[rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: "Richard Sintchak" <rich815@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:59:46 -0700
Thanks for the nice comment on my photos Dennis, and for the good
suggestions. I may try your proposed methodology.
I'm now off early tomorrow AM to the Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White
Mountains for a few days. Wish me luck!
Richard S.
On 10/3/07, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <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 right
> >> at
> >> the edges and then falls off really quickly where as on eroustams
> >> it
> >> was a gradual even fall off from edge to center.
> >> But you never know for sure till you fix it.
> >> Dennis
> >> > So it seems from comments in this thread that I may be completely
> >> wrong
> >> > about light leaks from a loose roll or from the camera's edges
> >> allowing
> >> > light leaking in? That's what I always thought it was since I got
> this
> >> > problem on negs with my 2.8E Planar and 3.5E3 Xenotar (both real ugly
> >> > users)
> >> > but negs from my pristine 2.8C Xenotar and my Hasselblads do not have
> >> > this....thus I thought it must be a camera issue and not processing
> >> since
> >> > I
> >> > often process negs from a mix of cameras and do not see this across
> >> all
> >> > the
> >> > negs. But people seem pretty set that it's a processing issue. But
> >> my
> >> > facts seem to fly in the face of that.....
> >> >
> >> > Comment anyone? Is there a reason it's NOT a loose roll or edge
> light
> >> > leaks
> >> > in the camera?
> >> >
> >> > Richard S.
> >> > San Francisco
> >> >
> >> > See my Commute Photo Blog!
> >> > http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/
> >> >
> >> > My Flickr Page
> >> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 10/3/07, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:05 AM
> >> >> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Thanks! This was my first roll in Rodinal, and since
> >> >> > Ilford's spec sheet gave one time, and Rodinal gave
> >> >> > another, I split the difference, so maybe not enough
> >> >> > time. and maybe back to 5 seconds every 10 minutes. I use
> >> >> > a stainless steel tank, agitating for the first 10
> >> >> > seconds of each minute. Ilftoec HC never gave me this
> >> >> > problem, but the grain is much much finer with Rodinal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wonder though about how tightly the camera is holding
> >> >> > the film. This is the same roll that gave me the strange
> >> >> > light leak across frames.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks again all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Elias
> >> >> >
> >> >> Curious about the grain. I've never used Ilfotec HC,
> >> >> which is similar to Kodak HC-110 but would expect it to have
> >> >> somewhat finer grain than Rodinal. I've used Rodinal mostly
> >> >> for sheet film and have never had any problems with it but I
> >> >> generally use finer grain developers in tanks. I think the
> >> >> main thing with tanks is to have a long enough development
> >> >> time to average out irregularities in agitation. However, if
> >> >> there are surge effects in the tank they are likely to be
> >> >> the same even if the time is increased. The most common
> >> >> surge marks in inversion type tanks are increased
> >> >> development at the edges of the film due to turbulent flow
> >> >> in the interstices of the reels, and sprocket hole marks due
> >> >> to turbulent flow through these holes, also causing a
> >> >> localized increase in development.
> >> >> If you find the problem _is_ due to surging I can only
> >> >> suggest using a different type of reel or rotating the tank
> >> >> along with inverting it. I was taught this trick long ago
> >> >> and its become a habit.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Richard Knoppow
> >> >> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> >> >> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---
> 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:
