I have a formula somewhere for Ilford ID6 developer and ID6R replenisher which is a Pyrogallol, Metol and Hydroquinone process.
Whether or not it is suitable for cinematography I don't know.
I wouldn't blame the paper. I've gotten excellent "sharpness and dimensionalty" with Galerie Graded with the right negatives, my personal amidol formula, and full paper development to DMax completion. But the percent of out of the ballpark home run prints from Galerie were noticably fewer than with other classic graded papers like Oriental Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide, and less than premium VC papers like Polygrade V, Kentmere Fineprint, and MGWT. But other than the MGWT, all of this is paleontology talk by now.
I'd have to literally look at your negatives to see why you had trouble with that particular combination. It's academic at this point in time anyway because Galerie has gone the way of the other dinosaurs. But did you ever tell us yet what specific film or films were involved? It's the combination of the film curves involved, not just that of the paper.
And if you're using a stained neg in relation to a graded blue-sensitive printing paper, you can look at the neg through a blue filter and get a better approximation of how the highlights might respond.
If you find it, post it!
There are no more optical steps in motion picture cinematography. Everything is scanned from the start although Chris Nolan is a mainstream exception.
Even if some purely analog show prints are made, these days they will be few enough (<20) to warrant a direct contact print after the film has been scanned and edited and all the rest.
FP4.
It makes no sense because there is no magnification but the images on Lodima had more detail and sharpness than Galerie, for reasons I can’t understand. To a blatant degree.
@Milpool @Jarin Blaschke ID-6 seems to largely have Pyrogallol onboard to tan less well hardened emulsions, probably not for much in the way of stain (carbonate buffered developer hitting acid stop could damage less well hardened emulsions in the now long-ago past, hence why Kodalk was innovated in the early 1930s). It was categorised as a D&P industrial developer (replenished by top-up method) for amateur films and seems to have been swept away by Autophen and successors (ID-68, Microphen and eventually DD) within a few years of the arrival of PQ (and there is evidence that Dimezone S seems to have tanning ability, unlike regular Phenidone, on unhardened/ very low hardness emulsions).
Here's the formula I found from an Ilford book presented in Photomemorabilia It looks as if Keith has assumed "gr" to be grammes when in fact this is grains( now long out of date measurement) The grammes equivalent (g) are much less
"An energetic pyro-metol-hydroquinone developer for the bulk development of roll films in D. & P. tanks. Metol Sodium sulphite, cryst. 1 oz. Sodium bisulphite Hydroquinone Pyrogallic acid Sodium carbonate, cryst. Potassium bromide Water, up to Use in tank without dilution. 21 gr."] 175 gr. 350 gr. 119 gr. 21 gr. 4oz. Ifgr. 80 oz.^ >or= 0.6 g. 17.5 g. 10 g. 3.4 g. 0.6 g. 50 g. 0.05 g. 1000 c.c. ID-6 P.M.Q. Roll Film Tank"
pentaxuser
It’s a strange looking formula (posted above by Keith). The concentration of pyrogallol is relatively low and I would expect it to be depleted/oxidized relatively quickly. If the formula posted is correct and pyrogallol is not present in the replenisher, I would guess it is there for some other purpose than as a developing agent - perhaps playing some sort of stabilization, antioxidant or “starter”/seasoning role? The concentration of sulfite also seems too high for much tanning/staining action.
Keith's transcript is correct, the formula gives grains and grams, and he's transcribed the grams. Remember, it's for 40 litres!
It’s a strange looking formula (posted above by Keith). The concentration of pyrogallol is relatively low and I would expect it to be depleted/oxidized relatively quickly. If the formula posted is correct and pyrogallol is not present in the replenisher, I would guess it is there for some other purpose than as a developing agent - perhaps playing some sort of stabilization, antioxidant or “starter”/seasoning role? The concentration of sulfite also seems too high for much tanning/staining action.
Depending on the paper, the undeveloped silver halides can veil the image, which then appears to darken and clear when these are made transparent and dissolved away by the fix.... - I swear I could actually see that image get darker in the fix - which made no sense to me...
this is not a scientific observation but I found that using closer to 10ml of the finisher blue would give a colder tone but slowed the developer way down
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?