast. This is good if you want old timey look, but if you want something comparable to Azo, you would have to use a more complicated setup..."

Applies only to emulsions made and known by THAT author.

I have said elsewhere before, emulsion making has very few hard and fast rules.

Almost any aspect of an emulsion can be manipulated in any number of different ways and the use of rigid dogmatic statements is inherently erroneous.

One example is that poster's insistence that chloride and chlorobromide emulsions are excessively sensitive to general fogging from contaminants saying he "... generally [doesn't] recommend chloride emulsions to beginners for this reason alone."

I have coated many of these emulsions on paper that was never intended to be used as a photographic base and my emulsions are definitely not as delicate or sickly as this person's describes his own as being.

Neither are the chloride emulsions made by Ron, despite the fact he has not quite optimized his formula yet.

But my reason for writing is to agree with Bill that we are seeing way too much friction and fireworks here.

I guess this is the beginning of a new ere of secrecy in emulsion making... free exchange of ideas cannoned occur in a hostile volatile environment.

Ray Rogers

That is not the way I spelled it!

The last section should have read:

I guess this is the beginning of a new era of secrecy in emulsion making... free exchange of ideas cannot occur in a hostile volatile environment.

Ray Rogers

Photo Engineer said:

Ryuji, your emulsions sound too complex for the hobbyist.

They are probably superb, but the average user will not want to do things at that level of complexity.

PE

Click to expand...

I have been reading this thread with some interest, although Ryuji and yourself like to make your own photo sensitive liquid emulsions, I suspect that the majority of photo-hobbyist would much prefer to buy commercially available liquid emulsions whether they are fixed grade or variable contrast emulsions. The average hobbyist would probably process their images in readily available print processing chemistry too.
What I am trying to understand is what advantage if any, is there in making your own emulsion over buying a ready made one from a local photographic retailer apart from personal satisfaction?
Also, are your own emulsions any better than those made by companies such as Kentmere Ltd?

Ray, I agree. In an earlier post, I gave the original chloride formula that is my starting point. Anyone can take a look at it and see the faults. I will post an update as soon as I have one that looks acceptable to me. Why post a faulty one in the early days of work......?

Keith, I cannot disagree with you there. My hope is to go beyond the liquid emulsions available and get camera speed with a range of film and paper formulas. Another factor is that my emulsion hopefully will be tailored for the user, by the user, and will be fresh, not something standing on the shelf.

The current liquid emulsions are not fast movers at any photo shop and seem to stand around for quite a while before being sold.

Why are either of us making emulsions? I got involved because it is part of my hobby, and I was concerned about the availability of photo products for all hobbyists. I got involved because I know it can be done simply by the average hobbyist. I cannot speak for anyone else.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Ray, I agree.
I will post an update as soon as I have one that looks acceptable to me. Why post a faulty one in the early days of work......?

PE

Click to expand...

Hi Ron.

I understand. It is one thing to be handed a formula and do it the "paint by numbers method", but its an entirely different dance to start from scratch and build an emulsion up one step at a time.

I think you and the other guy may both be faster than me as it seems you both take timesaving shortcuts... I wouldn't be suprized if you both use liquid stock solutions and store and weigh your silver nitrate in regular light.

I progress very slowly because I insist on starting dry each session... and when given the choice, I generally do things hard way.

but I am digressing...

Photo Engineer said:

Why are either of us making emulsions? I got involved because it is part of my hobby, and I was concerned about the availability of photo products for all hobbyists. I got involved because I know it can be done simply by the average hobbyist. I cannot speak for anyone else.
PE

Click to expand...

I got involved in the late 1980s... I was unhappy with the documentary look of certain flower portraits I was making to document thousands of mutations in the Japanese Morning Glory; my pictures were vulgar compared to the hand painted pictures used to illustrate old botanical manuscripts... around that time I came across W. Crawford's book. His discussion of Photographic Syntax (a classic!) described eaxctly what my pictures lacked and the hand painted botanical art had. Anyway I was on my way to go into platinium printing when I saw the work of a master emulsion artist...

Somehow the change from platinium to silver halide in gelatin came very naturally.

So I began in order to make photographs that had a different SYNTAX.

To answer Keith Tapscott's question as to what advantage there is over commercial material, I will explain it as I see it.

If you are happy with documentary and traditional photography as you know it now, absolutely nothing. Really. If you are an ADAMS fan or a fan of street photography, reportage, typical "straight" photography, I can think of no reason t reject for example, a Kentmere paper, and a lot of reasons not to.

(I have a strong admiration for Kentmere!)

You are pretty much right, if you want to use a liquid emulsion, no need to make it yourself. There are several available. The slowest is Liquid Light which had the highest D-max when I tested it. Many may feel that this slowness is a problem, but the original idea was to have a slow emulsion that could be used in less than adequate areas, in other words, makeshift darkrooms.

About quality...

All of the emulsions I tested were OK.
There are slight variations and someone might like or dislike certain things but this is true of regular papers as well.

If your goal is traditional "perfection" I would say NO, there is no advantage in making your own material.

It is only truly invaluable when your own personal concept of "perfection" differs from that established by the market and the professional mfgs.

It is like baking bread if wonderbread puts a smile on your face, why bother with Roggenbrote?
at I am trying to understand is what advantage if any, is there in making your own emulsion over buying a ready made one from a local photographic retailer apart from personal satisfaction?
Also, are your own emulsions any better than those made by companies such as Kentmere Ltd?

my GOD.
I simply started this as a simple question on who might use Liquid emulsions...
and it turned into a technical heated discussion on home made emulsion making..

so now I know at least two are doing it...
(or three or four..)

for the record: I have made my own emulsions also - for the fun of it. I have never had problems with emulsions going bad on me...
I LOVE emulsions.

newest love and addiction: FOMA!! it rocks!

Sorry guys, this is getting to be a bad habit!

The last paragraph should have read:

It is like baking bread if wonderbread puts a smile on your face, why bother with Roggenbrote?

It is a matter of taste.

I don't belive perfection is a single file ladder.

YMMV

Ray Rogers

gandolfi said:

my GOD.

Click to expand...

Gandolfi, my sentiments exactly. Also, like you the result was not my intention, and also like you I love emulsions.

PE

...

Photo Engineer said:

When I want to do it, I make my own.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron,

How do you make your own liquid emulsion (for application on various surfaces) and how complicated is it?

Also, is there any significant advantage to making your own over using readily-available formulations like LL? Costs?

Thanks

iserious said:

Ron,

How do you make your own liquid emulsion (for application on various surfaces) and how complicated is it?

Also, is there any significant advantage to making your own over using readily-available formulations like LL? Costs?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Please see the forum on Emulsion Making and Coating for more information.

Making is easy and coating is easy for me, and a lot less than buying LL which is expensive and sits on the shelf too long for my tastes.

It does spoil. Mine are stable for up to 1 year.

PE