HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:45 pm

Lowell Huff wrote:Hello Keith:
The formulas were given to me in confidence. As an ethical person and manufacturer, I must respect that confidence.
Understood Lowell.
Cheers. :lol: :wink:


Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:29 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Lowell Huff wrote:Hello Keith:
The formulas were given to me in confidence. As an ethical person and manufacturer, I must respect that confidence.
Understood Lowell.
Cheers. :lol: :wink:
Are they trickier to manufacture than most others?

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:54 pm

Hello Mr. Ornello:
No, the formulas are not any more sophisticated than most modern formulas. That being said, they are more sophisticated than the formulas that originated at "the begining of time."

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:15 pm

Lowell Huff wrote:Hello Mr. Ornello:
No, the formulas are not any more sophisticated than most modern formulas. That being said, they are more sophisticated than the formulas that originated at "the begining of time."
I was referring to difficulties in manufacturing, not complexity or sophistication. Hell, Plutonium is damned difficult to manufacture, and it's a single element!.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:32 am

No they are not "tricky" manufacture. I believe the reason that Champion quit making them was that there wasn't enough profit or volume to make it a viable proposition.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:25 am

Lowell Huff wrote:No they are not "tricky" manufacture. I believe the reason that Champion quit making them was that there wasn't enough profit or volume to make it a viable proposition.
Because Paterson does not promote their products enough, I think.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Infrared film developer

Post by foolscape » Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:54 pm

My two cents, for what it's worth: before Konica discontinued everything, I bought up as much of their 750 infrared film as I could get my hands on. I still have a few rolls left, as a matter of fact. I have been using the Clayton F76+, and I like the results. Normally a PMK Pyro-maniac, I use the Clayton on the IR film because I don't want the compensating effect of pyro.

Since Mr. Huff seems to be paying attention to this thread, I have a question for him. I read somewhere that a good starting point for developing times for the F76+ is to take D76 and subtract 20%. Is this true? I tend to use oddball films like Foma, Efke, and the like, and it's hard to get good information about them, even on the Massive Dev Chart.

A second question: would F76+ work well as a "stand" developer? What would the best dilution ratio be?

Thanks!
--Gary

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:59 am

Hello Gary
Thank you for your support. I have times and temps charts that i can email for both hand and machine processing. There is no need to experiment for starting times.
As for foma, Efke films, ect., i have info on those allso. please keep in mind that the chemistry does not know the color of the box thaat the film was shipped. Developing times are based on the E.I., exposure, processing temperature and aggitation. So the starting point for Foma 400 is the same as TRi X in our developer.
STAND DEVELOPMENT, since i am a scientist not a artist, i have never understood why anyone would want to do such a proceedure. It is not scientific. askus@claytonchem.com

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:30 am

Lowell Huff wrote:Hello Gary
Thank you for your support. I have times and temps charts that i can email for both hand and machine processing. There is no need to experiment for starting times.
As for foma, Efke films, ect., i have info on those allso. please keep in mind that the chemistry does not know the color of the box thaat the film was shipped. Developing times are based on the E.I., exposure, processing temperature and aggitation. So the starting point for Foma 400 is the same as TRi X in our developer.
STAND DEVELOPMENT, since i am a scientist not a artist, i have never understood why anyone would want to do such a proceedure. It is not scientific. askus@claytonchem.com
Precisely. Stand development works best with horizontally placed flat glass plates, since gravity does not affect the by-products of development differentially when they cannot move away from their point of origin because the plate is perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It is an obsolete technique, and as I said it worked well only with glass plates.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Post by foolscape » Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:07 am

Being obsolete is not such a bad thing. I love to experiment, and see what alternative looks I can find for my work. Right now, I'm working on recreating the "Jazz Age" glamour photography from the 1920's. I have a few very old cameras that I'm resurrecting, and will be applying a liquid emulsion to glass plates. I also have a Zeca camera from the late 1930's, which I am buying 9x12cm Efke film for, and since I have no development hangers for it, I want to see what stand development will do. The worst thing that could happen is it could turn out badly. On the other hand, it could produce something wonderful. I'll take that chance. If I wanted to do what everyone else is doing, I'd buy a digital camera.

I am an artist, not a scientist. Sometimes an artist has to poke a sharp stick into the eye of conventional methods because... well, just because.

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Post by foolscape » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:11 am

I finally tried the Clayton F76+ as a "stand" developer. I used a sheet of Efke PL50, and two sheets of Arista 100. I mixed the developer at half strength (I could have gone much more dilute, but I made a mistake while mixing a full-strength batch, so I tried the experiment), and let the Efke stand for 2.5 hours. I got a lovely negative. I tried the Arista, and let it set for 2 hours, and one of them gor a little dark, and the other was beautiful. The compensation effect of standing worked just fine. The negatives are still drying, but I can't wait to see the prints.

--Gary

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:10 pm

foolscape wrote:Being obsolete is not such a bad thing.


Do you work with glass plates?

foolscape
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Post by foolscape » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:21 pm

Ornello wrote:Do you work with glass plates?
Nope.

Not yet, anyway.

--Gary

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:47 am

foolscape wrote:
Ornello wrote:Do you work with glass plates?
Nope.

Not yet, anyway.

--Gary
My point was that stand development was used successfully with horizontal-lying glass plates. It does not work well with film in reels held vertically.

pentaxpete
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:19 am
Location: BRENTWOOD,Essex,(UK)

Post by pentaxpete » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:43 am

That's interesting to read that Champion have bought the Kodak plant in France; they were in my town here in Brentwood , Essex, England and I could WALK there to buy stuff for my RA4 colour processing then when I told the rep there I used to work in the May& Baker plant in Dagenham and his boss was at my old school he gave me free a 1litre of Promicrol liquid B/W developer to try - it's very fierce at the recommended times, not as good as the powder Promicrol but I am glad as I got it free !
Got COMPUTERISED and 'slightly Digitised Pentax K10D' but FILM STILL RULES !

Post Reply