[pure-silver] Re: Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long post]
- From: "Dave Valvo" <dvalvo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:47:15 -0800
Send the paper back or at least give them the emulsion numbers and have
Seagull review their file samples. They should replace it if it is within
dating acceptance. Manufacturing mistakes do happen. There could also be a
batch to batch variation that Seagull is not aware of.
It has happened at Kodak where someone turns on the lights by mistake or
some other problems occurs, e.g.,. a new batch of chemicals can cause
different aging performance.
I know this is not your problem but on most coating errors Finishing is
supposed to remove them but sometimes miss a little. Kodak used to have
high speed scanners that scan the paper after coating for defects using IR.
Defects could be emulsion skips, lines or whatever. Before computers came
along the paper was punched with holes to signal the location of the defect.
Believe me but sometimes customers got paper with holes in it. Today the
computers trackand diagram the entire master roll to determine the best way
to cut the master roll up to maximize the number of 8 x 10's vs 11x14's etc
depending on products orders.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Badcock" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Fogged New Oriental Seagull paper [long post]
> G'day folks.
>
> Since I'm an electronics & software tinkerer by hobby (and
> profession), my efforts in the darkroom to date have
> gravitated more towards controlling electrons in
> (semi)conductors rather than fiddling with ions in novel
> chemical soups. Having said that, I am always wanting to
> learn new things,
> and the recent thread re. PC-TEA and restrainers has me
> asking questions about my choice of paper+developer which is
> proving challenging!
>
> I am trying to work out why some new Oriental Seagull RC
> paper I recently purchased is showing an unacceptable level
> of fogging. I am currently trying to decide whether this
> fog is heat related (due to surface shipping reasons - from
> US to OZ), or developer related (since I am using a
> relatively =91active=92 developer). I suspect the former,
> but for peace of mind and as I clutch at a few straws, I
> want to run my situation past this mailing list.
>
> I have estimated using an uncalibrated Zone Ruler (as found
> on p. 256 of Way Beyond Monochrome) that the base+fog
> reflection density (=3dDmin) of the unexposed+developed
> paper matches zone VIII on the ruler. This is approximately
> 0.09 log units, and is way too high for my liking!
> Unfortunately I have no step tablet or reflection
> densitometer to accurately confirm this assessment, but it
> is clear to me that when I only fix the paper (with NO
> development), that the paper base density comes out one zone
> lighter on the Zone Ruler (i.e. Zone IX, or paper white as
> expected).
>
> I had the paper shipped from the US via surface post by a
> friend, and so it is entirely possible that it was cycling
> between unreasonable extremes of hot and cold as it sat
> inside a steel container on the top deck of the ship! So I
> am reluctantly willing to accept that it is fogged from heat
> =96 BUT there is some intriguing information on the Seagull
> RC paper and the AGFA Neutol Plus which I don=92t
> understand, which leads me to ask three questions to solve
> the problem.
>
> i) Is my paper FOGGED FROM HEATING during transit? or
> ii) Is my DEVELOPER TOO ACTIVE for the paper? or
> iii) Is my PAPER TOO SENSITIVE for the developer?
>
> i) FOGGED FROM HEATING?
> Quite possibly, however the friendly USPS customer helper
> didn=92t have any idea as to the temperatures the contents
> of a ship=92s container is subjected to.
>
> ii) Is my DEVELOPER TOO ACTIVE for the paper?
> The Agfa Neutol Plus datasheet reads =93Outstanding
> activity, so rapid response and high speed yield=94, =93Very
> low fog level=94. Why would they talk about rapid-ness and
> fog levels unless it might potentially be a problem?
> Agfa=92s datasheet for Neutol Plus with RC paper at 1+9
> dilution shows dev times of:
> 20[degC] : 70 =b1 10 [sec]
> 25[degC] : 50 =b1 10 [sec]
> 30[degC] : 30 =b1 5 [sec]
> I tried varying the development time from between 10s to >
> 200s (at 26degC), and for times of 20s and longer, all
> developments resulted in subjectively identical fog
> densities at about zone VIII.
>
> I=92ve read about using a developing restrainer to help
> rescue fogged paper, but I=92m trying to minimise all the
> possible variables in my printing process at the moment!
>
> iii) Is my PAPER TOO SENSITIVE for the developer?
> The RC paper=92s datasheet
> (www.orientalphotousa.com/msds/newseagull.asp) says:
> "Care should be taken to avoid over-developing which raises
> the fog and lowers contrast."
>
> I emailed Oriental-Photo USA, however the reply I got said:
> =93You have two choices to test
> 1) Decrease your time of developing
> 2) Increase your mixing dilution=94, at the time I
> didn=92t suggest heat related fogging.
>
> Why is this so in an RC paper? Since when do RC papers
> behave like FB whereby you need to consider something akin
> to Factorial Development? I understood, as Ralph mentions
> here
> (www.freelists.org/archives/pure-silver/10-2004/msg00250.html)
> that =93RC papers are definitely developed to completion, no
> argument there.=94
>
> I realise I=92ve probably asked way too many questions in
> the hope of getting a simple explanation, however any
> thoughts would be very welcome. I=92m hoping to settle on a
> =91paper of choice=92 right now to experiment with it over
> and over, so either I have B&H Photo air-express a shipment
> of Oriental Seagull out to me (since no photo store in
> Australia will order this paper in for me), or I choose
> another paper to play with.
>
> regards
> Peter Badcock
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to 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.
>
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to 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.
Other related posts:
