From: William Marsh (email@example.com)
Date: 04/04/02-05:41:24 PM Z
Ken and all,
Thanks for your replies.
I just wondered why everybody was "suddenly" developing face down, if it
had anything to do with pyro specifically, as opposed to HC110. John
Sexton taught me to do it emulsion up back in 1983, and I never
questioned it, bowing to his depth of experience.
BTW, Ken, I'm pretty sure Paterson still makes those 14x17 trays. They
are what I use. Try Calumet.
Ken Sinclair wrote:
> My mentor was still using 8x10 glass plates when he introduced me to single
> sheet tray processing. The tray was tipped slightly away from you, and the
> sheet slipped in emulsion side up, at an angle and gently lowered to the
> bottom of the tray.
> When he finally decided it was time to speed up a days's work with batch
> processing of non-glass negatives everything seemed to have to change...
> Film was "curved with emulsion side down and "swiped" across the surface of
> the developer to achieve an even wetting of the emulsion, the film was then
> turned over and 'dropped' into the developer and the edge of the pinkie was
> used to make sure it was pushed below the surface... it did not take long
> to change that processing technique to reduce and hopefully eliminate the
> scratches that were caused by raising the bottom sheet too quick before it
> had cleared the corner of sheets above.
> A noticeable improvement in both time and the reduction of scratches was
> achieved when batches of film were developed emulsion side down. At that
> time Amidol was his developer of choice and being less "adventuresome" I
> took to wearing rubber gloves with that... as well as the poular RAF pyro
> developer, but chose to go bare-fingered when DK50 became the standard,
> and after that HC110.
> 45+ years of non-developer protected fingers does not mean that I will
> remain immune to any acquision of chemical sensitivity, but, due to the
> toxicity of pyro, I now insist on wearing the blue nitrile gloves... a bit
> more expensive than latex but "stronger" and I am much less likely to
> develop a sensitivity to the latex.
> I have never experienced "bubble" problems while batch developing sheet
> films and am not sure what it "looks" like. The worst problem I ever
> encountered was when two sheets became "stuck" together if they were
> dropped (or "slipped") together into the developer.. a problem encountered
> numerous time when wearing heavy rubber gloves, but a problem quickly
> overcome by a return to a pre-soaking regime.
> I can offer no answer to the possibility of pyro being any different from
> the "bubble perspective" from any other developer. I do use distilled water
> but cannot, in all honesty, see how that might contribute to there being
> less problem with bubbles.
> To my mind, developing my films emulsion side down has made no difference
> whatsoever to the results of my developing technique other than the
> reduction of negatives spoiled by scratches. (and it seemed to always be
> the "best" negative that got the scratches 8-( ).
> In all sincerity, I can only suggest that you use whichever technique works
> best for you in your circumstances, but I might suggest that you give
> serious thought to using a tray size two sizes "up" from the film... now
> having said that, this morning I just stepped on, and cracked, the last of
> my 14x17 trays as I was trying to return it to below the bench.... that was
> my developer tray for 8x10 film.. and I don't think they are made in that
> size any more.. Damn!
> [||/\/\/\/\//\/|| Ken Sinclair RBP, FBPA.
> [|| ||-| Applied Photographic Services
> [|| || | Lethbridge,
> [|| || | Alberta, Canada,
> [|| ||-| (403) 381-1654.
> [||\/\/\/\//\/\|| firstname.lastname@example.org
> |___________________ |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:28 AM Z CST