What did I do wrong with this B&W reversal?

[Ivo Stunga]

Oh, ok - my bad then and thanks for clarification!

 

[Ivo Stunga]

And yes - already processed slide dumped in Kala Namak doesn't tone like at all - needs something strong like hot double espresso, tea or whiskey - E-6 slides in my previous link were toned that way.

 

[isaac7]

And yes - already processed slide dumped in Kala Namak doesn't tone like at all - needs something strong like hot double espresso, tea or whiskey - E-6 slides in my previous link were toned that way.

I have been intrigued by the idea of bleaching a finished B&W slide with a rehalogenating dichromate bleach and then redeveloping with a sepia toner. @koraks uses the process to increase density and contrast with his negatives but not with a sepia toner. I have never heard of anyone doing it positives but it would seem like an obvious thing to try if dmax and contrast are the weak points of your positives.

 

[isaac7]

After over 30 tries and a lot of pain and suffering trying to figure out reversal processing, I found out that the first developer has to very aggressive with a silver solvent added, and I had to give up on the light exposure step and use a fogging developer instead (Kodak FD-72). The light exposure step turned out to be the thing that was causing inconsistent results and a lot of confusion. I found that I was getting uneven exposure across the whole roll. Some of the frames would appear to be properly exposed with a normal strength developer. Once I tried a fogging developer all the shots became much darker, and I had to make the fist developer a lot stronger. I wonder how people have success with the light exposure step? I certainly failed there.

I'm still not totally sure if I have it dialed in yet, but for normally exposed FP4+, I found that 1:5 Rodinal with 1 gram Sodium Thiocyanate per liter with 11 minutes of rotary processing at 20C seemed to be approaching correct. I set this aside a few years ago, but I plan to get back to it, and compare what I have to Ilford's recommended process. I was using Dichromate bleach, and the amount of chromium rinse water it produced that I had to haul off to the dump got to be too annoying. I might try a different bleach process once I can convince myself I got everything else right.

Wood also preferred using a fogging developer. In his test of the Ilford process that @Ivo Stunga hates so much, there was a lot of unevenness. That could very well have been from inconsistent light exposure. Did he do it on purpose, was lazy, or just did it once and didn’t try to optimize? Who knows. He has mentioned online that fogging developers give more consistent results. I imagine that is even more important when you are running lots of film through the process. It would be a pain to incorporate a light re-exposure step with a dip and dunk processor.

While Wood didn’t use any silver solvents in his first developer it looks like D-11 has a lot of sulfates (sulfites?) in it which could be doing the same thing. Man, I wish I could actually be doing this stuff instead of just theorizing about it. Sigh.

 

[koraks]

@koraks uses the process to increase density and contrast with his negatives but not with a sepia toner.

When I did wet plate collodion, I would sometimes intensify by using a copper sulfate bleach and then redevelop in sepia. It wasn't reversal of course; kind of a similar principle though.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

there was a lot of unevenness. That could very well have been from inconsistent light exposure. Did he do it on purpose, was lazy, or just did it once and didn’t try to optimize? Who knows. He has mentioned online that fogging developers give more consistent results.

Have no problems whatsoever with a long fluorescent 25W tube from 30cm distance for a minute or two per side. In commercial setting taking out a film and exposing evenly to light would be total pain, agreed.

 

[flavio81]

That's interesting since it was mentioned earlier that the sepia redevelopment would have been at high temperature. It's possible that the thermostat for that bath was hacked/modified.

Somebody said "60 degrees". If this was Celsius, then I think this is way too much and the thermal shock would cause all kinds of problems with most films.

I think they meant "60 degrees" in Freedom units, which would equate to 15.56 Celsius.

"Stop". See earlier discussion on the need to instantly stop development for archival purposes.

This makes sense, thanks. It mus be the stop bath.

I'm not sure on "FT".

Perhaps "Fourier Transform". Or since this is a reversal process, "Inverse Fourier Transform".

However, since it comes after the fixer, it is probably some hypo removal / hypo clearing step.

 

[koraks]

I think they meant "60 degrees" in Freedom units, which would equate to 15.56 Celsius.

Good point. 62f would be around 16.6C.

Perhaps "Fourier Transform". Or since this is a reversal process, "Inverse Fourier Transform".

LOL!
Yeah, it's probably some kind of hypo clear/wash aid step. Or perhaps something like Sistan.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I think they meant "60 degrees" in Freedom units, which would equate to 15.56 Celsius.

That's even more ridiculous because Hypo-Alum toner doesn't work at that low temperature.

 

[Tumbles]

The part of the DR5 process that stands out to me, is the bleach 1 and bleach 2. I've read that's he's using a dichromate bleach. What could be going on there?

 

[koraks]

What could be going on there?

Just a guess, but it might be as trivial as two identical baths back to back to ensure the process goes to completion. Equivalent to a single bath that runs longer. I imagine the time per bath is constant, so that would be a difficult parameter to manipulate, especially since it's likely that the time per bath is basically controlled by the film travel speed (and of course number of loops per bath, but this would be physically limited), so if you were to adjust the time of one process step this would affect all others too. Just thinking out loud.