Troubles with developing Tri-X

runswithsizzers said:

There may be some rare exceptions, but all of the charts from the chemistry manufacturers that I have seen usually give the same times for 135 and 120 film, all other conditions beuing the same.

Click to expand...

Alright, perfect, thanks.

runswithsizzers said:

It is a minor point, but consider your notation representing your dilution, "1:50"
To me, that notation is somewhat ambiguous because it can be interpreted to mean either, 1 part of A combined with 50 parts of B, in which case you end up with a final volume of 51 parts. In photography this is the usual meaning. However, I worked in a clinical lab where dilutions were assumed to represent a ratio of the part to the final volume, so 1+49. I think it is safer to use the notation "1+50" to avoid confusion.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I have no idea why I started to use 1:50 instead of 1+50. All of my written notes are in the 1:50 format, however incorrect that may be. I have seen 1:50 and 1+50 used interchangeably, so I assumed that they meant the same thing. I do not believe this to be that big of an issue, but if it can cause issues later on, I'll use 1+50/1+25, etc., henceforth. All of the calculations were done as 1+24, 1+49, etc.

runswithsizzers said:

The word "beaker" can refer to several different types of glassware, and some beakers do have markings on them to represent volume. However, I would not consider most beakers to be very good for measuring, except for very rough approximations. Notice this 50mL beaker warns that the markings are "APPROX"


---

For measuring Rodinal, I would recommend a graduated cylinder, possibly one that holds 10mL, total -- or possibly 25mL? You want the smallest size that can contain the largest volume you would normally need to measure. If sometimes you need to measure less than 10mL and other times more than 25mL, then I would consider getting two graduated cylindars, maybe a 10mL and a 50mL or 100mL.

Click to expand...

This is another example of where my greenness is showing; I still do not know all of the accurate terminology for lab equipment. For measuring Rodinal, at the moment, I'm using a cheap graduated cylinder. I have no traditional lab training, so apologies for using the incorrect name.

The manner in which I'm mixing the Rodinal "one-shot" is: pour about 500ml of distilled water into a 1000ml beaker. Next, I measure 40ml, then 44 ml, in a 50ml cylinder to get ~588ml in the 1000ml beaker. After that, I measure out 10ml of Rodinal concentrate in a 10ml cylinder, and then 2ml of Rodinal concentrate in the same 10ml cylinder. This gets roughly to the 600ml I'm going for- I am in no way suggesting this method.

As mentioned in post #30, I broke my 25ml cylinder.

I understand this is more than likely not a perfectly accurate way of measuring this type of thing out, but I am using what I have. I've been contemplating getting a glass pipette or measuring syringe, if you happen to have any words of wisdom on that front.

Sorry if that sounded defensive. If you have suggestions for better quality beakers/cylinders or other measuring graduates(?), do share.
- Bill

DsrtBill said:

All of my written notes are in the 1:50 format, however incorrect that may be. I have seen 1:50 and 1+50 used interchangeably, so I assumed that they meant the same thing.

Click to expand...

Using 1:50 is not "incorrect" -- only somewhat ambiguous. You "assumed that they meant the same thing," but someone else might assume somesthing different. No big deal among photographers, nit-picking really. But in some other context it could be an issue.

DsrtBill said:

For measuring Rodinal, at the moment, I'm using a cheap graduated cylinder. I have no traditional lab training, so apologies for using the incorrect name.

Click to expand...

No apology needed. Every craft has it's own technical language, and it takes time to learn it. It sounds like you are on the right track towards success.

DsrtBill said:

To be honest, I have no idea why I started to use 1:50 instead of 1+50. All of my written notes are in the 1:50 format, however incorrect that may be. I have seen 1:50 and 1+50 used interchangeably, so I assumed that they meant the same thing. I do not believe this to be that big of an issue, but if it can cause issues later on, I'll use 1+50/1+25, etc., henceforth. All of the calculations were done as 1+24, 1+49, etc.

Click to expand...

The traditional USA Kodak method uses 1:50, as do some other areas outside photography.
Usage seems to vary a bit as well depending on geography.
Notionally it means one part of Rodinal in a total volume of 50 parts.
For communication purposes in an international forum like Photrio, the notation 1 + 49 is probably better.
In the case of 1:50 meaning 1+50 vs. 1+49, it matters little.
But in the case of 1:3 meaning 1+2 vs. 1+3 the difference is significant.

Well crap. This thread now has me questioning my methods. My interpretation of 1 to 50 is 500ml (single roll) broken into 50 parts total.
10ml rodinal to 490ml water.
If this is incorrect lab procedure, I'm going to stay incorrect as I don't notice anything weird except grabbing a used bottle of fixer the other day which resulted in a dilution of a dilution.

MTGseattle said:

10ml rodinal to 490ml water.

Click to expand...

That's correct.
Note that 10ml rodinal + 500ml water would amount to virtually the same, so don't worry about it either way.

MTGseattle said:

Well crap. This thread now has me questioning my methods. My interpretation of 1 to 50 is 500ml (single roll) broken into 50 parts total.
10ml rodinal to 490ml water.

Click to expand...

Your method is fine - it is one very common (particularly in North America with Kodak products) approach to interpreting 1:50.
And as @koraks posted, it really doesn't differ effectively than the alternative, when you pick that example.
The only issue is with ratios that are more concentrated, and really the only issue is that different interpretations make "communicating" information more difficult/uncertain.

How does a LED light get into the picture?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

How does a LED light get into the picture?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

The LED light is not in the 35mm frame. I was holding up an LED light bar behind the drying negative to take the digital photograph. Apologies for the confusion.

- Bill

Thanks for the reply

pentaxuser

Hello, again. A different issue has emerged.



About half of the roll has this issue, where part of the frame has been turned black (fogging?). Specifically frame marking 0, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, of a 24 exp. roll of Tri-X. The roll was shot rated at 800 instead of 400. For development, 1:50 (~12ml Rodinal in ~588ml water) at 20c for roughly 17 minutes and 30 seconds, give or take 10 seconds.

Is this a light leak or from over-agitating? I cannot seem to find any holes in the changing bag I'm using.

- Bill

Light leak for sure.

If you can’t replace light seals on the camera right away you can try keeping the bottom half of the camera case on at all times.

MattKing said:

Light leak for sure.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Bill Burk said:

If you can’t replace light seals on the camera right away you can try keeping the bottom half of the camera case on at all times.

Click to expand...

Good call; that might help. However, given the pattern of the fogging, the cause may not (only) be on the bottom of the camera, so there's a chance that shielding the bottom may not be a totally reliable workaround.

@DsrtBill this looks like a problem with the camera.

Oh, now you mention it... Looking at the camera, the light seal has completely rotted away... No idea how I missed that one! /:

koraks said:

the cause may not (only) be on the bottom of the camera

Click to expand...

The camera is a Praktica LTL; it only has a seal at the hinge. And, looking up other Praktica L-series camera light leaks, the patterns match perfectly.

Does it matter what millimeter the replacement foam is?

Thanks, Matt, Bill, and koraks!
- Bill

Ah, great, looks like there's at least not much of a mystery, that makes things easier!
The seal should fit, that's the main thing. I'd try to cut a piece of foam roughly the same width as the original. You can probably still see the outline of the old foam. The width is probably not very critical.