[rollei_list] Re: Film tight on rails? - formerly: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:46:32 -0300 (ART)
Elias:
If you fill the tank up to brim the developer
has no room enough to run along the tank during the
tank agitation and it loses effectiveness, with a
filled tank agitation almost does not make sense; one
of the main purposes about agitation is to move
exhausted developer away from the film (within a
normal developing time) replacing it with fresh, if
the developer has no room to run, this purpose is not
accomplished right. In addition, it's necessary a good
agitation rhythm, I use about five inversions within
five seconds but about seven within 10 seconds is
still effective if the inversion movement is rapid.
After every agitation cycle I beat my plastic tank
against the work surface to dissolve bubbles.
I don't think the density differences in your roll has
to do with the roller reflection issue, it seems to be
something about film processing clearly, and now I
know you filled the tank to brim I think this could be
the main cause for the problem.
All the best
Carlos
--- ERoustom <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> Thanks for pursuing this further Richard, and thanks
> for that
> amazingly thorough explanation Dennis.
> I have to tell you that not only was I using Rodinal
> for the first
> time for this roll of film, but it was processed in
> a tank a little
> shorter than what I usually use, and filled to brim
> (I had to mix 520
> ml for the 1+25 and the tank takes about 450).
> Unwittingly, I stacked
> some odds against myself. This was very helpful.
> Mostly I'm relieved
> that it's not my Rolleiflex lens that's to blame.
>
> However, Richard, I'm not so sure I'm ready to leave
> it at that. I'm
> suspicious of the reflection off the roller theory,
> without it also
> being loose film. Any idea how to test it? Is it
> possible that as the
> film is spooled off the bottom roller it looses
> tension?
>
> Elias
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:06 AM, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for the reply Dennis. Ok, so assuming it
> may be due to
> >> agitation
> >> what technique do people recommend? I try to
> invert and twist at
> >> about
> >> the
> >> same time, about 4-5 times every 30 seconds,
> sometimes every
> >> minute. Am I
> >> over-agitating perhaps and creating too much flow
> on the edges of the
> >> reels?
> >> Should I not invert and instead just sort of
> twirl?
> >>
> >> Richard S.
> >
> > First I should tell you that I am a fan of your
> work and have your
> > Flikr
> > stream bookmarked to check up on your new work now
> and then. I
> > have never
> > noticed that you have a processing problem.
> Perhaps you are going to
> > great lengths to get rid of it in the jpegs. I do
> see it in the
> > Albany
> > shore sea scape.
> >
> > I have processed an awful lot of film and do to
> this day process for
> > several other photographers beside myself. I
> spent an uncounted
> > ungodly
> > amount of time trying to figure out how to get
> even processing in a
> > stainless steel tank. I was never able to do it.
> It is worse on some
> > films than others and probably worse with some
> developers than
> > others. I
> > would get weired non lateral streaks and edge
> surge and bubbles and
> > everything else. I tried ever possible way of
> twisting and turning
> > and
> > bumping and grinding and anything else you could
> think of and never
> > was
> > able completely get rid of it. It was even worse
> for me with 35mm
> > film.
> > I process in a dark room anyway so I went with a
> larger open top
> > tank and
> > made a stainless steel rod to hold the stainless
> steel reels and
> > even then
> > I could not get rid of the processing marks as
> long as I was trying to
> > spin and bump and slosh with the film in the
> developer. It finally
> > occured to me that if I could completely empty the
> film reels of
> > developer
> > by taking them out of the developer entirely and
> then reimmersing
> > them, I
> > would have equal fresh developer throughout the
> reel. So for
> > agitation I
> > started just lifting the rod full of reels
> completely out of the
> > developer
> > tank and then putting it back in. Finally it
> worked. I have done
> > it that
> > way now for several years and I get the most even
> development I
> > have seen.
> > It is perfect edge to edge even if it is a
> frame of all sky.
> >
> > So with that experience I would say that if I was
> commited to using a
> > stainless tank with the lid on in the light, I
> would always put
> > just 3 or
> > less rolls of 120 in a 4 roll tank and I would not
> fill the can
> > clear up
> > with developer, I would leave a large air space
> that when I
> > inverted the
> > can would go through the film reels so they empty
> of developer for a
> > second. I would not bother with twisting and
> turning, I would go
> > just
> > staight over and back over with a bump for air
> bells. I have not
> > done it
> > that way but that is what I would try.
> >
> > I also should say that my surge mark problem was
> not more than what
> > I saw
> > with other people. Because I have processed for a
> lot of other
> > photographers I was very demanding of perfection.
> it is one thing to
> > process your own film and get processing marks.
> You forgive yourself
> > readily. It is another thing to hire someone to
> process your film
> > for you
> > and then get processing marks. Then you get
> pissed off and complain.
> >
> > Just last week I was in a photo place that does my
> color film and
> > on the
> > way out a guy from the lab came running out to
> catch me. They use
> > stainless steel tanks and process B&W film by hand
> and the lab guy was
> > frustrated using XTOL and he was getting surge and
> weird marks on
> > peoples
> > film. I told him the same thing, if you want
> perfect film you have to
> > process in the dark.
> >
> > Now I am sure that 20 people will respond with how
> they do get perfect
> > film in a can, and I don't doubt it but I could
> never do it myself.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/3/07, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What I saw on eroustam's image was even plus
> density coming in
> >>> from both
> >>> sides. I have seen this many times from
> development on reels
> >>> when there
> >>> is not even developer exchange across the film.
> There is more fresh
> >>> developer on the outside of the reels after
> agitation than on the
> >>> inside
> >>> of the reels. It is a very consistant
> progression of density from
> >>> outside
> >>> to inside. Light leaks would be actually light
> streaking across the
> >>> film
> >>> and would be very inconsistant due to all the
> variables. It
> >>> should be
> >>> more on one side than another and you probably
> could see some paper
> >>> texture. Also light leaking in loose rolls is
> generally located
>
=== message truncated ===
Los referentes más importantes en compra/ venta de autos se juntaron:
Demotores y Yahoo!
Ahora comprar o vender tu auto es más fácil. Vistá ar.autos.yahoo.com/
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
