From: Joe Portale (jportale@gci-net.com)
Date: 04/04/02-12:43:27 PM Z
One of the reasons people advocate developing sheet film face down is to
avoid scratches. The idea is that as you shuffle the films in the tray, as
you bring the bootom sheet up to the top, you could drag the emulsion
against the sharp corners of the other films. In my experience this holds
some merit. But if one is careful, uses a big tray and pulls the bottom
sheet clear of the other films while shuffling, there should be no problem.
To avoid bubbles is first, presoak the film in plain water or a 1% sodium
metaborate solution (Pyro, per Book of Pyro). Then don't drop the films into
the trays, slide them in. This is hard to explain, much easier in real life.
Slip the film into the solution at an angle. When the film is under the
solution. Lift slightly to release any trapped air. Works like a charm.
Joe Portale
Tucson, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Marsh" <redcloud54@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: downside-up in Pyro
> Ken Sinclair wrote:
>
> > Many years ago I was taught to develop 8x10s emulsion side up... but
soon
> > discovered less likely damage to any valuable neg by "shuffling" with
> > emulsion side down.... all that being said you do it the way that you
feel
> > (and hopefully "prove") to be the best for you in your situation.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Ken,
>
> I too was taught to develop emulsion side up, using exaggerated
> movements when laying the bottom sheet down on the top of the stack, to
> avoid gouging the sheet below. I've never had any trouble doing it this
> way. Maybe I just learned to develop upside down and didn't know it.
> How do you avoid bubbles? I have also never used gloves with HC110. I
> was never able to get enough tactile feedback with gloves, and Ansel and
> others never used them, so I figured they knew more than I did. It's
> true that the older I get, the less I know. Maybe that's why.
>
> The reason I asked about Pyro, specifically, was that it seemed to be a
> special case in peoples' minds, as enumerated in Carl's and Richard's
> book, and here and elsewhere. I thought there must be some chemical or
> mechanical reason for treating Pyro backwards from what I thought was
> the usual method. Is this true in people's experience (as Carl so
> kindly replied)?
>
> Is Pyro a special case? If so, why?
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Bill
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:28 AM Z CST