From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 11/26/01-06:53:52 AM Z
Clay,
ABC+ appears to have a fairly short "window" of shelf life. It needs to be
aged some days before use, and then used in a period of a few months.
Missing the window can result in high fog from what I've heard though I
never encountered it. Since I work in trays I use PMK which has a long shelf
life. For rotary, Sandy's Pyrocat may be a better choice. I plan to test it
soon for tray processing of big negatives.---Carl
--
web site with picture galleries
and workshop information at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
NEW PICTURE GALLERIES: Flags and Pumpkins: Halloween 2001
Coal Country
Skinny Buildings
----------
>From: clay <wcharmon@wt.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Dense or Density
>Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 9:12 PM
>
> I've had the same problem with Rollo Pyro (ABC+) resulting in incredibly
> long exposure times although I use mostly TMax 400 and TriX. I get a very
> high base+fog using the technique outlined in the Weese article in Photo
> Techniques with the Rollo Pyro. For what its worth, I DO NOT have the same
> problems with Sandy's Pyrocat-HD, but do agree that adding an extra stop of
> exposure (just in case) is a very bad idea with Pt/Pd printing in mind. In
> fact, the whiz-bang analysis tools in the BTZS plotter program indicate that
> my actual film speed with Tmax 400 and Pyrocat-HD is actually around ISO
> 600.
>
> I have been advised (but haven't yet tried) that skipping the second, post
> development metaborate bath with Rollo pyro will reduce some of the high
> degree of overall staining you seem to be getting. I'm going to give that a
> shot this week now that I have some time and curiosity to do a little
> investigation into the staining problem. I'll let the list know if anything
> earth shaking results. I CAN say that the Pyrocat-HD has pretty much solved
> the problem for me though, and it seems to give all the benefits
> attributable to a pyro developer (e.g. high acutance, great highlight
> definition, actinic filtering for UV sensitive processes, and reasonably
> short development times) without the high base+fog and toxicity. Check out
> www.unblinkingeye.com for the formula. It is incredibly cheap and easy to
> mix yourself.
>
> Good luck. Just wanted to let you know that you are not alone in finding
> this difficulty with Rollo pyro.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Clay
> ----------
>>From: Jeff Buckels <jeffbuck@swcp.com>
>>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>>Subject: Re: Dense or Density
>>Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2001, 7:28 PM
>>
>
>>OK: I've been making the FO the night before and actually using it late
morning
>>or so the next day.... The ambient humidity lately has been 30 to 40%.
Before
>>coating, I humidify the paper (Platine) in front of a smallish sonic
humidifier
>>for about a minute. After coating, I dry the paper (cold air double window
fan
>>at four feet dries to 75% or so, then med-heat hair dryer till dry), then
>>re-humidify as before, then expose. The range has been pretty good, but not
>>great -- I'm not getting to real black black (brown brown). I used sodium
>>dichromate just with this one print; mind you, the brightness range of the
>>subject was a good stop short of normal. I exposed and developed normally,
>>figuring to kick up the contrast a bit with the sod dichromate. This worked
>>pretty good. It was not full range, but I intended the look I got (pretty
much)
>>from the get-go. Believe me, if the exp. time hadn't been 50 minutes, I
>>wouldn't have thought there was a "problem"... I've only done two non-pyro
>>negatives. The exposure times were well within normal ranges, around 5-7
>>minutes.... Finally, these pyro negatives that have printed so slow in pt/pd
>>are correspondingly slow on Azo. For this reason, I think we can eliminate
bad
>>FO or bad pt/pd or bad humidifying etc. ... I sure appreciate these
responses.
>>-jb
>>
>>Eric Neilsen wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff, There seems to be many things left unsaid by you about your whole set
>>> up.
>>>
>>> FO should be well mixed and will take hours (pushing it) and a day or so to
>>> fully dissolve. It will last many many months. Mixing it fresh is a
>>> problem, not only to get it mixed, but weight properly the same for small
>>> batches. If you are using AFO, that is a different animal.
>>>
>>> Are you drying your paper? dry palladium paper or one with a low RH is
>>> slower than a humidified paper?
>>>
>>> Is the film printing full range? 80 minutes seems quite long. How much
>>> dichromate in your developer? this will also slow your print times.
>>>
>>> What are your times for a non pyro negative?
>>>
>>> EJ Neilsen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jeff Buckels" <jeffbuck@swcp.com>
>>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:04 AM
>>> Subject: Dense or Density
>>>
>>> > Hello from Albuquerque NM. This is my first posting to this fine
>>> > list....
>>> >
>>> > I've started doing platinum/palladium. Have done two sessions in my
>>> > newly up and running home rig. I'm excited by the results I'm getting
>>> > but am plagued by preposterously long exposures. Here's what I do: I'm
>>> > shooting FP4+ (5x7 and 8x10) @ EI 64, erring on the side of
>>> > over-exposure. Nothing fancy as to reading; for the time being, to keep
>>> > it simple, I'm just doing split readings (mostly between the darkest and
>>> > lightest readings on the palm of my hand), leaving any particular
>>> > contrast control to the printing stage. I'm developing the film in PMK
>>> > for 12 minutes at 70F. All exposures, regardless. The printing is on
>>> > Platine. I've done a couple prints with pure palladium, a couple with
>>> > about 55/45 Pt to Pd, adding some contrast on one occasion with a small
>>> > amount of sodium dichromate in the pot/oxalate developer. The color and
>>> > contrast need tweaking but I'm happy with both. The exposure times are
>>> > an outrage: From 20 to 80 minutes. I can live with 20, and I
>>> > understand there's only 2 stops difference between that and 80, but most
>>> > the exposures are over 50. The light source is a new "oven" from
>>> > Edwards, which I feel is working correctly. Can anyone tell me if
>>> > anything jumps out of the above procedure as the likely repeat cause of
>>> > these pokey exposures?? I'd sure like to stick with Pyro and know that
>>> > that is the principal culprit. But, you know, if I could just get to
>>> > 15-20 minute exposures, I'd be satisfied.... Thank you.
>>> >
>>> > jeff buckels (albuquerque nm)
>>> >
>>> >
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:21 AM Z CST