aXL
Hello, everyone.
I recently came across a little abandoned machine. Although I don’t really have any space in the shed, I just couldn’t bring myself to turn the little thing away. :D
It’s a semi-automatic Hüger machine for the E-6 process (formerly Minimat).
As I’ve no use for E-6, I want to convert the machine to b/w. So I’m looking for the right chemicals for processing in the tanks.
Naturally, my first thought is a ‘two-bath’ process, because as far as I know, the two separate solutions of this developer don’t oxidise much. But I could be wrong.
The problem is that the maximum processing time per bath is 3 minutes. That’s obviously very short. On the other hand, I have 15 tanks at my disposal, which I can fill as I please. So there’s no reason not to, for example, fill the first tank with water, the next 3 tanks with solution A, the following 5 tanks with solution B, then 1 stop bath, 3 fixer baths, one water bath and finally another distilled water bath with wetting agent.
It’s just an example! <_<
A process time of 45 minutes doesn’t put me off in the slightest, as the machine runs on its own anyway (unfortunately, it has to be operated in a completely darkened room). However, I’m restricted to a fixed time for all baths – freely adjustable between a few seconds and three minutes, but only as a flat rate for the entire lifting system.
In Berlin, you also work with a deep-tank system and fill it with A49. Do you have to cover it with floating lids, or can the solution be left standing for longer?
To make matters worse, I’d also be interested in a developer that can handle everything I’ve been processing manually so far:
- very low-speed films for studio use (Maco UP 25+ pushed to 12 ASA and efke 25)
- All-round films (Maco Cube 400 at 100 to 200 ASA and efke 100)
- High-speed films (Maco Cube 400 at 3200 to 6400 ASA and remaining stock of T-Max 3200)
So far, I’ve been managing all this with highly diluted Rodinal and consistently get very nice results. Unfortunately, the 1+100 Rodinal working solution oxidises so quickly that using it in an open tank is probably impossible. I also don’t have the throughput to use sensitive chemicals. I tend to get 20 films at once on a Sunday and then nothing for two weeks.
Incidentally, maximum resolution or sharpness isn’t my top priority (as you can probably guess from the films), as I use sheet film anyway when I have high demands on print quality. But consistent results do make my life easier... :blink:
I’d be grateful for any tips! :)
See you soon,
Axel
Gast
Hi Axel.
Tell me, does the machine run on 230V? If so, you could trick the internal timer a bit by connecting a timer switch to the whole setup. Just an idea. If it’s 380V, that’ll work too – you’ll just need to cut off one phase using a relay. You can get all that from Conrad. If that doesn’t work, have a look at the internal timer. Is it mechanical or electrical? Maybe you could leave the films still for a bit longer, as moving them every 3 minutes isn’t really what you want, is it? You want 3 hours, after all...
As for the developer, I can’t help you there. I use a rotary developer and am very happy with it.
Best regards, Micha
www.grossformatfotografie.de
aXL
Hi, Micha.
Yes, the machine has a 230 V connection. I’ve already thought about using a timer, but to be honest, I’ve actually grown quite fond of the ‘express development’ that takes 45 minutes. <_<
Because moving it every 3 minutes isn’t really what you want, is it? You want 3 hours...
I seem to have made quite an impression in the neighbouring forum... :)
The thinking along these lines was aimed at maximising the positive effects of high dilution, namely the compensating capacity and edge effect. To make the whole thing practical, I came up with the idea of extremely long, but unattended (!) times. I’m well aware that this might take me out of the realm of reproducibility due to varying developer exhaustion...
Now that a machine might be able to take over the shaking for me, and I’ll unfortunately have to do without Rodinal as a result, the situation has changed again. As I’m currently achieving very nice results with manual development using a 3-minute tilting cycle, I’m quite willing to accept this compromise.
When it comes to rotation, I simply have too many reservations based on theory. I’ve tried rotation before, but back then it was T-Max 3200 in T-Max developer. Nowadays I use different films and different chemicals, so I can’t really compare.
By the way:
Is anyone interested in a CPE2?
It shows heavy signs of wear, the bottles and measuring cups are missing, but it still works perfectly.
I’d rather dip than rotate these days. :blink:
Cheers
Axel
Gast
Hello!
I don’t have any experience with this sort of process myself, but perhaps something like Barry Thornton’s Metol-2 bath developer might be of interest to you? I’m currently testing this developer myself (using ‘standard’ agitation development) and I’m quite impressed with it – great sharpness, good sensitivity utilisation, acceptable grain (not super-fine, but finer than with Rodinal 1+50, for example).
Why it might be of interest to you: development takes 4 minutes in each of baths A and B; agitation isn’t that crucial (especially in bath A), the separation of the developing agent and alkali means the developer lasts quite a long time, and most films have fairly similar development times.
The formula is available here:
http://www.barry-thornton.co.uk/2bath.htm
Best regards
Roman
aXL
Hello, Roman.
Yes, a two-bath process is the way to go, as I mentioned in my first post. In my "cookbook" (a collection of photographic recipes by Udo Raffay), I have three recipes:
1. "According to Leitz", which is probably the starch-based one, is very similar to the Thornton process
2. D76 as a two-bath process
3. a hydroquinone-phenidone recipe, which is “highly recommended”
Barry Thornton’s method, by contrast, looks downright simple and straightforward. It’s definitely worth a try!
The development times are “express” too. 3 minutes for 120 and 4 minutes for sheet film – that leaves me plenty of tanks for thorough fixing and rinsing!
What’s still giving me a real headache is draining the film after the first bath. Of course, it wouldn’t be a big deal to leave a tank empty, but then I can’t use the heater because it would burn out if the tank were empty. And it is tempting to be able to keep all the chemicals at 22°C at the touch of a button (except in summer, of course!). I’ll see if I can disconnect ONE heating element.
In any case, many thanks for this link. Barry’s site is a veritable knowledge base to which I’ll be devoting a few more hours. And his writing style is very entertaining. <_<
Best regards,
Axel
Gast
Sadly, the good man passed away a few months ago...
I can also highly recommend his book 'Edge of Darkness' – a very engaging writing style, personal anecdotes of a high literary standard combined with in-depth knowledge and excellent visual examples; his first book, 'Elements', is unfortunately already out of print.
His two-bath developer is actually based on the Stöckler formula, which he modified for modern emulsions.
How long (or short) is the maximum drainage time on your machine? I don’t see that as a major problem; if necessary, you’ll just have to change Bath B a bit more often (if it’s been contaminated by Bath A).
aXL
I’ll have a word with my sales team about the manual.
The machine’s cycle times are the same for every bath. So the draining time corresponds to this interval (or twice that if two empty tanks are run one after the other).
Damn, I’ve just remembered the bleaching and colouring developers Thornton describes... (pyrogallol).
I finally get the hype about the ‘sauces’.
It’s about time I actually engaged in development myself and didn’t just read about it. <_<
Good night,
Axel
Gast
This is straying a bit from your original question – but with ‘colour-developing’ (in German, these are usually called ‘tanning’ developers; ‘bleaching’ ones would be rather counterproductive... ;-)) – and not with Thornton’s DiXactol or PMK, but with Sandy King’s PyrocatHD – I’m currently comparing my standard film, Fuji Neopan 400, in Rodinal 1+50, PyrocatHD and the Thornton two-bath developer; in fact, PyrocatHD lives up to the promise of tanning developers to render highlights better (not so easily blocked in the highlights); backlit shots, hazy, misty lighting conditions, etc. come out very nicely. In terms of subjective sharpness/acutance/contrast, the Metol two-bath process is slightly ahead; it also makes slightly better use of the film’s speed (by about half a stop). Rodinal has a slightly coarser grain, but otherwise the three are quite close together.
His DiXactol (which, like PyrocatHD, is based on Brenzcatechin, but with glycine instead of phenidone as the second component) was reportedly developed by Barry Thornton specifically for flat-crystal films (TMax and Delta); with conventional films, there are few advantages over the two-bath process.
aXL
Hello, Roman.
Things are really starting to get exciting here! I’m already wondering whether this might be enough material for a new thread. And I’m starting to wonder whether dip processing really is the be-all and end-all, or whether I should have tried a few alternative methods first.
My current development process is actually already quite well suited to my needs. But I’m still at the beginning of my experimentation – and the switch from 35mm to large format is also bringing new challenges and issues.
Since you mention Neopan 400 as your standard film, I’m assuming you work more outdoors and without artificial light. My standard situation looks quite different:
My starting points:
- Studio photography (people / nudes) with a flash setup (enough power for slow films)
- Large format 9x12 (sometimes also 13x18) for demanding work
- 35mm for simpler tasks
- Occasionally available light with 35mm
What I’ve been focusing on so far:
- Tonality!
- Shadow detail
- Crispness (good impression of sharpness)
- Good workability
- Resolution (for 35mm, currently losing importance)
My favourite films so far (35mm):
- Maco UP 25+, pushed to 12 ISO
- efke 25 is awaiting its first test (25 ISO)
- Maco Cube 400c will soon be tested at 6400 ISO
- Remaining stock of T-Max 3200 is currently being processed at 6400 ISO
- I might be tempted to compare Neopan 1600 with the Cube 400c if the Neopan can still hold its own at 6400 (grain isn’t an issue at this speed – it’s all about shadow detail and tonal range)
Upcoming films for GF:
- Efke 100, possibly even Efke 25 (at wide-open aperture <_< )
- Maco Cube 400c (due to the promised perfect flatness) at 100 ISO
My favourite developer so far is Rodinal 1+100. The next batch of films will, however, be bathed in 1+200! With a reduced agitation rate (currently every 3 minutes), I’m coaxing the maximum correction capacity and maximum acutance out of the combination.
(Just as an aside – I’ve come to believe that with a 1+50 dilution, you’re nowhere near maximising the potential of the old Rodinal. :D )
Our fundamental objectives are likely to be similar – we’re both probably aiming for negatives that are as easy to print as possible.
But for me specifically, it now means:
With the extended Rodinal process, I get excellent results – at the cost of very long development times. I can’t use Rodinal with the machine because it’s hardly feasible to prepare 20 or 30 litres of fresh developer (Rodinal 1+200) for every run. (Even if the developer solution consists almost entirely of water. :) )
If I want to work with the machine, I need chemicals that are, first and foremost, stable in the air and also have the properties that are important to me.
However, if I now come across a process that takes me a visible step further, then I don’t care whether it works in the machine or not. The machine is a pure luxury; for better quality, I’m happy to stick with the manual process.
Perhaps that makes my current wavering course a bit more understandable... :blink:
Incidentally, I don’t think much of flat-crystal films: they are less controllable via the developer, have a narrower tonal range and are also more sensitive during processing. What’s more, you hear some rather damning comments from informed sources (Maco): ‘Waste product from colour film development’ and ‘flat crystals to reduce the silver content’. If I’m already using cameras that are at least a quarter of a century old, then old films should fit right in, shouldn’t they? :)
Thanks for the great suggestions!
Axel
Gast
Right then, I’ll just quickly add my key details:
I do occasionally take posed portraits (using minimal kit: a reflector umbrella mounted on an old lamp stand, with two or three compact flash units firing into it, an old linen sheet as a background, and white cardboard to fill in the light), mostly using Fomapan 100 (or HP5+ or Neopan 400 – with medium format you need an extra stop or two for depth of field, and I’m a bit at the limit with my kit) developed in Calbe A49 1+1 (for the very smooth skin tones), sometimes ‘Available Darkness’ ;-) - i.e. spontaneous snapshots in artificially lit interiors – I’ve now settled on TMax 3200 (with an exposure of 3200) in A49 1+1, after a long series of trials with various combinations (I find Delta 3200 muddy & dull, ditto anything developed in Emofin; I actually like Neopan 1600 best in terms of tonal range and grain; it can never be used at 3200 with acceptable shadow detail, and even at 1600 it’s pushing it – but it does have a rather appealing look, sort of 1940s Hollywood glamour (or film noir) style.
I actually mainly shoot landscapes, in medium format, with antiquated equipment without a mirror lock-up (Pentacon Six), which is why I want to steer clear of critical exposure times around 1/30 (that’s where mirror shake is clearly noticeable) – hence mainly 400; grain isn’t a problem, as I hardly ever enlarge beyond 30x40cm. For me, it’s mainly about the subjective impression of sharpness, good detail rendering, and balanced highlight reproduction (so that I don’t have to overexpose clouds, for example).
I’ve been working with Rodinal 1+50 as standard for years now (1+100 is a bit problematic with my small tanks – they hold a maximum of about 700ml – due to the minimum concentrate volume per film; I’ve used 1+75 occasionally and find that my negatives turn out rather flat with it – I have a colour mixing head on the enlarger that produces quite soft light; with GF negatives, of course, you have it easier there), and have also tried out other options from time to time (ID11 1+1 – good for everything, but not outstanding in any area; XTOL – not sharp enough for me; Microphen – not sharp enough, grain unpleasant; Ilfosol-S – quite nice, but inexplicably went off suddenly; A49 – great for portraits, but a bit lacking in acutance for landscapes (in direct comparison with Rodinal)).
I wanted to try the Metol-2 bath after reading Thornton’s book, then included Pyrocat HD in the test straight away because you hear so many good things about it (e.g. at www.unblinkingeye.com) and compared them directly, and I’ve just come to the above conclusions that the differences are quite small; I’ll now use up the remaining stocks of Rodinal and Pyrocat HD with a clear conscience, and then (due to the slightly better acutance and sensitivity utilisation) stick with the two-bath process (for portraits and pushing, I’ll need to gain some experience with it first to see if I’ll stick with A49 for these purposes....)
Roman
Gast
Hi Axel,
To come back to your original question: we have 35 litres of A49 in a 1.5-metre-high column (meaning the surface area for oxidation is small at the top). Yes, a floating lid is essential. With a good filter AND A CONSTANT ADDITION OF REPLENISHER (meaning it keeps developing and developing and developing...), the shelf life is virtually unlimited, but at least six months.
However, we work entirely manually.
It isn’t even worth it for us to use a SITTE. <_<
Mirko
aXL
Hello Roman, hello Mirko!
Thanks for your data, Roman. It’s very interesting!
I forgot to mention that I print 30x40 as my smallest format and am increasingly working with 50x60. Even slow 35mm film is pushing the limits there – and for the perfect result, it’s actually well beyond them. (Although no grain is visible yet, the ‘smoothness’ is lacking at such large dimensions.)
Fortunately, I don’t have to contend with such harsh contrasts as sky/landscape, but I’m itching to deliberately set up my lighting to be harsh and counteract it with soft development to create a visual impression that isn’t possible with digital rubbish. <_<
By the way, you can safely ignore the minimum concentration for Rodinal. The only point is probably that Agfa wants to offload a few more litres of that cheap stuff. I’ve been working with 2.5 ml of concentrate per film for a long time and tend to struggle with negatives that have too much density – even with reduced agitation. In any case, I’ve never had any dull results (unfortunately, I only have a colour head) – but that might be down to the slow films.
@ Mirko:
The master speaks – at last! :blink:
You’ll laugh – I wanted to build exactly this sort of setup myself, so I could develop my sheet films without a tray and a bit more safely. The plan was to have several waste pipes side by side, each filled with chemicals up to the required level – including a two-bath system. But even more frequent refilling (Rodinal) isn’t too much of a hassle with a process like this.
I didn’t have to think twice about whether it would be financially worthwhile – that actually worked out in my favour. Now I’m wondering whether the effort and the rather considerable space required are worth it – and I’m becoming increasingly sceptical about the whole thing.
I fear this will remain a topic of discussion for me for a while yet...
Thanks, everyone!
Axel
