[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8C and two developers
- From: Jeffery Smith <jsmith342@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:36:02 -0600
HC110 seems like a good example here. One stock solution that can be diluted a
number of ways to working solutions.
Jeffery
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Chris Burck <chris.burck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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:
