Please review my HC-110, minimal wet-time developing recipe
Phil Glaser
Not having received my step tablets from Stoufers, having several
rolls of exposed 35mm T-MAX accumulated, and having, finally, got the
home darkroom prepared to use, I am, momentously, ready to develop my
first rolls of film at home. From reading Davies (can we please not
start a flame war about this; let's just agree to disagree) and
observing this news group, I know that precise development is
esential. So I've put together a developing receipe as my baseline (to
be modified as I learn), and am hoping that folks here can comment if
anything I'm suggesting is going to lead me (or my film) astray.
As background, I've read several items on HC-110 at
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ and
http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/hc110.html. My attraction to
HC-110 stems partly from my aversion to mixing powedered chemicals (to
avoid inhalation of toxins) and partly from the fact that it lasts a
long time in concentrate form.
The key points I'm adopting from from Gregg Mironchuck (second link
above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible, to use
the unofficial dilution "H" to get better control over developing, to
avoid traumatizing the negative with acid stop bath, and to keep the
temperature of all chemicals and water washes absolutely consistent.
The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
advice is the pre-soak, prior todevelopment. I'm doing this to
stabilize the temperature of the tank and negative. I'm developing in
a space which is rather cool, so it seems to me like it's a good idea
to establish the temperature. Otherwise, I like the idea of minimum
wet time so that I use less water overall and spend less time fretting
to matinain that 75 F temperature.
He also recommends a non-hardening fixer. Too late, I already bought
Kodafix.
I'm using filtered tap water, BTW.
I releaze that development times are unsatisfactorally arbitrary until
I test my materials. So consider my development time for T-MAX 400 @
320 ASA of 10 minutes @ 75 F to be purely an experimental,
I-know-this-is-not-necessarily-optimal-for-my-conditions-but-this-is-probably-not-a-total-or-even-partial-disaster
placeholder.
I don't know about adopting Gregg's practice for minimal agitation
because I don't know whether I share his desire for "extra contrast in
the shadows, and lower contrast in the highlights." So I'm trying to
adopt a plain-vanilla agitation approach, for now; again, I'll adjust
this when I do more materials analysis..
Being math-challenged, I feel compelled to repeat how I actually
arrive at dilution "H":
1 roll in steel tank: 3.8 mL syrup to 236.2 mL water
2 rolls in steel tank: 7.5 mL syrup to 472.5 mL water
Ok, so here's the development process from beginning to end:
pre-soak in plain filtered water to establish temperature: 1 minute @
75 F
develop: 10 minutes in HC-110 dilution "H" @ 75 F, with one inversion
initially and one
inversion every minute thereafter. Again, this is for
T-MAX 400 @ 320
ASA.
stop: with plain filtered water @ 75 F:
fill tank
invert three times
spill water, pour in new water
repeat three times (four total of three baths of fresh water)
fix: Kodafix 1/3 @ 75 F: 5 mintes, one inversion every 30 seconds
wash:
Water/Permawash (3 ounces per 1 gallon) @ 75 F with constant
agitation:
- First water wash: 30 seconds
- Permawash: 30 seconds
- Second water wash: 30 seconds
Photoflo: 30 seconds
dry:
hang to dry from bathrroom shower curtain rod, close door to keep the
*%#(!@ cat from having fun with the negatives.
Any suggestioins would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks!
--Phil
Michael A. Covington
"Phil Glaser" <gla...@sustainsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a3f95acc.0312...@posting.google.com...
> wash:
> Water/Permawash (3 ounces per 1 gallon) @ 75 F with constant
> agitation:
> - First water wash: 30 seconds
> - Permawash: 30 seconds
> - Second water wash: 30 seconds
I've always had a hard time believing that a 30-second wash is sufficient,
even with Perma Wash. For peace of mind I use a 5-minute wash for the
second one.
Michael Scarpitti
> Hi all,
>
> Not having received my step tablets from Stoufers, having several
> rolls of exposed 35mm T-MAX accumulated, and having, finally, got the
> home darkroom prepared to use, I am, momentously, ready to develop my
> first rolls of film at home. From reading Davies (can we please not
> start a flame war about this; let's just agree to disagree) and
> observing this news group, I know that precise development is
> esential. So I've put together a developing receipe as my baseline (to
> be modified as I learn), and am hoping that folks here can comment if
> anything I'm suggesting is going to lead me (or my film) astray.
>
> As background, I've read several items on HC-110 at
> http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ and
> http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/hc110.html. My attraction to
> HC-110 stems partly from my aversion to mixing powedered chemicals (to
> avoid inhalation of toxins) and partly from the fact that it lasts a
> long time in concentrate form.
>
> The key points I'm adopting from from Gregg Mironchuck (second link
> above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible,
Total wet time irrelevant for quality
>to use
> the unofficial dilution "H" to get better control over developing, to
> avoid traumatizing the negative with acid stop bath, and to keep the
> temperature of all chemicals and water washes absolutely consistent.
Good start
>
> The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
> advice is the pre-soak, prior to development.
Pre-soak helps to assure even development. Minimum 3 minutes.
> I'm doing this to
> stabilize the temperature of the tank and negative.
Not relevant, bit not useless either..
> I'm developing in
> a space which is rather cool, so it seems to me like it's a good idea
> to establish the temperature. Otherwise, I like the idea of minimum
> wet time so that I use less water overall and spend less time fretting
> to matinain that 75 F temperature.
Developing at 65 degrees is an option. It will reduce graininess to a small extent.
>
> He also recommends a non-hardening fixer. Too late, I already bought
> Kodafix.
I recommend hardening fixer, it helps reduce emulsion damage.
Dan Quinn
An observation or two or three:
First of all I use all chemistry one shot using a lfp, least fluid
practical, methodology.
No stop of any sort is used. The film moves from an alkaline devel-
oper to a very dilute alkaline fix.
If the ph of the hca is half way between that of the fix and the
wash water, one has come as close as possible to constant ph
processing. The ph must be neutral by wash end. I use only
distilled water for all film and print processing steps
including the washes.
I'd give the film four inversions at start. I'd think that HC110
would behave much like Rodinal. Dan
David Nebenzahl
> As background, I've read several items on HC-110 at
> http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ and
> http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~leica/hc110.html. My attraction to
> HC-110 stems partly from my aversion to mixing powedered chemicals (to
> avoid inhalation of toxins) and partly from the fact that it lasts a
> long time in concentrate form.
>
> The key points I'm adopting from from Gregg Mironchuck (second link
> above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible, to use
> the unofficial dilution "H" to get better control over developing, to
> avoid traumatizing the negative with acid stop bath, and to keep the
> temperature of all chemicals and water washes absolutely consistent.
I'm sorry; I just have to comment on this small portion of your post.
I've read what Greg Mironchuk has written on the subject on his site, and I
have to say that I think this business of "traumatizing the negative" with
acid is utter and complete horseshit.
He makes it sound as if you're abusing and torturing the poor defenseless
gelatin frame by using awful nasty acid on it. In fact, just about every other
source of information on photography (including Kodak and Ilford) suggest the
use of an acid stop bath.
I'm no expert on photochemistry, so I'd be happy if one of those here who has
such knowledge could comment on this. This really does strike me as a bit of
photographic mythology, one which isn't useful at all.
--
Focus: A very overrated feature.
- From Marcy Merrill's lexicon at Junk Store Cameras
(http://merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm)
Phil Glaser
> practical, methodology.
What's a lfp ?
Michael Scarpitti
Agreed. I have used both acid stop baths and water rinse stop baths
with no observable differences in graininess. Another myth. I do use
water rinses now because of the possibilty of getting a bit more
compensation in the final minute of development.
Dan Quinn
> > First of all I use all chemistry one shot using a lfp, least fluid
> > practical, methodology. Dan
> What's a lfp ?
Lfp: least fluid practical. If I were using the least fluid
possible I'd have a Jobo rotary processing system. I've studied
rotary processing only a little but am impressed with the minute
amount of fluid required. More fluid may be used but at the least
end the concentrations are quite high makeing the use of some
chemistries IMpractical. So no Jobo, and for other reasons.
My tap water is very hard. Giving attention, while studying
the whole matter of darkroom processing, in particular to fluid
conservative methods, I noted several.
Ilford's film wash method is one. My film goes from developer
directly into the fix, rinsed, hypo cleared, then washed with only
enough water to cover. Ilford does not specify a hca step
for their wash sequence but I think it a good idea.
I compound all my own chemistry and use ALL that chemistry
one-shot. That goes for prints as well.
I made an important discovery. All one-shot usage required
a very dilute fix. After all, I could not just throw good fix down
the drain. Contrary to what at least one authority maintained, and
what is the conventional wisdom, I found by repeated testing that
a very dilute fixer does work and in a reasonable time.
As for print washing, I've adopted a diffusion method using
hydrophobic seperators. The use of hydrophobic seperators is an
innovation on my part. I take full credit for their inclusion.
Diffusion washes use a small fraction of the water used by
archival print washers. All water for all processing is distilled
and at room temperature. Temperature adjustment is as needed.
All and all I think the lfp methodology has led to some
worthwhile discoveries and techniques. Research continues within
that context. Dan
Phil Glaser
> > > practical, methodology. Dan
>
> > What's a lfp ?
>
> Lfp: least fluid practical.
Ah! We're on the same wavelength.
> If I were using the least fluid
> possible I'd have a Jobo rotary processing system. I've studied
> rotary processing only a little but am impressed with the minute
> amount of fluid required. More fluid may be used but at the least
> end the concentrations are quite high makeing the use of some
> chemistries IMpractical. So no Jobo, and for other reasons.
I've acquired a uniroller and motor base. Partly to conserve water,
and partly to minimize fumes fumes from open trays, and mostly because
my wet space is separate from my enlarger space and harder to
light-proof.
> Ilford's film wash method is one. My film goes from developer
> directly into the fix, rinsed, hypo cleared, then washed with only
> enough water to cover.
Can you elaborate? Do you not run water continuously, but just cover
and agitate? What precisely is your process?
> I compound all my own chemistry and use ALL that chemistry
> one-shot. That goes for prints as well.
I plan to use all liquid concentrates and to use in one-shot.
> I made an important discovery. All one-shot usage required
> a very dilute fix. After all, I could not just throw good fix down
> the drain. Contrary to what at least one authority maintained, and
> what is the conventional wisdom, I found by repeated testing that
> a very dilute fixer does work and in a reasonable time.
1) By what test method do you determine that you've adequately fixed?
2) When you're diluting your fixer to that extent, do you not have to
be more careful about your fixer being weak from age, and hence
have to
constantly test and monitor (as in 1).
3) Once concern I have about one-shot fix is that I will not put it
down
the drain for environmental reaons (I want to do silver-recovery),
and one-shot will accumulate fixer that I have to store until I
can get it to the recovery site. Any comments?
4) Can you recommend a specific dilution for Kodafix, or do I need to
just
experiment as per 1) above.
> As for print washing, I've adopted a diffusion method using
> hydrophobic seperators. The use of hydrophobic seperators is an
> innovation on my part. I take full credit for their inclusion.
I confess to not knowing much about chemistry, though I intend to
learn. Can you elaborate on hydrophic separates and on exactly how I
can use this process to reduce my wash time?
> Diffusion washes use a small fraction of the water used by
> archival print washers. All water for all processing is distilled
> and at room temperature. Temperature adjustment is as needed.
> All and all I think the lfp methodology has led to some
> worthwhile discoveries and techniques. Research continues within
> that context. Dan
I'm very excited about this. One of my biggest concerns about going
darkroom instead of digital is waste of natural resources. I took a
darkoom class recently where most students were probably using gallons
of water just to wash one role of film. It struck me, even with
traditional processing techniques, as being extremely wasteful. Also,
since I live in an Ecovillage, I feel a certain amount of healthy peer
pressure from my neighbors (with whom I share costs for water) to
demonstrate that my hobby is not a drain on the environemnt.
Can you direct me to additional resources (web sites, books, etc.)
that deal with least fluid practical methodologies?
Thanks so much!!!
--Phil
Dan Quinn
> > > What's a lfp ?
> >
> > Lfp: least fluid practical.
Lfp is a mnemonic and that which it represents, as discriptive
a characterization as I could think of on short notice.
>
> Ah! We're on the same wavelength.
>
> > If I were using the least fluid
> > possible I'd have a Jobo rotary processing system. I've studied
> > rotary processing only a little but am impressed with the minute
> > amount of fluid required. More fluid may be used but at the least
> > end the concentrations are quite high makeing the use of some
> > chemistries IMpractical. So no Jobo, and for other reasons.
>
> I've acquired a uniroller and motor base. Partly to conserve water,
> and partly to minimize fumes fumes from open trays, and mostly because
> my wet space is separate from my enlarger space and harder to
> light-proof.
Rather than the usuall six trays required for conventional processing,
developer, stop, fix one, fix two, rinse, and hca, one-shot processing
requires only one. Some do one tray processing but save their chemistry
after each step. With one-shot the chemistry is down the drain after
one use. Two, or three, or maybe more prints could be processed at
one time.
>
> > Ilford's film wash method is one. My film goes from developer
> > directly into the fix, rinsed, hypo cleared, then washed with only
> > enough water to cover.
>
> Can you elaborate? Do you not run water continuously, but just cover
> and agitate? What precisely is your process?
Wash as Ilford recommends save for the addition of a hca after the
first rinse. The Ilford sequence is: with water, fill tank and invert
five times, again fill and invert ten times, again fill and invert
twenty times. Including the hca the total volume of water for a
35mm film is four times eight ounces.
>
> > I compound all my own chemistry and use ALL that chemistry
> > one-shot. That goes for prints as well.
>
> I plan to use all liquid concentrates and to use in one-shot.
One-shot usage of developer is quite usuall. AFAIK, I'm the only
person in the entire world who uses fixer one-shot.
> > I made an important discovery. All one-shot usage required
> > a very dilute fix. After all, I could not just throw good fix down
> > the drain. Contrary to what at least one authority maintained, and
> > what is the conventional wisdom, I found by repeated testing that
> > a very dilute fixer does work and in a reasonable time.
> 1) By what test method do you determine that you've adequately fixed?
I've used two methods, one direct, the other indirect. A sulfide
test is done on the paper and an iodide test on film and paper fixer.
An excess of free thiosulfate must show with both iodide tests. The
film, of course, must be clear.
> 2) When you're diluting your fixer to that extent, do you not have to
> be more careful about your fixer being weak from age, and hence
> have to constantly test and monitor (as in 1).
The fix is used only once. The quantity to be used is predetermind.
>
> 3) Once concern I have about one-shot fix is that I will not put it
> down the drain for environmental reaons (I want to do silver-recovery),
> and one-shot will accumulate fixer that I have to store until I
> can get it to the recovery site. Any comments?
You are likely over concerned. As I understand it, an extremly
insoluble sulfide of silver is formed. Some allow spent fixer to oxidise
in open jugs. Adding a little H2O2, hydrogen peroxide or sodium sulfide
should hasten it's precipitation.
I'll follow up on the rest of your post. Dan
Dan Quinn
> One-shot usage of developer is quite usuall. AFAIK, I'm the
> only person in the entire world who uses fixer one-shot.
I'll have to amend that. I'm not the only one. Going on a year
ago I heard, via Mr. L. Erlick, that there is another user of very
dilute fixer.
I was about to do some testing using sodium thiosulfate. As it
turned out my results agreed quite closely with those of the
other fellow's.
I've strayed from a strict regime of sodium and have now a
full QUART of the ammonium. I'll use it very dilute. I, Mr. Erlick,
and others maintain oder free, fume free, darkrooms. I think the
ammonium as I use it will go unnoticed. Dan
Alexis Neel
> > above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible,
>
> Total wet time irrelevant for quality
You are kidding, right? This coming from Mr. minimal development to
reduce grain. And I thought your "one of the greatest printers" line
was the most absurd thing I could have heard you utter.
>
> >to use
> > the unofficial dilution "H" to get better control over developing, to
> > avoid traumatizing the negative with acid stop bath, and to keep the
> > temperature of all chemicals and water washes absolutely consistent.
>
> Good start
>
> >
> > The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
> > advice is the pre-soak, prior to development.
>
> Pre-soak helps to assure even development. Minimum 3 minutes.
2 minutes minimum, 3 maximum. Anymore does nothing.
>
> > I'm doing this to
> > stabilize the temperature of the tank and negative.
>
> Not relevant, bit not useless either..
One could get picky and say that even touching the tank raises the
temperature, but that is not relevant. Keeping the chemistry, as
close as possible without concentrating on only that is relevant.
>
> > I'm developing in
> > a space which is rather cool, so it seems to me like it's a good idea
> > to establish the temperature. Otherwise, I like the idea of minimum
> > wet time so that I use less water overall and spend less time fretting
> > to matinain that 75 F temperature.
>
> Developing at 65 degrees is an option. It will reduce graininess to a small extent.
HC-110, as with most developers except TMX series, works best at 68
degrees, hence the reason the manufacturers test, and suggest, it.
Below 68, and its harder to keep the temperature consistant thruought
the development.
>
> >
> > He also recommends a non-hardening fixer. Too late, I already bought
> > Kodafix.
>
> I recommend hardening fixer, it helps reduce emulsion damage.
Todays emulsions rarely suffer from any benefit that a hardener would
add. Maybe negs from the "Boy pouring syrup" era maybe, but not
anymore.
Also, should there be a problem, and you need to intensify the negs, a
hardener sould stiffle that.
The 75degree thing is a bit unorthidox, and I'd, until I saw side by
side examples, strongly discourage it. I doubt there are any
benefits, but again, I haven't seen a same scene, side by side
comparison.
My question would be, what do you think you agre gaining by doing it
this way?
Alexis
Frank Pittel
switching from hc-110 to Tmax. Dilute to 1:9 at 75 degrees and use one shot.
Phil Glaser <gla...@sustainsoft.com> wrote:
: Hi all,
: Photoflo: 30 seconds
: Many thanks!
: --Phil
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
: mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > >
: > > above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible,
: >
: > Total wet time irrelevant for quality
: You are kidding, right? This coming from Mr. minimal development to
: reduce grain. And I thought your "one of the greatest printers" line
: was the most absurd thing I could have heard you utter.
To an extent I agree with scarpitti. That of course means a reasonable amount
of wet time. I know people that refuse to prewash because an attempt to reduce
total wet time. They also use short fix and wash times for the same reason.
In my never humble opinion reducing the fix or wash time by one or two minutes
will make a noticable difference.
: >
: > >to use
: > > the unofficial dilution "H" to get better control over developing, to
: > > avoid traumatizing the negative with acid stop bath, and to keep the
: > > temperature of all chemicals and water washes absolutely consistent.
: >
: > Good start
: >
: > >
: > > The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
: > > advice is the pre-soak, prior to development.
: >
: > Pre-soak helps to assure even development. Minimum 3 minutes.
: 2 minutes minimum, 3 maximum. Anymore does nothing.
I like to prewash for five minutes. I do so mostly out of habit. When I first
got my Jobo that's what they recommended and that's what I used.
: >
: > > I'm doing this to
: > > stabilize the temperature of the tank and negative.
: >
: > Not relevant, bit not useless either..
: One could get picky and say that even touching the tank raises the
: temperature, but that is not relevant. Keeping the chemistry, as
: close as possible without concentrating on only that is relevant.
Having the film at the developing temperature is important since that's
where the chemical reaction is happening. That gets taken care of during
the prewash and in any case the low mass of the film allows it to come to
temperature quickly. The only time film temperature may be an issue is when
not using a pre-wash and the temperature of the film is greatly different from
the development temperature. An example is when I brought ten sheets of film
in from my car after being in the trunk on a sub freezing night and trying to
develop the film without allowing it to come up to temperature. Starting with
hot or cold reels and tanks would also be bad.
: >
: > > I'm developing in
: Alexis
--
Michael Scarpitti
> mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > >
> > > The key points I'm adopting from from Gregg Mironchuck (second link
> > > above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible,
> >
> > Total wet time irrelevant for quality
>
> You are kidding, right? This coming from Mr. minimal development to
> reduce grain. And I thought your "one of the greatest printers" line
> was the most absurd thing I could have heard you utter.
Total wet time IS irrelevant. It's another photographic myth. Some
developers that produce finer grain give very long developing times.
Examples: Microdol-X 1:3, D-23, D25, etc.
65 degrees is no longer common, but according to older literature, it
is supposed to provide slightly finer grain. Probably not enough to
notice. 68 degrees became standard simply because it's closer to room
temperature in North America.
Michael Scarpitti
> Alexis Neel <web...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > >
> : > > The key points I'm adopting from from Gregg Mironchuck (second link
> : > > above) are to reduce wet time to the greatest extent possible,
> : >
> : > Total wet time irrelevant for quality
>
> : You are kidding, right? This coming from Mr. minimal development to
> : reduce grain. And I thought your "one of the greatest printers" line
> : was the most absurd thing I could have heard you utter.
>
> To an extent I agree with scarpitti. That of course means a reasonable amount
> of wet time. I know people that refuse to prewash because an attempt to reduce
> total wet time. They also use short fix and wash times for the same reason.
>
> In my never humble opinion reducing the fix or wash time by one or two minutes
> will make a noticable difference.
What DOES matter is developer activity. Highly alkaline developers
using hydroxide (Rodinal, etc) increase grain. Total wet time means
nothing, so long as other factors are not involved.
Alexis Neel
> of wet time. I know people that refuse to prewash because an attempt to reduce
> total wet time. They also use short fix and wash times for the same reason.
>
> In my never humble opinion reducing the fix or wash time by one or two minutes
> will make a noticable difference.
Well, we can agree to disagree.
> : > > The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
> : > > advice is the pre-soak, prior to development.
> : >
> : > Pre-soak helps to assure even development. Minimum 3 minutes.
>
> : 2 minutes minimum, 3 maximum. Anymore does nothing.
>
> I like to prewash for five minutes. I do so mostly out of habit. When I first
> got my Jobo that's what they recommended and that's what I used.
>
Jobo would most likely recomended this if their technique is to use a
minimal amount of water, like you do with the developer. Fully
submersed film needs only 2 to 3 minutes max. More, and with other
increased times wet, does have an effect on the grain.
Alexis
d23
degrees Celsius (aka centigrade).
Charles
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<5PKdnYn-
: >
: > To an extent I agree with scarpitti. That of course means a reasonable amount
: > of wet time. I know people that refuse to prewash because an attempt to reduce
: > total wet time. They also use short fix and wash times for the same reason.
: >
: > In my never humble opinion reducing the fix or wash time by one or two minutes
: > will make a noticable difference.
: Well, we can agree to disagree.
OK! :-)
: > : > > The only way in which I think I'm deviating from the minimum wet-time
: > : > > advice is the pre-soak, prior to development.
: > : >
: > : > Pre-soak helps to assure even development. Minimum 3 minutes.
: >
: > : 2 minutes minimum, 3 maximum. Anymore does nothing.
: >
: > I like to prewash for five minutes. I do so mostly out of habit. When I first
: > got my Jobo that's what they recommended and that's what I used.
: >
: Jobo would most likely recomended this if their technique is to use a
: minimal amount of water, like you do with the developer. Fully
: submersed film needs only 2 to 3 minutes max. More, and with other
: increased times wet, does have an effect on the grain.
I prewash with the same amount of water as I use developer. According to Jobo
the tank at the level they recommend is half full. This means the film spends
half it's time in the solution and the other half covered with the solution.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Jobo would most likely recomended this if their technique is to use a
> minimal amount of water, like you do with the developer. Fully
> submersed film needs only 2 to 3 minutes max. More, and with other
> increased times wet, does have an effect on the grain.
>
> Alexis
Then explain how Microdol-X 1:3 and D25 don't increase graininess, Alexis.....
They call for 20-30 minutes with fast films...
Frank Pittel
: web...@yahoo.com (Alexis Neel) wrote in message news:<e5efb0b3.03122...@posting.google.com>...
You're talking stupid again scarpitti. You also lose whatever style points
you have left.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : web...@yahoo.com (Alexis Neel) wrote in message news:<e5efb0b3.03122...@posting.google.com>...
>
> : >
> : > Jobo would most likely recomended this if their technique is to use a
> : > minimal amount of water, like you do with the developer. Fully
> : > submersed film needs only 2 to 3 minutes max. More, and with other
> : > increased times wet, does have an effect on the grain.
> : >
> : > Alexis
>
> : Then explain how Microdol-X 1:3 and D25 don't increase graininess, Alexis.....
>
> : They call for 20-30 minutes with fast films...
>
> You're talking stupid again scarpitti. You also lose whatever style points
> you have left.
I was talking to Alexis....punk!
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<pfedndaUd8C...@giganews.com>...
More stupid talk. I see that talking stupid comes naturally to you.
Jo Stoller
>degrees Celsius
Official name
>(aka centigrade).
Unofficial name
www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/appendix1/decisions_base_units/decisions_temperature.html