[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8C and two developers
- From: Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:42:59 -0500
OK, I don't want to get into a semantic debate where we are just repeating
the same thing over and over. But as I said, your reasoning is logical,
but it doesn't apply in this context. These developers are mixed into
stock solutions. The fact that the stock solution can be used undiluted to
process films, does not change the fact that it is the stock solution:
even if it is the dilution you normally work with, to refer to it as
"working solution" instead of "stock solution" or "full strength", will
encourage miscommunications.
If you look at Ilford literature on these developers, they are quite
consistent in referring to stock solution by that name.
Of course, this isn't exactly how T-Max RS works, because the typical
dilutions do not extend conveniently. If standard dilution is 1:4, to take
some of this solution and dilute it further to 1:9 is inconvenient since it
isn't a direct ratio. Not to mention the fact that this new dilution can
no longer be incorporated back into the original working strength mixture
(especially since 1:9 is not a one-shot dilution, or at least, doesn't have
to be). In other words, the normal practice is going to be to mix the
entire bottle of concentrate at the same dilution, and keep it that way.
In any case, if I haven't convinced you, we can agree to disagree. :)
On Jan 30, 2014 7:58 PM, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris:
> I wrote you were right in general, but there are some
> exceptions. The Perceptol and Microphen are another clear examples
> about these exceptions. After you mixed the powders, you obtain a
> stock solution, there is no doubt about it, but you can also use this
> stock solution as working solution too and then the stock solution is
> the working solution at the same time. BTW, you can also dilute the
> stock/working solution to obtain a new more diluted working solution,
> f.e. 1:3, the difference for stock solution and working solution would
> be clear for this case, but it does not exist for the previous sample.
> I think Richard talks about the "full strength" solution thinking
> about the stock solution that could be used as working solution too.
> There are stock solutions that are stock solutions only and there
> stock solutions that are working solutions too, these are "full
> strength" working solutions.
>
> Carlos
>
> 2014-01-30 Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > LOL!
> >
> > I'm not sure how we've gotten to this point. I understand how the RS
> works.
> > :)
> >
> > Richard said something about using it "full strength", and when you
> replied
> > you said something about "stock solution". All I was trying to do was
> point
> > out what these terms mean.
> >
> > If one dilutes the concentrate to 1 gallon, then this is the working
> > solution. It is not the stock solution also. I understand your
> reasoning,
> > but this is not the way those terms are used; not their meaning. In
> other
> > words, rather than being "the stock
> > solution and the working solution at the same time", it is the
> *replenisher*
> > and the working solution at the same time.
> >
> > I've read Sexton's comments on that LFP page a number of times.
> Interesting
> > stuff.
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2014 3:45 PM, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Chris:
> >> The point is that you need to mix parts A and B adding
> >> water to complete 1 gallon or 3.8 litres, this is is the stock
> >> solution and the working solution at the same time, there is no a
> >> specified dilution fot the T-Max RS developer. I put 500ml in my
> >> Paterson tank and develop a 120 roll. If I use the repleshniment
> >> system, I discard 45 ml of used developer for the next roll and add 45
> >> ml of fresh developer for it; this way the fresh solution is the
> >> "stock" solution and the used developer including the 45ml of fresh
> >> solution is my 500ml "working solution", but there is no dilution,
> >> it's the same solution unused and used. Anyway, I did not use the
> >> replenisher system, I only used the entire developer several times.
> >>
> >> As I wrote previously, there are no issues about short developing
> >> times for T-Max films developed with T-Max RS developers; however I
> >> found this issue for the Ilford PanF+ ISO 50, since the recommended
> >> development time is 4 minutes and 5 minutes is the minimal recommended
> >> development time to get an even process. Kodak does not mention any
> >> dilution for the T-Max RS despite these short development times and
> >> the "Digiltal Truth" massive development chart keeps Kodak
> >> instructions, 4' at 20ºC. However, some users in forums in the web
> >> suggest to mix Part A and Part B as a concentrated solution and to
> >> dilute it 1:9 or 1:15 to use it like one shot developer for some
> >> lighting situations, f.example :
> >> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/sexton-tmax.html
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >> 2014-01-30 Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > Richard,
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I understood from the earlier messages that the RS is a two part
> >> > developer. However, since Kodak describes it as "to make 1 gallon"
> (for
> >> > the
> >> > small size), I took that to mean that the dilution is the dilution is
> >> > the
> >> > dilution, as it were. In other words, if the bottle indicates a
> >> > dilution of
> >> > 1:4 (or multiple dilution options), then that's your working solution.
> >> >
> >> > That detail about replenishing with half-strength solution sounds
> awful
> >> > strange, though I admit that's not the only thing I find strange about
> >> > T-Max. Kodak's Publication J-86 (which, oddly enough, doesn't
> specify a
> >> > recommended dilution for the RS, though it does for the standard
> T-Max)
> >> > makes no reference to such a practice. Where did you hear this?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 2014-01-30 Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> > Carlos,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There may be some confusion of terminology here. Many powder
> >> >> > developers,
> >> >> > such as D76, are mixed into a stock solution which, due to its
> higher
> >> >> > concentration, has better keeping qualities. This solution is then
> >> >> > further
> >> >> > diluted at the time of processing, by whatever ratio is
> >> >> > desired/recommended
> >> >> > (typically 1:1 with D76). This is referred to as the "Working
> >> >> > Solution".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > With liquid developers, the concentrated developer straight out of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > bottle, is essentially "Stock Solution". "Working Solution" (or
> >> >> > "Working
> >> >> > Strength Solution"), is what you get after mixing with water (in
> the
> >> >> > case of
> >> >> > T-Max, 1:4 or 1:9, per Kodak's recommendations).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Based on what I read in your last message, you were using working
> >> >> > solution,
> >> >> > not stock solution.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are right in general Chris, however there is an issue regarding
> >> >> the T-Max RS, it has two liquid parts and you need to mix them like
> >> >> you need to mix powders to obtain a stock solution. It's true that
> the
> >> >> mixed solution or "stock" solution is a workable solution too, but
> >> >> since you need to add 45 ml of fresh solution to your tank each time
> >> >> you develop a 120 roll if you use the replenisher system, the fresh
> >> >> solution is a "stock" solution to add to your used developer despite
> >> >> they are the same solution, one unused, the other one used. Kodak
> only
> >> >> talks about to use the mixed A and B parts to develop films and this
> >> >> is the way I used it, but you could dilute this solution according
> >> >> some users and then you have a one shot workable solution where the
> >> >> original mixed solution works again like "stock" solution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Carlos
> >> >> ---
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita!
> >> ---
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> ---
> 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:
