![]() ![]() ![]() Or you can just keep track of the number of prints - including test prints! - that have been put through each batch of working solution. There are test solutions you can use to check the amount of silver that has accumulated in solution. (Note also that capacity for FB prints is either lower or far lower than that for RC prints, depending on whether one uses one-bath or two-bath fixing.) However, any such number is a rough estimate, as the amount of silver that goes into solution with each print depends on what the print looks like - a high-key print with few dark tones and a large white border will deposit more unexposed silver into the solution than a very dark print with black borders. This is typically specified in terms of number of prints that have been put through the fixer. The second factor is how much silver has accumulated in the fixer. The numbers I quote refer to that - they are for mixed fixer, not for the concentrated solution in the original bottle. The first is elapsed time since the fixer was mixed for use (and exposure to air during that time). I think using a tank would be more practical.Ĭlick to expand.There are two factors affecting the continued usability of fixer. And organising a timer for each individual chemical in the dark would be tricky too. I don't think I'd be keen on working with open trays of chemicals in complete darkness. Though after some thinking, I changed my mind. I really liked the simplicity of it - just dealing with one individual sheet of film at a time rather than a whole, super long roll of film. And that really motivated me to try the same thing one day - develop some LF sheet film at home. ![]() Though perhaps I could do that once in a while as a special kind of thing.Īctually, last night, I stumbled upon some youtube videos showing large format b&w sheet film being developed in individual open trays. That's one of the things that I was most looking forward to seeing when going back to the darkroom. And that's the truly magical part of the whole process. However, by not using trays, I won't be able to see the image appear in the developer tray. Like, after every print.Ĭlick to expand.That does sound more economical and logical. If you do go with water, change it frequently. There is more than this short note can express. Yes, developing agent is a problem and can cause brown stain in B&W and pink stain in color. This is old history to me from about 1969, where we found the problem in color and I was called back from Christmas vacation to work on it for color paper, namely Ektaprint 3. The bottom line is that a water stop may work but must be running water or acid. ![]() PPDs caused pink stain in color materials if there was not an acid stage to extract them. So, my work went on to find if PPDs were retained. There is no easy test for Hypo or Metol and Metol should actually be worse. He and others (cited in the discussion by Haist) find that hypo washes out just fine, but surprisingly HQ does not. In the graph on this page and the brief associated discussion, Grant is testing hypo retention in monobath processing. I had to go through VI until I got to it in VII. For example, one of the comments from Ron Mowrey, who worked at Kodak: One thing I hadn't appreciated is that the issue isn't just clearance of unexposed silver, but also of retained developer agent. Lots of interesting detail amidst the wrangling. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |