Literature on Emulsion Making

[Photo Engineer]

While writing my new book, I have been reading a lot of old texts on the subject and reading material posted here on APUG - including my own. I maintain that EVERY published formula is filled with errors or intentional omission of information. This goes for the work of Eder, Wall and Baker as well as Glafkides.

When Grant Haist was writing his book, and I was helping with the editing, I didn't know much about emulsion making and later came to find out from him that the formula he put into his book was heavily redacted to preserve secrecy. But looking over earlier works I find the same thing time after time.

Recently, the BIOS data on Brovira paper was taken by one APUG member from a table in Glafkides and posted on APUG. First, the original table in Glafkides had data on previous pages that were left out of the table and the person who copied them either didn't know or care. It is very curious in that without that data, the emulsion can only be made in a limited contrast range without extensive emulsion knowledge. In addition, the table at the end of the formulas actually contains 7 rows but was copied with only 6 rows but with the amounts offset in an apparent random fashion which will result in a bad coating.

So, this is kind of a rant to tell people not to believe ANYTHING you read about emulsions. In keeping with this, I am doing an extensive examination of the formulas in my first book to try and weed out any error.

This is just a note to all of you trying to make emulsions. It is simple. I have seen literally hundreds of students making Silver Chloride, Silver Bromide and Silver Bromo-Iodide emulsions. It works the first time when you have all of the information in front of you. Evidence is that now, Mark and Nick at GEM are producing excellent plates and motion picture film and are soon going to make some sheet film.

I would like to add that Nick and I had to revise some elements of one of my emulsions due to changes in chemical supplies and methodology which changed the results rather profoundly.

So, I have to say that if you are having problems making emulsions, I am here to help. Just post the problem.

 

[falotico]

It is wonderful that you point out that prior literature is full of errors. How is anyone to know unless it is pointed out by an expert? Instead of publishing falsehoods the authors should have said that some material is proprietary instead of confusing and misleading people.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm having an uphill battle to some.

Ron

 

[pbromaghin]

I can believe it. As I recall, the Bell P-39 actually turned out to be a reasonably decent plane for its purpose. And England bought some. But for some reason, the supercharger was omitted from the planes sold. And for the English, the P-39 purchase was useless. I believe it was the Airacobra P-39. Might have been the P-47. but I believe it was the former. Just goes to show.

Ya, it was the P-39 with the 79th on Guadalcanal and it was nearly useless. It wasn't just the export version that forgot the supercharger, AFAIK it was ALL versions. They couldn't do much good over 15,000 ft because of it. There was only one Ace in the whole Army Air Corps that flew the P-39 and he died 2 weeks later. The Russians did make good use of them as ground attack planes - the 37mm cannon worked havoc on Panzers when attacking from above and behind.

 

[Ian Grant]

Just to clarify and correct the ludicrous accusations in the opening post about the Brovira formulae I posted:

Section 9 of the Brovira formulae lists 6 chemicals, as published in Glafkides there is an initial line making the total of 7 in the paragraph as mentioned, for clarity I added a space between the line "Before coating add, per litre" and the list of chemicals. So there's NO offsets in a random fashion, I've double checked my photographic copy of the relevant page and the figures are correct.

Also at no stage was it suggested that these formulae actually be used as it's known that they can't be relied on for accuracy for reasons discussed in that thread. I posted them after a request by another members as a comparison to the Agfa Lupex formulae which had already been posted on APUG.

Ian

 

[dwross]

I think there is some confusion here caused by exaggeration for effect -- at least I hope that's the reason. It's confusing to the point of being an error to issue a blanket proclamation like the one in the OP. If the recipes in question are for proprietary commercial materials and the published information is a best approximation, I can certainly believe an ingredient or two and the exact procedures are a bit different from the way the factory made the product. But, if we're talking about general category recipes, who gets to say any of them are "wrong." Is there only one correct chocolate chip cookie recipe? You may prefer one over another, but that has nothing to do with correctness. If we're talking about the exact recipe for Pepperidge Farm Nantucket cookies, that's another matter. It is a crucial distinction.

I've learned everything I know about (good) emulsion making from literature. I've made almost every recipe Wall, Eder, and Baker published. I like some better than others, but none are "wrong." I know I've said this before, but the value of the old lit increases as you become more experienced in emulsion making. As is also the case with old food cookbooks, step-by-step procedures were rarely spelled out. A certain level of proficiency was assumed. It's not misleading to tell a cook to cream the butter and sugar without going into detail about what that exactly means. If baking had the same kind of history as emulsion making, can you imagine what nay-sayers could say?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I stand by my post. I was sent this table by another APUG member about 5 years ago and since I had both Glafkides and the FIAT and BIOS data at hand I compared them.

Here are the comparisons.

You can clearly see (with some of the original German) the errors in the table at the end.

This is also true in Baker, Wall and Eder who leave out steps, times, temperatures and the type of gelatin which can be decoded today into amounts of Sulfur to use.

After seeing students with no prior experience try to duplicate these works, I am cognizant and sensitive to the errors and problems they create.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

BTW, this is not an accusation, nor an exaggeration. It is FACT as shown above just in seeing the chrome alum and formalin quantities.

After living with this for over 30 years, I might just know what I am talking about.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

That may differ from Glafkides but then I quoted from Glafkides correctly. So what's your point, I doubt 100% Glafkides is correct which is in my original post so please stop the personal attacks.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

So, all of you are commenting on my personal attacks against another member?

Note that I said that the errors are in Glafkides and other "original" sources and not in the copies of them. It turns out that I had forgotten the original member who posted them, so ... SORRY IAN! I was not referring to you at all, nor did I mention your name. If you had kept quiet and read what I said then you would understand that I have the data to back up every single comment I have made. Glafkides was wrong. I have posted the data from BIOS Final Report #252, Item 9 July 24 - 28, 1945.

In addition, I have seen Eastman's notebooks (with secret codes), the posted Ferrania notebook, and read Baker, Wall and to some extent Eder.

It is that type of "original" that I refer to and named in my OP. They are encoded or have left out information.

PE

 

[dwross]

Actually, I was commenting on overly broad pronouncements with which I strongly disagree. We could have a classic internet-type argument about how many years of making and using emulsions counts toward the right to have an opinion, but yuk, so let's not . Let's go where I think we agree: beginners should start with simple recipes, developed by, adapted by, or at least tested by contemporary handmade emulsion makers with modern materials.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Denise, sorry to say that I was not referring to you in any way. In fact, I only just read your post, having been distracted by the "other" stuff. In fact, my OP would be akin to criticizing you for posting Baker which has errors, when they are not your fault. It is not that at all. These old timers left a lot out or altered a lot to seem as if they knew how to make emulsions but others did not. Eastman did it for a profit. Some of the others did too.

Now, as for your post, you are both right and wrong just as I am but in other ways. There is indeed no "right" recipe for a chocolate chip cookie, but if you wrote up a recipe with alum instead of salt, or if you baked cookies at 500 deg F, there would be howls out there for a right recipe unless others did not know you were wrong. So here is the problem. Formulas leave out gelatin types (which might give us a clue as to contrast and speed range) and they often leave out addition times. And then as I pointed out with Glafkides there are errors made in transcription and then propagated through no fault of anyone except the original author who is NOT an APUG member - remember - Glafkides.

Other errors such as Blumen (Gerrman) = Bloom (English) refers to ripening content or sulfur, but Bloom (En) also refers to BI or Bloom Index which is the fraction of the gelatin (viscosity or peptizing power) such as 75 Bloom or 250 Bloom. These are simple misunderstandings that can lead to grave errors. The novices rely on "old timers" like us to "get it right" for their sake as AgNO3 ain't cheap!

So, to get right down to it then, this was not exaggeration for effect. It was a reminder to us to make sure that we do it right. If you don't agree Denise, you might post an original formula from a text, exactly as written and then your final usable formula. I think that you will find difference between the two. Omission and commission are the two operative words.

BTW, for those who think that I remember this or that from APUG and feel that I am casting aspersions, I might comment that I am getting dozens of e-mails per week and many PMs per week. I am reading a lot of APUG posts and I simply cannot remember who said what.

 

[falotico]

PE is one of the world's authorities on photographic emulsion and dedicated photographic workers should appreciate that he warns us of the danger of inaccurate publications. Few people actually have the bona fides to make such a claim, but since he indicates that even Kodak published unreliable descriptions of the emulsion-making process--and he worked for Kodak--we should take his warning to heart.

 

[Nodda Duma]

This is common in lens patent prescriptions too. Usually a glass type is changed. Close enough to look right, but you won't get good imagery if you use the prescription verbatim to fabricate a lens. Easy enough to figure out with today's software if you know what you're doing, but back in the day almost impossible for your competitor to replicate.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Jason, I know what you mean. I am wrestling with 7 Kodak patents on color negative film, trying to reconcile what they say with what I know! And I observed the same when I was working on and with patents.

These would be hard to replicate by any means. Many patents simply state "by means obvious to one skilled in the art"!

PE

 

[dwross]

We live in interesting times.

 

[removed account4]

We live in interesting times.

+1 !

 

[Stephen Frizza]

These would be hard to replicate by any means. Many patents simply state "by means obvious to one skilled in the art"!

PE

I'm Stealing this line for future use! I must confess while not on the subject of emulsion making but other darkroom practices I engage in I often feel people ask me to hand them all my knowledge in elaborate detail at no cost. I have been getting my hands dirty testing non stop for 16 years to acquire the knowledge I have in certain areas of darkroom work and hence often tell people large amounts of what I do but always make sure to leave out a small critical portion that they will have to work out themselves. Hearing of emulsion makers withholding information on purpose kind of reminds me of the saying ..."there are two secrets to success. First never tell everyone what you know"

 

[Chris Livsey]

[QUOTE="Photo Engineer, post: 1791362, member: 6399" Many patents simply state "by means obvious to one skilled in the art"!
PE[/QUOTE]

This was standard practice in my primary area of expertise, pharmacy. Rx - recipes, would consist of a list of ingredients sometimes organised by weight, sometimes alphabetically, sometimes pharmacologically active first, no omissions unless a "personal" formula that may be coded, then at the end: Secundum Artem, often as SA ; “according to the art or practice” or " to make favourably with skill", as a stricter Latin translation. Given the ingredients no further directions were required. One famous suspension required splitting the ingredients into three component mixtures in separate mortars and combining them in a fourth in the correct order and temperatures, from a simple list unless you had SA you were lost.
I see a clear parallel.

 

[Photo Engineer]

THE GREAT CHOCOLATE COOKIE RECIPE!

This is an interesting topic for me. Let's suppose that I make the best chocolate chip cookies in the USA. Also let's say that I am selling so many that my company is becoming a monopoly in this area. The US does not like this and so asks me to publish my recipe. Now this is illegal, but anything is possible for the purposes of this discussion so here is my recipe.

Note the ingredients and instructions. If you try to make "my" cookies you fail! They are too brittle or hard, and do not have the same flavor! Some juggling of ingredients give softer, tastier cookies but just re not the same. I have complied with the edict and also listed all required ingredients on the label.

Now, here is the secret:

1. I used 1 duck egg
2. I used 1 tablespoon full of toasted Sesame Oil in the mix along with the margarine
3. I used 8 parts of wheat flour and 2 parts of mixed seed and nut flours
4. I baked them at 200 F not the usual 325, and I used about 1/2 hour to brown them

Now, in this fictitious example, I show how a formula can be real and yet be altered so that the results given are NOT the same as the "real" formula. And this is what I see everywhere in published literature.

• 3/4 cup granulated sugar

• 3/4 cup packed brown sugar

• 1 cup butter or margarine, softened

• 1 teaspoon vanilla

• 1 large egg

• 2 1/4 cups flour

• 1 teaspoon baking soda

• 1/2 teaspoon salt

• 1 cup coarsely chopped nuts

• 1 package (12 ounces) semisweet chocolate chips (2 cups)

Directions

• 1 Heat oven to appropriate temperature, known to one skilled in the art.
• 2 Mix sugars, butter or margarine, vanilla and large egg in bowl. Stir in flour, baking soda and salt (dough will be stiff). Stir in nuts and chocolate chips.
• 3 Drop dough by rounded tablespoonfuls about 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheet.
• 4 Bake until light brown (centers will be soft). Cool slightly. Remove from sheet.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In addition, I know through observation here that Ian Grant has great experience and background in formulating both processing solutions and emulsions. He has indicated that he has a great deal of information at hand, just as I do.

Given the above example, neither one of us should be "forced" or even asked to reveal what we know beyond what we are willing to tell the public in open discussions, or in my case in workshops. Our "copyright" if you will, should not be breached. I would never think of trying to get Ian to divulge a formula, and he has never asked me to do it.

Now, back to the cookie recipe. Here is something to think about, say hmmm, food for thought?

I am a Sous Chef who worked with many "Iron Chefs" at EK. They were the real great emulsion makers. This is why I have often said that there are others better than me to talk here about emulsions, but they don't. So, here I am, and thanks to those who are willing to listen with an open mind.

But if you read the first sentence of the above paragraph, think about where most of you fit in in this scheme of things. This is not a put down but a realistic placement of those who are making emulsion. And you range from those with scientific training to those with none. The approach I have taken is to reach this entire gamut and keep it error free or to publish errors.

PE

 

[removed account4]

so, does this mean YOU are leaving out important details and techniques
when you do workshops and sell your books and dvd's, like others who
do this for commercial gain? ... so you don't get "ripped off" / your copyright violated ?

 

[jsmithphoto1]

Thanks for the info, PE! I have wondered about this for a while. I think of it as like when you purchase a pizza at in the frozen section. It lists the ingredients for the crust, sauce, cheeses, and toppings, but not in a certain formula and some are even omitted due to "proprietary formulation." It makes sense. I am thinking along the lines of Tesla's major mistake...................

 

[Photo Engineer]

so, does this mean YOU are leaving out important details and techniques
when you do workshops and sell your books and dvd's, like others who
do this for commercial gain? ... so you don't get "ripped off" / your copyright violated ?

John, how absurd. I started this thread with the premise that when I publish anything it is as complete and exact as I can make it! Some items given out at workshops might be copyrighted as is my book, but then so are most other publications including Bob Shanebrooks book on how Kodak makes film. Some people are against Copyrights including all pirates of Copyright works.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

A bit more on the cookie analogy....

An Iron Chef or his Sous Chef would bite into one of the original cookies and look at the formula and say "hey, these do not match - something is left out!" and they would then go on to imagine what that might be.

This very reaction to published formulas started me looking at the published formulas.

So, if you can make a good cookie from a published formula, an Iron Chef might make a far better one, as would his Sous Chef.

Have a nice day and thanks to those who see my POV. You are spot on! But, my NDA has expired.

PE