Digital BW, The Print

One of the benefits of using chromo films is the ability to use 
different film speeds on the same roll. This makes life a little 
easier if yur shooting in different lighting situations.


                       Tim


            http://www.portraitsofnature.net

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "c2c_ic" 
<c2c_ic@y...> wrote:
> One of the benefits of using chromo films is the ability to use 
> different film speeds on the same roll. This makes life a little 
> easier if yur shooting in different lighting situations.

This has been my experience with Ilford XP2 Super, which I use 
for the majority of my b/w work. I'm not sure if Kodak's 
chromogenic films "work" quite the same way.

- Barrett

That is nice and I find that it scans better than traditional b&w 
emulsions...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "c2c_ic" 
<c2c_ic@y...> wrote:

> One of the benefits of using chromo films is the ability to use 
> different film speeds on the same roll. This makes life a little 
> easier if yur shooting in different lighting situations.
> 
> 
>                        Tim
> 
> 
>             http://www.portraitsofnature.net

As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal attack by 
some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please enlighten 
me"

I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W 
workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a chromogenic 
film. As for being true B&W, these films are conceptually as B&W as 
printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset and without offering any of the 
traditional characteristics of silver based film over that of colour 
print film - eg expanded exposure ranges.
Almost all the chromogenic are softer (resolving ability) than colour 
print alternatives; and as Photoshop (or similar software) is an 
inevitable component of the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, 
shooting in colour print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be considered 
any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

regards
Craig

> I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W 
> workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a chromogenic 
> film.

Those films have a very good exposure latitude, allowing you to shoot
from 50 to 1600 iso on the same roll of film. I'm not aware of any color
print films that can do this, but I may be wrong.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Daniel,

Im very surprised on that issue; and it raising the question below...

> Those films have a very good exposure latitude, allowing you to 
shoot
> from 50 to 1600 iso on the same roll of film. I'm not aware of any 
color

If you have a 5 stop lattitude (iso 50~1600) on, basically where you 
feel like positioning mid-tone, at the extremes, ie. at iso 50 what 
bandwidth do you have for the highlight detail (assuming its a iso 
400 rated film for example) and obviously shadow detail when rated at 
the other end?

If this works the implication is an exposure latittude greater than 
traditional silver based films - but I suspect that wont be the case!

regards
Craig

Hi Craig,
 
the main reason I shoot chromogenic films is that they have the finest grain for 400ASA, and for my work film speed is a great plus. If anyone knows about a 400ASA color film with comparable grain, I'm ready to switch.
 
Alessandro Pardi

 -----Original Message-----
From: craig [mailto:craygc@...]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 13:30
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: chromogenic films



As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal attack by 
some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please enlighten 
me"

I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W 
workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a chromogenic 
film. As for being true B&W, these films are conceptually as B&W as 
printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset and without offering any of the 
traditional characteristics of silver based film over that of colour 
print film - eg expanded exposure ranges.
Almost all the chromogenic are softer (resolving ability) than colour 
print alternatives; and as Photoshop (or similar software) is an 
inevitable component of the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, 
shooting in colour print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be considered 
any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

regards
Craig




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What film specifically allows this?
XP2? T400CN? The new Portra?

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 07:37  AM, Daniel Staver wrote:

>> I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W
>> workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a chromogenic
>> film.
>
> Those films have a very good exposure latitude, allowing you to shoot
> from 50 to 1600 iso on the same roll of film. I'm not aware of any  
> color
> print films that can do this, but I may be wrong.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &  
> Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Regards,

Loring Palleske
Creative Imaging
416.301.1711

> What film specifically allows this?
> XP2? T400CN? The new Portra?

XP2.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig" 
<craygc@y...> wrote:
>As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal 
>attack by some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please 
>enlighten me"
> 
>I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital 
>B&W workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a 
>chromogenic film. As for being true B&W, these films are 
>conceptually as B&W as printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset 
>and without offering any of the traditional characteristics of 
>silver based film over that of colour print film - eg expanded 
>exposure ranges. Almost all the chromogenic are softer 
>(resolving ability) than colour print alternatives; and as 
>Photoshop (or similar software) is an inevitable component of 
>the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, shooting in colour 
>print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
>offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
>adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be 
>considered any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

For me, one of the other benefits of shooting with XP2 Super is, if 
you will, its "backward compatibility"; unlike color negative film, I 
can take XP2 and go straight into the wet darkroom, if I wish, to 
make prints, without some of the backflip compromises required 
with color negs. No limitations on choice of paper or technique.

XP2's push/pull versatility is, of course, wonderful (following 
classic Tri-X tradition, I regularly expose the film at EI 320). 
Sharpness, to my eye, is very good, although likely not quite a 
match for some of the sharper conventional b/w film types. About 
the only conventional b/w films I might occasionally use in place 
of XP2 are at the extremes: Pan F, and Delta 3200 (or Fuji 1600). 
But it's not all that often.

- Barrett

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:55:34AM -0000, craig wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> Im very surprised on that issue; and it raising the question below...
> 
> > Those films have a very good exposure latitude, allowing you to 
> shoot
> > from 50 to 1600 iso on the same roll of film. I'm not aware of any 
> color
> 
> If you have a 5 stop lattitude (iso 50~1600) on, basically where you 
> feel like positioning mid-tone, at the extremes, ie. at iso 50 what 
> bandwidth do you have for the highlight detail (assuming its a iso 
> 400 rated film for example) and obviously shadow detail when rated at 
> the other end?
> 
> If this works the implication is an exposure latittude greater than 
> traditional silver based films - but I suspect that wont be the case!
> 

It isn't the case. Films like XP2 can handle overexposure very well - there
is not much of a shoulder on the film curve - the line just keeps going
straight. On the other hand it simply cannot handle underxposure gracefully,
especially if you are using the fixed C41 process without any pushing.
Ilford's marketing machine was in overdrive when they say you can rate XP2 at 
1600 with good results - the results are not good at all. Overexpose with
impunity, underexpose at your peril!


-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...

The chromogenic films are finer grained than typical 400 speed color 
film... at least from what I've seen.  They also scan much better 
than 400 silver based films.  I would rather scan a 100 speed color 
film over the chromagenic films, but sometimes you need the speed.  I 
have never gotten a good commercial print from a chromogenic BW 
film... but they are good enough for rough proofs to know which one 
is worth the effort of *processing* and printing.

mark

...
> I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W 
> workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a 
chromogenic 
> film. As for being true B&W, these films are conceptually as B&W as 
> printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset and without offering any of 
the 
> traditional characteristics of silver based film over that of 
colour 
> print film - eg expanded exposure ranges.
> Almost all the chromogenic are softer (resolving ability) than 
colour 
> print alternatives; and as Photoshop (or similar software) is an 
> inevitable component of the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, 
> shooting in colour print and converting to B&W in the computer 
surely 
> offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
> adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be 
considered 

> any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!
> 
> regards
> Craig

I can vouch for the Kodak offerings doing well at 800 (but not their 
consumer offering).

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Loring Palleske 
<lorpal@m...> wrote:
> What film specifically allows this?
> XP2? T400CN? The new Portra?

Craig: I show a lot of chromogenic film simply because it works for
me. Great latitude, fast, minimal grain problems, scans well and all
that. I'm not into "labels" or traditionalist thinking. Or, even
following popular opinion but instead use what works for me.

I see the only downside as not being able to shoot, come home develop,
scan & print that night. (hence, I'm shooting some Delta 400 both 35mm
and 120) Of course, not having to develop is a positive sometimes. 

My style of shooting is predominantly NOT tripod based and relies more
on the emotion from the people in the image than absolute beauty of
the print as is common with the landscape photographer. So faster
films work better for me. 

But everyone should use what works for them. That's why they make so
many different types of film as well as format sizes.  

Bob Michaels 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig"
<craygc@y...> wrote:

> As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal attack by 
> some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please enlighten 
> me"
> 
> I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital B&W 
> workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a chromogenic 
> film. As for being true B&W, these films are conceptually as B&W as 
> printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset and without offering any of the 
> traditional characteristics of silver based film over that of colour 
> print film - eg expanded exposure ranges.
> Almost all the chromogenic are softer (resolving ability) than colour 
> print alternatives; and as Photoshop (or similar software) is an 
> inevitable component of the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, 
> shooting in colour print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
> offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
> adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be considered 
> any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!
> 
> regards
> Craig

It's not as instantaneous as digital, but you can "process" a neg
in the light and have it ready to scan in minutes... it's not chromogenic, 
and definitely not your everyday monochrome... Polaroid P/N (665 
for medium format backs)... anyone have scanning experience with it?

_____________________________________________
Help end spam and telemarketing... never respond to it, even to "unsubscribe."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ed just released a new version of Vuescan with support for the grain
dissolver. Guess I'm back to Vuescan as my main scanning program after
getting noticably better tones on some Tri-X pictures I was scanning.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig" 
> <craygc@y...> wrote:
> >As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal 
> >attack by some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please 
> >enlighten me"
> > 
> >I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital 
> >B&W workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a 
> >chromogenic film. As for being true B&W, these films are 
> >conceptually as B&W as printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset 

I don't follow that at all. Though that would be true of shooting true
color film for B&W conversion. XP-2 is monochromatic, there are not
multiple dye layers for color.

> >and without offering any of the traditional characteristics of 
> >silver based film over that of colour print film - eg expanded 
> >exposure ranges.

It seems to me to have a rather extraordinary exposure range. You can
easily capture ranges that would require several zones of developement
compaction on traditional BW films. Add to that the advantage of high
densities being translucent dye instead of opaque metal, which makes
those contrasty scenes easier to scan, and to print in the darkroom.

>> Almost all the chromogenic are softer 
> >(resolving ability) than colour print alternatives;

Really? I don't have the numbers, but there is no shortage of
sharpness. I regularly print 120 XP-2 images at 17x22, most people
think they are large format.

> and as 
> >Photoshop (or similar software) is an inevitable component of 
> >the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, shooting in colour 
> >print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
> >offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
> >adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be 
> >considered any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

This is not an opinion based on tech stuff, but for me, you have to
commit. Do you have enough of a clue at the scene to know whether this
will work in B&W or color? Learning to see is a never ending learning
process that requires discipline. The best artists always talk about
limiting options, commiting to a vision. The more options I leave open
for myself later, the less I knew, and now know while printing, what's
going on with that image.
I've been using 120 chromo film since the first crummy agfa stuff came
out, for 120 I like it a lot. Unless you underexpose, it's creamy and
grain free, and does well in a lot of lighting situations. Not trying
to enlighten you, but those are my experiences with it. Some people
hate it.
Tyler

Great to know. I was among thje first to hear of the new Minolta 
scanner in spring of this year, but will likely be among the last to 
get hands on one at this rate. At least VueScan will be ready and 
well-tweaked by then. :-)

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel 
Staver" <daniel@p...> wrote:
> Ed just released a new version of Vuescan with support for the 
grain
> dissolver. Guess I'm back to Vuescan as my main scanning 
program after
> getting noticably better tones on some Tri-X pictures I was 
scanning.

> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

> Almost all the chromogenic are softer (resolving ability)
> than colour print alternatives ...

Portra 400BW is the sharpest of the Portra family of films.  It's a great
combination of high speed, high resolution, and low grain.  That is much
harder to get in conventional B&W films.

> ...and surely colour print conversions cant be considered
> any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

Color print films contain less information after conversion to B&W than do
straight B&W films (chromogenic or otherwise).

Anthony,

I just plain dont understand the "why: regarding your comment below, 
and if I can have this justified, I will certainly give chromogenics 
another look!
(albeit that my Nikon LS4000 + Vuescan cant be convinced to give 
sharp results; and I tried to buy Portra BW400 today to try only to 
find Kodak doesnt bring this film into Singapore... but their my 
problems!)

As background to the relevant parts of *my* workflow for colour to 
B&W conversion - RGB convert and adjust in "the imaging 
factory's" "Convert to B&W Pro 2" filter (...and for the issue at 
hand, this is comparable to using the [Channel Mixer]) with a final 
convert to greyscale for saving. Given that I'm not throwing channels 
away, where am I loosing data over a chromgenic or B&W film?

> Color print films contain less information after conversion to B&W 
> than do straight B&W films (chromogenic or otherwise).

appreciated
Craig

> 
> Weighing in on chromogenic film - you CAN process it at home.  I 
develop 
> HP5, etc. along with XP 2 in my exclusive developer for all things, 
split D76.
> 
> This pic is an example of the latitude and fine 
> grain:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It scanned 
like a 
> charm, I used almost no PS adjustments and output to piezo, quad 
black.   I 
> don't see why other developers for B/W films wouldn't work.

I don't see how in the world you can process a C-41 based development 
film in D-76 and expect to get proper results. You are misleading 
leading people by saying that this is proper film processing protocol 
for these types of films.

Don Bryant

At 02:34 AM 8/19/03 +0000, you wrote:

> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig"
> > <craygc@y...> wrote:
> > >As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal
> > >attack by some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please
> > >enlighten me"
> > >
> > >I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital
> > >B&W workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a
> > >chromogenic film. As for being true B&W, these films are
> > >conceptually as B&W as printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset
>
>I don't follow that at all. Though that would be true of shooting true
>color film for B&W conversion. XP-2 is monochromatic, there are not
>multiple dye layers for color.
>
> > >and without offering any of the traditional characteristics of
> > >silver based film over that of colour print film - eg expanded
> > >exposure ranges.
>
>It seems to me to have a rather extraordinary exposure range. You can
>easily capture ranges that would require several zones of developement
>compaction on traditional BW films. Add to that the advantage of high
>densities being translucent dye instead of opaque metal, which makes
>those contrasty scenes easier to scan, and to print in the darkroom.
>
> >> Almost all the chromogenic are softer
> > >(resolving ability) than colour print alternatives;
>
>Really? I don't have the numbers, but there is no shortage of
>sharpness. I regularly print 120 XP-2 images at 17x22, most people
>think they are large format.
>
> > and as
> > >Photoshop (or similar software) is an inevitable component of
> > >the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, shooting in colour
> > >print and converting to B&W in the computer surely
> > >offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal
> > >adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be
> > >considered any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!
>
>This is not an opinion based on tech stuff, but for me, you have to
>commit. Do you have enough of a clue at the scene to know whether this
>will work in B&W or color? Learning to see is a never ending learning
>process that requires discipline. The best artists always talk about
>limiting options, commiting to a vision. The more options I leave open
>for myself later, the less I knew, and now know while printing, what's
>going on with that image.
>I've been using 120 chromo film since the first crummy agfa stuff came
>out, for 120 I like it a lot. Unless you underexpose, it's creamy and
>grain free, and does well in a lot of lighting situations. Not trying
>to enlighten you, but those are my experiences with it. Some people
>hate it.
>Tyler

Guys,

Weighing in on chromogenic film - you CAN process it at home.  I develop 
HP5, etc. along with XP 2 in my exclusive developer for all things, split D76.

This pic is an example of the latitude and fine 
grain:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It scanned like a 
charm, I used almost no PS adjustments and output to piezo, quad black.   I 
don't see why other developers for B/W films wouldn't work.

AZ

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn  
> Guys,
> 
> Weighing in on chromogenic film - you CAN process it at home.  I 
develop 
> HP5, etc. along with XP 2 in my exclusive developer for all things, 
split D76.
> 
> This pic is an example of the latitude and fine 
> grain:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It scanned 
like a 
> charm, I used almost no PS adjustments and output to piezo, quad 
black.   I 
> don't see why other developers for B/W films wouldn't work.
> 
> AZ

Alan,
Would you care to tell us more about your split D76 film dev. process 
for XP2. 
Cheers,
Andre

AZ,
> >Well gee Don, I wonder how I printed that picture?   Some real 
dumb person 
> >might develop important film without testing the developer 
first. :-)

IMO, that is a dumb way to process chromogenic film, you are leaving 
silver in the emulsion which means your digital ICE like tools won't 
work properly. This also raises question about the long term 
stability of the processed image.

It is much easier to have your film processed properly and cheaper, 
if you value your time.

But since chromogenic films aren't manufactured in sheet sizes I 
don't use them anyway.

BTW, chromogenic films print beautifully in the wet darkroom, 
regardless of the color of the base and/or emulsion.

My two cents worth,

Don Bryant

Actually, XP2 gives great results in (get ready for it
- I'm going to suggest it again)... Rodinal.

However, if one wants to go the traditional c41 route
- The original XP1 home development kit used the first
developer diluted 1:1 for a sharper image and grain
structure.  I intend to try this with the new Fuji C41
as soon as I can get my hands on it.

Don


> >I don't see how in the world you can process a C-41
> based development
> >film in D-76 and expect to get proper results. You
> are misleading
> >leading people by saying that this is proper film
> processing protocol
> >for these types of films.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

At 07:27 PM 8/19/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> > Weighing in on chromogenic film - you CAN process it at home.  I
>develop
> > HP5, etc. along with XP 2 in my exclusive developer for all things,
>split D76.
> >
> > This pic is an example of the latitude and fine
> > grain:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It scanned
>like a
> > charm, I used almost no PS adjustments and output to piezo, quad
>black.   I
> > don't see why other developers for B/W films wouldn't work.
>
>I don't see how in the world you can process a C-41 based development
>film in D-76 and expect to get proper results. You are misleading
>leading people by saying that this is proper film processing protocol
>for these types of films.
>
>Don Bryant
>
>Well gee Don, I wonder how I printed that picture?   Some real dumb person 
>might develop important film without testing the developer first. :-)

AZ


>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 10:35 PM 8/19/03 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn
> > Guys,
> >
> > Weighing in on chromogenic film - you CAN process it at home.  I
>develop
> > HP5, etc. along with XP 2 in my exclusive developer for all things,
>split D76.
> >
> > This pic is an example of the latitude and fine
> > grain:  http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It scanned
>like a
> > charm, I used almost no PS adjustments and output to piezo, quad
>black.   I
> > don't see why other developers for B/W films wouldn't work.
> >
> > AZ
>
>Alan,
>Would you care to tell us more about your split D76 film dev. process
>for XP2.
>Cheers,
>Andre
>
>


DIVIDED D-76 DEVELOPER
MIXING THE SOLUTIONS (1 liter)

Use two dark brown 1 liter storage bottles and a mixing bowl. In addition 
you need a temporary 100—mi container to mix the potassium bromide solution 
needed for the preparation of Solution A.

1% Potassium Bromide Solution:

Before mixing Solution A, you will need a potassium bromide solution. Only 
a portion will be used in mixing Solution A. The remainder is discarded.
Place the potasium bromide in the temporary container and add 100 ml of 
water - 20 C/68 F. Be sure the solution is stirred and homogeneous before use.

Solution A:

filtered water (52 C/125F)      750 ml
Metol   4g
Sodium Sulfite  100 g
Hydroquinone                       7.5 g
Potassium Bromide 1%*              30 ml
Cold water to make               1000 ml

*A 1% stock solution is 1 gm per 100 ml

To prepare Solution A, place the warm water in a mixing bowl and ad a pinch 
of sodium sulfite. This minimizes the initial oxidation of the metol - 
however if more is added at this point the metol will not dissolve. Add the 
metol and stir the solution until dissolved. It is important that all of 
the metol is dissolved before proceeding.  Then add the sulfite and, again 
stir until the solid has dissolved. Next add the hydroquinone and stir till 
dissolved. Measure the proper volume of potassium bromide solution and add 
it. It is important that only the specified amount of the 1% solution is 
added. (Do not add all of the solution that was mixed) Add water to bring 
the total volume to one liter. Pour into storage container.

Solution B:
Plain water (52C/125F)               750 ml
Borax                                 60 g
Cold water to make                  1000 ml.

Thoroughly dissolve the borax in the warm water then top-off with cold water.

USING THE DEVELOPER

Solution A is re-used and continues to work even when brown and nasty looking.
It is a pre-soak and is used at room temperature for any time from three to 
five minutes.

Solution B is used once at room temperature and discarded. The Borax is a 
common household laundry product available in five pound boxes.  The time 
in solution B controls the development and contrast. A plus or minus thirty 
second difference will not change much.

Suggested time for T-MAX or HP5 is 3.5 - 5 minutes. Use a minute less for 
slower films.

Rinse to stop development - no acid stop-bath required.
Fix and wash normally.

**END**




AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 02:26 AM 8/20/03 +0000, you wrote:
>AZ,
> > >Well gee Don, I wonder how I printed that picture?   Some real
>dumb person
> > >might develop important film without testing the developer
>first. :-)
>
>IMO, that is a dumb way to process chromogenic film, you are leaving
>silver in the emulsion which means your digital ICE like tools won't
>work properly. This also raises question about the long term
>stability of the processed image.
>
>It is much easier to have your film processed properly and cheaper,
>if you value your time.
>
>But since chromogenic films aren't manufactured in sheet sizes I
>don't use them anyway.
>
>BTW, chromogenic films print beautifully in the wet darkroom,
>regardless of the color of the base and/or emulsion.
>
>My two cents worth,
>
>Don Bryant
>
>

Don,

Points well taken - I'm hoping someone with more photo chemistry knowledge 
will fill in the gaps more.  I used to print the stuff with fine results in 
the darkroom too.  I wonder if we truly do get more uniform results and 
permanence from labs? Color negs sure aren't.  I suppose I could take it 
one more step and blix at home. But no kidding, the negs seem just fine 
done in the same tank as HP5. Side-to-side tests may prove me wrong.

AZ
Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> 
wrote:
> At 02:26 AM 8/20/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >AZ,
> > > >Well gee Don, I wonder how I printed that picture?   Some real
> >dumb person
> > > >might develop important film without testing the developer
> >first. :-)
> >
> >IMO, that is a dumb way to process chromogenic film, you are leaving
> >silver in the emulsion which means your digital ICE like tools won't
> >work properly. This also raises question about the long term
> >stability of the processed image.
> >
> >It is much easier to have your film processed properly and cheaper,
> >if you value your time.
> >
> >But since chromogenic films aren't manufactured in sheet sizes I
> >don't use them anyway.
> >
> >BTW, chromogenic films print beautifully in the wet darkroom,
> >regardless of the color of the base and/or emulsion.
> >
> >My two cents worth,
> >
> >Don Bryant
> >
> >
> 
> Don,
> 
> Points well taken - I'm hoping someone with more photo chemistry knowledge 
> will fill in the gaps more.  I used to print the stuff with fine results in 
> the darkroom too.  I wonder if we truly do get more uniform results and 
> permanence from labs? Color negs sure aren't.  I suppose I could take it 
> one more step and blix at home. But no kidding, the negs seem just fine 
> done in the same tank as HP5. Side-to-side tests may prove me wrong.
> 
> AZ
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us

Alan,

The one thing you really DON'T want to do is use blix if you've developed
the film with your D76-like developer.  Blix is bleach and fix and will
desolve all the silver which of course is your image.  

While your development method is non-standard there's nothing chemically
wrong with the idea.  If you like the results it should be just fine.  And the
stability of the image ought to be better than just the dyes (assuming you
fix and wash well).

Roy

From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 05:11
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: chromogenic films


> Actually, XP2 gives great results in (get ready for it
> - I'm going to suggest it again)... Rodinal.
> 
Don

Please tell us more about how you use Rodinal with XP2 Super.

Reinier

Yes, I second that. Please give us the details.
Clif

> 
> Please tell us more about how you use Rodinal with XP2 Super.
> 
> Reinier

> > Actually, XP2 gives great results in (get ready for it
> > - I'm going to suggest it again)... Rodinal.
> > 
> Don
>

Rodinal is a fantastic developer.  Since XP2 has no
color coupler dyes in it, it can be developed
conventionally.  However, as it is made for c41 - I
only develop with standard B&W chemistry for a
different look.  

I use a Jobo for film processing and with XP2 follow
this format:  
1. Presoak (continuous agitation) for 5 minutes.  
2. Develop in Rodinal 1:25 for 5 min at 68 degrees.  
3. Quick water bath instead of a stop bath.  
4. Fix for 5 minutes.
5. Orbit Bath or Permawash for 2 minutes.
6. Wash for 10 minutes, Photoflo, hang to dry   

This really accentuates the grain - and it works in a
pinch if you don't want to use 1 hour processing.  And
as it is quite experimental - bracket your exposures.

Good luck,
Don

--- Clif Wright <clifwrightphotos@...> wrote:
> Yes, I second that. Please give us the details.
> Clif
> > 
> > Please tell us more about how you use Rodinal with
> XP2 Super.
> > 
> > Reinier
> 
> > > Actually, XP2 gives great results in (get ready
> for it
> > > - I'm going to suggest it again)... Rodinal.
> > > 
> > Don
> > 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com