• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Panchromatic Emulsion

Ray,
Thanks. Mabe I'm just overly sensative. I am painfuly aware that my carcase cannot keep up with my ambitions.
Let us forget it,
Bill
 
(Bill, just between you and me, I think Ron was actually talking about me!)
 
My comments were meant for no one here on this thread at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I apologize for any confusion.

As for testing Bill, I suggest using a WR 98, 99 and 70 (or equivalent narrow cutting filter set) over a step chart and exposing. An in-camera exposure is difficult to read, but a 3 color filter set with and without dye will give you the exact speed change in each region affected in terms of Log E (stops) speed change.

I've tried the method you describe, Bill, and it is just not clear cut enough. However, if you wish to send me a sample, I'll expose it with my spectrosensitometer.

PE
 
Thanks Ron,
I will follow your suggestion concerning exposing through WR filters. Sound a bit easier anyway.
Bill
 
Bill - you should take Ron up on the spectrosensitizer. I've seen test prints from it and it is really cool and gives results just like you seen in the graphs in books and such.
 
 
Sensitizing Testing with Glass plate

Ray Rogers said:
Hi Jim,

You watched then do this?
How long diid it take between coating and judgment?
After this sort of test, what were their possible moves?

Ray
Click to expand...

Hi Ray - I did watch them do this. Every 10 minutes or so, they would coat a glass plate with emulsion, expose it with a projection system. and develop (but not fix it). They would bring the plate into the emulsion chemist's office in a box and she would evaluate it quickly after removing the lid in full office light. She whould inspect it for fogging, and color change. Of course, since it wasn't fixed out, she had to work quickly. I'm not sure how long the process took to do, but the important thing was the record of samples 10 minutes apart which were done as the emulsion was sensitizing. Take a look at the attached file.

Regards - Jim Browning
 

Attachments

  • sensitize test.jpg
    145.7 KB · Views: 253
Hi Bill - I use glyoxal now as a substitute for formalin in my hardner. I use the same concentration, and it works well. This is the hardner I use on the matrix after it has been washed off. This makes for a much more durable matrix. Not sure how it would work in an emulsion though, that is a much more complex thing.

Regards - Jim
 
dyetransfer said:
Hi Ray - I'm not sure how long the process took to do....

Regards - Jim Browning
Click to expand...

Jim, what size plate are we looking at?

I was wondering about
how long and completely
the emulsion was allowed to set.

Interesting chart- do you have a close up of it, or know where its from?

Ray
 
The method of using the glass plate that Jim describes above is limited in some cases such as our lab bench scale emulsions. A plate coating for a 4x5 takes about 6 ml of emulsion and over a 60 minute finish will therefore require about 36 ml of emulsion from a 200 ml batch as one example. That is a lot to use before you even start. To add to this, often we are making slow speed emulsions that cannot be easily printed by projection. Some print film and paper emulsions could not be tested this way due to speed and volume being made.

Just some thoughts. It is useful but there is a better way.

PE
 
A very long Three Dog Night

Photo Engineer said:
"...people point at me and say "its all his fault... he doesn't know what he is doing"
Click to expand...

I must say that I have seen both sides of the story.
I see a lot of misunderstanding mixed in with a lot of ego conflict / ego injury.

Alas, we are but human!

Thives of another animal's breast milk!

Ray Rogers
 
Hi Ray - the plate size was 4 x 5". Not sure how long it took the gel to set or if the plate was chilled, but I imagine that it was. Obviously, you want to develop the image as soon as possible after coating it so the emulsion doesn't continue to evolve. The chart was a glass plate (I think) that was placed in a very old looking projector - black wrinkle finish. But the projector looked to be very well made and the projected image was sharp. I don't know what they developed the plate in, but I doubt it was pyro.

Regards - Jim
 

Ron - You may have missed it, but Bill said he was going to make 1L of emulsion, so he should have plenty to test with. But for much smaller batched, this method would cut in quite a bit to the final volume.
 
Photo Engineer said:
The method of using the glass plate ...
Just some thoughts. It is useful but there is a better way.
Click to expand...

OK - did I miss the description of the better way? Or have I just forgotten it?

Kirk
 
I discussed the other method in the workshop Kirk. Maybe that was the day you were late, or the day you fell asleep and fell out of your chair.

Basically, the only parameter that is important in an emulsion while finishing, if the emulsion is any good to start with, is the fog level. So, all you have to do is test one drop of emulsion for fog. When it starts to rise, the finish has gone as far as it can! Voila, c'est fini.

PE
 
wildbillbugman said:
And I will try a gold chloride sensitizer(Stiegmann's?), after I haved looked at it without one.
Click to expand...

Bill:

I asked about the Steigmann sensitizer in a thread called 'Sulfur and Gold sensitation'. Ron was kind enough to supply some guidelines on sulfur and gold content that is closer to a 3:1 ratio, rather than Steigmann's 8:1

To Quote Ron's reply:

The data below assumes the use of KAuCl4 and Na2S2O3.H2O for sensitization:

The data are stated as gold/sulfur in milligrams / mole of silver

1/3 for 1.0 micron grains
5/15 for 0.5 micron grains
35/100 for 0.1 micron grains

The attached chart shows the relationship to the vAg and the crystal habit that is formed. From this, you can see that my crystals in the second attachment are made at a vAg value between 7.5 and 8. The extreme rounding is due to the ammonia used to digest (grow) the crystals, and if taken much further the crystals would be nearly spherical.

PE

He also attached two jpg's with some good info.

Hope this helps.

Joe
 

Attachments

  • crystal%20diagram.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 156
  • Electron%20%20micrograph%20-%20BrI%20SRAD.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 148
Thanks Joe,
Now that you mention it, I do recall that post(s) by Ron.
Kirk,
In my earlier atempts to make emulsions, I had so much trouble with foging that I developed the habit of using Ron's "1 drop" fog test at every step. Now, whenever I make an emulsion, I am constantly sacrificing 1 drop to the Gods of Fog.
Bill
 
I don't think Fotokemika would have done the sensitization test every time they made an emulsion - once you do the test using this procedure, it would have gone too far, and the emulsion would be fogged and unusable. The idea is to continue sensitizing until you detect some fog, and then the NEXT time you make a batch, sensitize for LESS time so that fogging doesn't occur. This should work as long as you use the same materials, batch size, cooling times, etc. Once you have the proper time/temp/concentration for sensitizing, you just stick with it, and shouldn't have to repeat the test.

Regards - Jim
 
Jim;

You can sensitize to the first appearance of fog and then add an inhibitor or stabilzer. That is rather kludgy, but it works. Since you do both in your formula, the approach you were taking was not clear to me. I would have had to do your experiment to clarify it for myself.

PE
 
Joe;

Thanks for posting that again. I would like to remind people that sulfur and sulfur + gold react differently and require a different quantity for a given grain size. Also, that chart does not apply to Thiocyanate. I would have to look up specific examples, if I even had any. We did not use thiocyanate in anything I worked on AFAIK.

For the above example that Joe copied here, it was a Br/I emulsion, made at about pAg of 8 on the chart as you can see by the crystal habit. I used 100 mg/mole of Sodium Thiosulfate.5H2O for a sulfur only finish. You can see the difference.

PE
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OK - I remember that. But maybe it was after I fell out of the chair. And I was not sleeping!
 
JOSarff said:
my crystals in the second attachment...
Joe
Click to expand...

Ron, It is 4 something here- I just woke up...

Are the crystals in the second jpg ones you actually precippitated for these experiments, or is the photograph just taken from a similar emulsion?

Ray
 
Kirk;

I know that! You were a very diligent and alert assistant, and you can work with me in the DR anytime. But why did you fall out of the chair?

I know, you didn't fall out of a chair. I was joking.

But for the rest of you, the 1 drop test for fog is what you can use commonly to determine the extent of finish using a sample with all of the sulfur + gold. Then you take 30 ml and heat to 60C and take 1 drop every 10 minutes and test only for fog. Take the remainder of the batch and treat the same way.

PE
 
Ray Rogers said:
Ron, It is 4 something here- I just woke up...

Are the crystals in the second jpg ones you actually precippitated for these experiments, or is the photograph just taken from a similar emulsion?

Ray
Click to expand...

That is one of my emulsions Ray.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register