You have the advantage of having known this stuff first hand
(I don't mean from the 1880s) while my knowledge is all from
books. I am pleased my memory works as well as it does.
On some subjects, such as the place of polymers in emulsions,
the material I have/had was not very detailed, at least I have
the basics right.
On 2/9/2019 4:16 PM, Robert Shanebrook (Redacted sender
makingkodakfilm for DMARC) wrote:
You wrote:
/*Some were eating mustard, I am not sure if this was the good stuff or the failed stuff but the amount of sulfur and its compounds in the gelatin have a
profound effect on its photographic properties. AFAIK and I may
not have the right (Bob Shanebrook please) eventually the gelatin
was highly refined to remove trace materials and the desired ones
added. While various polymers have been tried and are added to
the gelatin nothing has ever been able to replace it.*/
Per your request my comments are:
Your memory is accurate. The cows that ate mustard seed provided sulphur in their bones that made satisfactory film. The film failure wasn't explained until decades later when S. E. Sheppard, Mees' university thesis co-author and later Kodak scientist, proved the cause of the problem.
It wasn't until late in the 20th century that purified gel was used and then impurities were added. In the 1980s we worked with polymers as partial gel substitutes. Advances in gel technology and the limitations of polymers including cost kept gel as a major component in films. Polymers offer some characteristics that are not possible with gelatin so some polymers may be added to gelatin.
The conversations of the last week were from my memory, the details and publication references are in "Making Kodak Film". I have decent library but I can easily remember the details.
Bob
On Saturday, February 9, 2019, 6:07:40 PM EST, `Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Kiss's answer is what I also remember from my reading.
He had the advantage of being taught directly by T.H.James, who
succeeded Mees as head of Kodak Labs. My source is about the same
but from James's and Mees's books plus a better memory and
probably more basic chemistry than I have.
Gelatin is, of course, the magic key to all this. It is
possible to make light sensitive coatings without it, as
illustrated by collodion (wet plate) and many alternative
printing methods, but none have the sensitivity of gelatin based
coatings. I don't know the latest research but at least until
recently a complete understanding of the effect of gelatin was
not understood. The nature of the gelatin is extremely important,
something that caused Eastman to create his own gelatin making
business early on. Mees tells the story of how Eastman had a
failure of his dry plates early on which was traced to the source
of his gelatin. Mees says it depended on what the cows were
eating (gelatin comes from cow bones). Some were eating mustard,
I am not sure if this was the good stuff or the failed stuff but
the amount of sulfur and its compounds in the gelatin have a
profound effect on its photographic properties. AFAIK and I may
not have the right (Bob Shanebrook please) eventually the gelatin
was highly refined to remove trace materials and the desired ones
added. While various polymers have been tried and are added to
the gelatin nothing has ever been able to replace it.
The chemistry of gelatin is very complex, several books have
been written about it, and is mostly beyond me.
BTW, while the sensitive coating on film and paper is called
an _emulsion_ it is not, its a suspension. Curiously, the
support, if cellulose, _is_ an emulsion. I remember many years
ago when Technicolor discontinued its three color printing method
attending a special meeting of the SMPTE where several Tech
executives talked about the process. They kept referring to the
_emulsion_ until someone in the audience got one of them to
clarify he meant the _support_ not the coatings. He was correct
from a formal standpoint but the term _emulsion_ for a gelatin
based sensitive layer (or even one without gelatin) has become so
well established there is no chance of changing it and it would
be confusing to try.
Kodak discontinued the use of cellulose nitrate for motion
picture film in 1951 as I believe was general throughout the
industry. AFAIK the last movie to be shot on nitrate was "Sunset
Blvd". It was thought at the time that nitrate was clearer than
acetate. Maybe it was but nitrate was so dangerous it had to be
eliminated.
I rather like chopped liver, especially on Ritz crackers.
On 2/9/2019 2:25 PM, ROBERT KISS wrote:
> What am I, chopped livahhh!?!?!
>
>> On February 9, 2019 at 8:21 AM ROBERT KISS
>> <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Just to add a few things to Richard's info: (DISCLAIMER! This
>> is from memory of classes taught by Dr T. H. James 47 years
>> ago!!! You can confirm it by reading his bible...oops...book,
>> THEORY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESS.)
>>
>> 1) Gelatin is what is called a Zwitter ion; it has an alkaline
>> end and an acid end at opposite ends of a long organic
>> molecule. That is why it has the iso-electric point Richard
>> mentioned where the solution balances them and makes the
>> swelling minimum. In the usual alkaline developer environment,
>> the gelatin swells.
>>
>> 2) Latent image sites, where photons have struck halide (Br,
>> Cl, I) ions releasing electrons which reduce nearby ionic Ag+
>> to Ag atoms, can occur on the surface of the silver halide
>> (AgX) crystals or in the interior. They also provide an
>> auto-catalytic site for more interstitial Br- ions to deposit
>> more electrons which, in turn, reduce more interstitial Ag+
>> ions to make a latent image site with more neutral Ag atoms.
>> There is a minimum number (Was it 6 or 8?) Ag atoms that
>> constitute a "developable" latent image site. The developing
>> agent, carrying an extra electron in the alkaline solution
>> deposits it on the latent image site which then attracts and
>> reduces more Ag+ to silver atoms. Some "surface" developers
>> can only do this slowly on the surface of the AgX crystal.
>> Others, with higher concentrations of complexing agents like
>> Sodium Sulfite, dissolve some of the unexposed AgX crystal
>> providing more available Ag+ ions and, with sufficient
>> dissolution, reach the internal latent image sites. I think
>> these were called "internal" developers. Anyhow, this process
>> of building up more and more Ag atoms to create a visible
>> silver grain is called "amplification". The fact that most dev
>> agents contribute their extra electrons to the latent image
>> site as a catalytic action is how the dev recognizes the latent
>> image site. Might have to do with the fact that a site of a
>> few Ag atoms has a different surface oxidation potential than
>> anything else in the lattice work of the AgX crystal. No
>> surprise that, when the dev agent reduces Ag+ in non latent
>> image sites you get...fog!
>>
>> There is sooooooooooooooooooo much more but, rather than
>> bore you and probably make more mistakes due my 68 year old
>> memory, I think this is a reasonably accurate and accessible
>> description.
>>
>> CHEERS!
>>
>> BOB
>>
>>> On February 8, 2019 at 5:36 PM `Richard Knoppow <
>>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure what allows the developer tell an exposed grain
>>> from an unexposed one. There is a chemical difference caused by
>>> being light struck. I think the charges but one of the books on
>>> the process will explain it better than I can right now.
>>> It does not have to do with the pH of the solution because
>>> there are developers which work in acid solutions (Metol will
>>> work in neutral or very slightly acid solutions and metallic
>>> developers work in acid). The concentration of salts in
>>> processing formulas, both developers and others, affects the
>>> swelling of the gelatin. Gelatin is what is called amphoretic,
>>> that is, it is neither acid or alkaline. It does, however, have a
>>> characteristic pH, called its isoelectric point, where the
>>> swelling is minimum. Photographic gelatin is very slightly on the
>>> acid side of neutral. One important effect of this is the binding
>>> of hypo and fixer reaction products to the gelatin. When the
>>> gelatin has been in an acid solution, like hardening fixing
>>> baths, it tends to bind the fixer and reaction products. This
>>> binding is released when the gelatin is treated in an alkaline
>>> bath. Sodium sulfite washing aids, like Kodak Hypo Clearing
>>> Agent, are just on the alkaline side of neutral so can release
>>> the binding without destroying the hardening action of the fixing
>>> bath. A more alkaline bath, such as sodium carbonate, will also
>>> accelerate washing but destroys the hardening action of metalic
>>> hardening agents. Sulfite has the additional action of being an
>>> ion exchanger for thiosulfate and its reaction products.
>>> The action of the developer in selectively converting light
>>> struck halide particles is covered by the standard texts in
>>> photographic chemistry. I think at least one edition of "Theory
>>> of the Photographic Process" C.E. Kenneth Meese is available on
>>> line free. The later edition by Mees and James is still available
>>> for sale.
>>> Kodak was certainly the center of knowledge of photographic
>>> chemistry for decades. At least one of the retired Kodak
>>> researchers is on this list and I hope will respond to this.
>>> Chemical photography is having a resurgence after a few years
>>> of becoming very obscure. None of the old time companies has
>>> survived although Ilford is doing OK. Tetnal recently announced
>>> it was dissolving after failing a chapter 11 type bankruptcy. Not
>>> good.
>>> On 2/8/2019 12:58 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
>>>> What is the magic bit about a developer that is able to tell
>>>> a sensitized grain of silver halide from an unsensitized one?
>>>>
>>>> Is it true that the alkalinity of a developer makes the
>>>> gelatin more porous? I’ve seen where people mention that the
>>>> developer ‘opens’ the gelatin, making development
>>>> happen more rapidly.
>>>>
>>>> On a side note: It sounds like all the old guys at Kodak with
>>>> years of knowledge about film emulsions and chemistry are
>>>> either retiring or dying off. Whats happening with the
>>>> institutional knowledge necessary for companies like Kodak
>>>> and Ilford to continue mamufacturing film. Are they going to
>>>> have to start over or redo the last 30 or 40 years of r&d?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>> WB6KBL
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.
>
>
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WB6KBL
=============================================================================================================
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.
