Apologies for having to start a new thread but I can't read or even access the first to reply to posts.
So with a bit of telepathy
Well, there's a problem there, as it's really hard to measure pH accurately when it gets much above 12.5 or so. You have to start getting special electrodes and the like.
But for MSDS work, it doesn't have to be too precise.
__________________
Kirk
A point that's being missed is that A&O give a figure of...
Can someone suggest a formula for high-acutance muesli?
Would you be able to design an environmentally friendly Rodinal substitute? Paramidophenol is a verifiable water pollutant and injurious to health.
Ian;
I say again that the adjustment in formulas may have been to track the changes in average emulsions from Agfa, Kodak and Ilford as they had much more surface iodide. This would entail some change in pH and bromide to tweak development and other paramaters.
PE
Alan;
It also depends on the film emulsion and the amound of bromide in the Rodinal (as well as other antifoggant).
In general, higher surface Iodide would increase apparent sharpness while Bromide or other antifoggant in the developer would tend to decrease apparent sharpness. Older films would be more sensitive to pH and developer concentration as per Crawley.
PE
Meanwhile, back at the Gainer Dungeon
it's the developer that exhausts and need relplenishing, the dev can have no bromide.
Meanwhile, back at the Gainer Dungeon, I may have jumped the gun when I said my attempt at Metolal was already showing signs of age. I think I didn't let it age to stability. I just tried it again at 1+50, 65 F, 10 minutes, 35 mm EDU 400 Ultra, and got this result, a scan of a print on RC VC paper.
No, I added some ascorbic acid to this batch. I have several batches going now, but this is the oldest. The problem is that it's going to take a year to determine keeping qualities if it's any good. Much less, of course, if it's not. I'm hoping that a time history of some number of tests from the same batch will show a trend before a year.Patrick;
I thought you had added more Metol to the concentrate to estimate how much was oxidized. If so, which concentrate did you use? Was it the original or the "enriched" and younger version?
PE
Ian;
But then Rodinal concentrate containes bromide, right? Or do I misunderstand your answer #10?
PE
I looked at both formats, and can send either one. According to the rules for allowable file size, I must cut the .jpg file to a smaller transmitted size than the .pdf. My internet is by dial-up with a maximum rate of 26.4 k because I live in the boonies and can't afford to use the satellite. We are supposed to get fiber optic telephone lines here, which will allow me to get DSL. I hope I live to see the day.Pat - I'm pleased you've taken to the world of pdfs so quickly, but I think you might find you can post photos as jpgs that look better than photos as pdfs.
If you have any combiniation of two of the following:
text, layout, and photos,
then pdfs are probably your best choice. But the pdf generator will probably recrunch/compress the photo when it makes it into a pdf. If you stick with jpgs, they should post with the compression settings as you saved them.
Don't have a barn. Three horses, 3 goats and a gaggle of chickens. There is a henhouse, but the chickens are their own incubators. We have a bountiful sufficiency of large eggs.Pat - have you thought about trying an "accellerated" aging test? Perhaps you could store some of your aging test solutions out in the barn under the chick coop heater or in the egg incubator so they get stored at about 120F or so. You could probably see how they would age in a years worth of time in only acouple of months.
Pat - I'm pleased you've taken to the world of pdfs so quickly, but I think you might find you can post photos as jpgs that look better than photos as pdfs.
QUOTE]
Here are .jpg files, overall and detail. These are from direct scans of the negative. I think you are right. Even at much reduced file size they look better.
I suddenly realised why you want a developer that's non injurous to health
More seriously I have had a thought and it might just work. Answering Kirk's pH point made me think of a developer I've used highly dilute and yes it gave excellent acutance etc and with modification it would almost be drinkable.
This quote came back to mind from earlier in the thread:
As for developers, it is probable that the next few years will see the introduction of a series of developing agents that that can actually be eaten if desired. Some, chemically related to Vitamin C, are available now though at enormous cost. One call almost see the advertisement of the new Zero-Grane 999 (1960 A.D.) ----- "Try Zero-Grane 999. Non-poisonous. Enlargement to 999 diameters, miraculously discovered by George Gizzlewski after 84 years of painstaking research. If it won't develop your negative, take two teaspoonsful after each meal. It puts spring in your step and a light in your eye. $10 per 2 oz. bottle sufficient for 89 rolls of film."
Edmund Lowe, 1939
Ian
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?