Well, I was just curious after all that discussion. I've
found that D-76 is about the most reliable of the developers
although one can get slightly better performance from Xtol. Some
films need something like DK-50A. Kodak made a high speed film
decades ago called Royal Pan or maybe Royal-X Pan that would
produce dichroic fog in D-76 but I can't think of any other film
that doesn't work in it.
Somewhere I have old data sheets, I mean real ones, not
downloaded, but they are probably in storage. I probably had one
for HP-5 which might explain the difference between it and HP-5
Plus.
Both Ilford and Kodak and probably AGFA did a lot of
research into preventing age fog and also degradation of the
latent image. Part of it depends on storage. Cool temperatures
are best.
Anyway, when you do some more I would be interested in
seeing of the images.
I don't have a suitable scanner for negatives or
transparencies, and, in fact, am without a working printer at the
moment. The ink jets in both of mine are clogged. I am going to
try a cleaning technique I read about somewhere which uses a
mixture of isopropyl alcohol and blue Windex. Can't break it
worse than it is. Replacement print heads cost as much as a whole
new machine. Anyway, enough for now. I am so glad this worked out
for you. You are certainly one of the old hands on the Pure
Silver list and I think were on one of the Usenet groups too.
On 7/1/2018 12:54 PM, Janet Gable Cull wrote:
I used d76, 1:1, 68 degrees for 13 minutes. No magic to it. I agitate every 40 seconds. There was no fog. A friend told me that if it's HP5 and not HP5+ the film must be at least 30 years old. THat's hard to believe because … well, if so then it keeps very well. I found them easy to print at a time that allowed for a little bit of dodging. I printed them open one stop and got good times which varied a little from one image to another. There was nothing wonderful on these 2 rolls but they were good for the experiment because of that. I wouldn't have lost anything great, though I didn't find anything great either. My scanner isn't working so all I could do is take a picture of a print with my phone and … hmm, then how will I get it here? Let me think about that. I can show you something just to see an image from the process but it won't be impressive, I'll tell you. Maybe something from the next 3 rolls?
Thank you all again!
Janet
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:33 AM, `Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I'm glad they turned out OK. Now, tell us what you did.
On 6/30/2018 6:41 PM, Janet Gable Cull wrote:
Well I processed the film (13 minutes) and printed a few
frames today. The negatives are good and the film is
good, better than the images I made but that’s another
subject. I am satisfied with my processing. Thank you all
for your help!
Janet
Janet Gable Cull
Sent from my iPhone
-- Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WB6KBL
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the
same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.