Re: [inconsistent results with TXP

Subject: Re: [inconsistent results with TXP

> I do six at a time, in tubes.
>
> I am thinking that it illustrates the value of learning to process sheet
> film by inspection. I tried this before and felt as if I could not see
> anything! But maybe it's worth trying again.
>
> --shannon

Call Kodak pro info line, 1800 242-2424 ext 19 and ask what is the catalogue
number for the 'Brownie Bulb' darkroom light. This comes with a yellow,
red, and green cover. When using a 15 watt bulb, refrigerator bulb, the
output and color -- green filter -- is so small you can hold the film up
very close to see the D-Max develop without fogging the film.

Any detailed questions, ask me off list.

Steve Shapiro
>
>
>
>>S.
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon Stoney" <sstoney@pdq.net>
>>To: <pure-silver@freelists.org>
>>Cc: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>>Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:56 AM
>>Subject: [inconsistent results with TXP
>>
>>>Hi, I have been shooting TXP for some time in the 4x5 format. I have
>>>tested it and I use the BTZS system to expose and develop it. I shot
>>>about 75 exposures over the summer and I'm just now processing it.
>>>
>>>Most of the film seems underexposed and underdeveloped. I can probably
>>>print it, but it will be tricky. I don't understand this, because some
>>>film that I shot just last week is perfect.
>>>
>>>I have two theories about why this might be happening:
>>>
>>>1) maybe the film I used over the summer was old. I can't remember if I
>>>used some that had been stored for a while or what. If the film was a
>>>year or so old, would that make it less responsive to exposure and
>>>development?
>>>
>>>2) Maybe if film sits around waiting to be processed for several months,
>>>it loses responsiveness to chemistry? (I have not found this to be
>>>particularly true in the past however.)
>>>
>>>3) Maybe I consistently metered wrong, or the meter was messed up. But I
>>>just had the meter checked and it was fine. Also it was fine when I used
>>>it for the batch of film I shot and processed last week.
>>>
>>>there could be any number of other things going on too. But I think I
>>>have eliminated all the other possible variables.
>>>
>>>--shannon
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 13 13:10:55 2005