Fomapan R 100 reversal with D19 anyone?

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Blindly believing something out of a book contrary to evidence sounds like a bad idea to me, and is fundamentalism.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html

Can't agree more. Even the report you shared above should be taken with sufficient level of scepticism.

"The study group was extremely small. There were only three participants"

"The researchers report that the subjects were able to correctly determine when a photon had been fired 51.6% of the time"

"In this case of 30,767 trials, only 2,420 were single-photon events"

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Anon Ymous: Nice work! Thanks for sharing. Do post some real-world examples when you have them.



If I read the graph correctly, Caucasian face would have a density of ~1 (by virtue of placing it in Zone VI). Wouldn't that look a little too dark in the slide?

It would be at a density of almost 0,9, a bit below this. Keep in mind though that Dmin is 0,5 and this matters a lot. It's not the absolute value that is important, but relative to Dmin. I'll post some samples later, but it's rather hard to make them look the way they actually are, plus monitor settings will definitely skew whatever effort I put. So, take these samples with a grain of salt.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

And Grant is wrong.

See, that's the basic limitation of a public forum.
Anyone can post anything he/she wants without being competent on the subject.
Do you are more competent than Grant Haist?
Do you have worked for Eastman Kodak as a scientist?
How many books on photography do you have published?

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Even with a film that is supposedly optimized for reversal processing?

Are you sure that, in this case Adox Silvermax is optimized for reversal processing?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Are you sure that, in this case Adox Silvermax is optimized for reversal processing?

OP is interested in Foma 100 reversal film. You stated in another thread that the foma film is optimised for reversal processing. It's a bit of a travesty if thiosulphate needs to be used to get clear highlights for a film that's optimised for reversal processing. Of course you should do whatever works for you.

I have no idea why you are bringing in Silvermax into the discussion.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

OP is interested in Foma 100 reversal film. You stated in another thread that the foma film is optimised for reversal processing. It's a bit of a travesty if thiosulphate needs to be used to get clear highlights for a film that's optimised for reversal processing. Of course you should do whatever works for you.

I have no idea why you are bringing in Silvermax into the discussion.

Being optimized for reversal doesn't mean that there must be no silver solvent in first developer.
Who said that there's no silver solvent in Foma kit FD?
Just because it's not listed in the MSDS?
You can't tell the presence of silver solvent by just looking at the MSDS alone.
This is the MSDS for Kodak direct positive kit FD
https://hazard.com/msds/f2/cff/cffgn.html
Where's DTOD?
Grant Haist and every manufacturer, and I say every, from Kodak, to Ilford, to Foma, to Fuji, to Orwo, suggests the use of some sort of silver halide solvent in FD.
Why skipping it?

 

[Athiril]

See, that's the basic limitation of a public forum.
Anyone can post anything he/she wants without being competent on the subject.
Do you are more competent than Grant Haist?
Do you have worked for Eastman Kodak as a scientist?
How many books on photography do you have published?

You're now using ad hominem to defend an untennable position, and that's an extremely bad argument on top ignoring the actual science. Established science has determined the sensitivity of the human eye quite well, any claim to the contrary is bunk. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence is required, especially when it is against settled science, it is like claiming the sun revolves around the Earth and quoting Copernicus and then asking if someone is more competent than Copernicus when that bs is challenged.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

You're now using ad hominem to defend an untennable position, and that's an extremely bad argument on top ignoring the actual science. Established science has determined the sensitivity of the human eye quite well, any claim to the contrary is bunk. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence is required, especially when it is against settled science, it is like claiming the sun revolves around the Earth and quoting Copernicus and then if someone is more competent than Copernicus.

Please come back with some pubmed reference and then a discussion could be started.
Nature communications?
Are u kiddin' me?

 

[Anon Ymous]

... Another doubt: does bisulfate contain impurities on form of halides? If so you will get a partially rehalogenating bleach.

You know what, you're on to something here. I took a piece of the already processed film and dipped it in the permanganate bleach for 10'. Sure enough, it looked very clear after the metabisulfite bath. But then I cut it in half and placed one in the fixer and the other in D19. Few minutes later, it became obvious that the one placed in D19 picked up some density. I fixed this second piece as well and they're now drying. I guess I need to try with bleach mixed with sulfuric acid and see what happens.

 

[Athiril]

Please come back with some pubmed reference and then a discussion could be started.
Nature communications?
Are u kiddin' me?

You seem to be a great misunderstanding here. It is not my position that needs to be backed up, it is yours. Your position is absolutely ludicrous, as A) It has no evidence. B) It has no reasoning. C) It is completely logically flawed and D) It is completely against accepted settled established science. You need to turn to a mirror and ask yourself that, because your flat out rejection of basic science and fundamentalist mindset are quite worrying. You need to stop spreading this misinformation here. It is wrong. There is no discussion to be had about this, it is not an opinion, it is a matter of fact, it is flat out wrong.

You even reject basic logic. You have ignored it multiple times already. dMax is not light intensity, light intensity and the sensitivity of the human eye are independent of dMax.

Optical density is the measure of how much something reduces incoming light. An OD of 1.0 could give a luminance of 100 cd/m^2, and OD of 4.0 could give a luminosity of 1,000,000 cd/m^2. 1,000,000 cd/m^2 is far more visible than 100 cd/m^2. Claiming that the human eye cannot see beyond 2.4d is stupidly and fundamentally wrong, it is not how it works at all. The sensitivity of the human eye is measured by absolute luminosity or absolute light intensity, absolute number of photons, etc. It is not measured by, determined by, or otherwise influenced by a relative reduction in luminosity or light intensity. Optical density or dMax gives you a relative reduction in light intensity. It does not magically make the photons coming out the other side undetectable.

Any claim that says the human eye cannot see details beyond an optical density of 2.4 is absolute rubbish and should not even be entertained for a second. Optical density is not a meaningful measurement in regards to the sensitivity of the human eye, it is literally impossible as it does not say how much light is coming through. It does not matter who says it, it does not make it any less wrong.

http://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/pdf/PWDec16Holmes.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4302711/

 

[mohmad khatab]

You know what, you're on to something here. I took a piece of the already processed film and dipped it in the permanganate bleach for 10'. Sure enough, it looked very clear after the metabisulfite bath. But then I cut it in half and placed one in the fixer and the other in D19. Few minutes later, it became obvious that the one placed in D19 picked up some density. I fixed this second piece as well and they're now drying. I guess I need to try with bleach mixed with sulfuric acid and see what happens.

My Greek friend: Greetings to you.
Successful permanganate bleaching needs 8ml of sulfuric acid to achieve a pH <1.4
Bleaching continues for a period of 2 minutes at a temperature of no more than 25 - continuous agitation without stopping, with changing the direction of the stirring (agitation) rotation every 30 seconds.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Any claim that says the human eye cannot see details beyond an optical density of 2.4 is absolute rubbish

I think the claim is about the optimal density for projection viewing and not in general. Not just Haist several others have made similar assertions. I guess flare is an important factor to consider in the context of projecting slides on a white panel. Maybe there are other factors too which affect the experience of viewing slides projected.

 

[Anon Ymous]

My Greek friend: Greetings to you.
Successful permanganate bleaching needs 8ml of sulfuric acid to achieve a pH <1.4
Bleaching continues for a period of 2 minutes at a temperature of no more than 25 - continuous agitation without stopping, with changing the direction of the stirring (agitation) rotation every 30 seconds.

Thanks. The sulfuric acid quantity isn't very important. Less can be used, but the bleach becomes slower while keeping better if I recall correctly. There's a patent posted by Lachlan Young somewhere, which describes this.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

You seem to be a great misunderstanding here. It is not my position that needs to be backed up, it is yours. Your position is absolutely ludicrous, as A) It has no evidence. B) It has no reasoning. C) It is completely logically flawed and D) It is completely against accepted settled established science.

I don't need to be backed up at all. Just because I'm referring to well known and established photo literature that is published and wide available.
A) the evidence is written in Grant Haist book, vol 2, and has many references regarding photo science;
B) see A)
C) see A)
D) what science? the one of communications to scientific journal? That is not a scientific paper you know.
If I were you I'd get off you high horse quickly.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Being optimized for reversal doesn't mean that there must be no silver solvent in first developer.
Who said that there's no silver solvent in Foma kit FD?
Just because it's not listed in the MSDS?
You can't tell the presence of silver solvent by just looking at the MSDS alone.

What's your educated guess of the amount of silver solvent in Foma first developer? What's the maximum amount that can escape from getting mentioned in MSDS?

 

[Anon Ymous]

What's your educated guess of the amount of silver solvent in Foma first developer? What's the maximum amount that can escape from getting mentioned in MSDS?

On the subject of thiocyanate, I'd like to point out that I didn't use any of it and got a Dmax of 2,35. The datasheet characteristic curve shows a Dmax of ~2,7. Using any thiocyanate will probably ruin it.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

What's your educated guess of the amount of silver solvent in Foma first developer? What's the maximum amount that can escape from getting mentioned in MSDS?

Very little since the FD is used as SD. Don't really know what's the thresold of any each chemical compounds to be put in MSDS.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

On the subject of thiocyanate, I'd like to point out that I didn't use any of it and got a Dmax of 2,35. The datasheet characteristic curve shows a Dmax of ~2,7. Using any thiocyanate will probably ruin it.

The DMax is dependent not only to FD but also to second exposure and second FD, and to bleaches as well.
And also to film expire date and how it was stored.
Those figures (DMin and DMax) should be considered to be the results of a process as a whole and not of single steps.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Very little since the FD is used as SD.

Ok, against the backdrop of this insight, how much thiosulfite/thiocyanate would you recommend @Anon Ymous to use in his D19 first developer for Foma-R film to get clear highlights? In your experience, what's the minimum amount of halide solvent that makes a real perceptible difference to the first development of a film like Foma-R?

 

[Anon Ymous]

If i had
a) bleached long enough
b) a bleach that didn't have a rehalogenating effect
then my minimum density would be better. In order to get a better maximum density, a lower fog first developer should be used. Perhaps some benzotriazole would make things a bit better.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

If i had
a) bleached long enough
b) a bleach that didn't have a rehalogenating effect
then my minimum density would be better. In order to get a better maximum density, a lower fog first developer should be used. Perhaps some benzotriazole would make things a bit better.

Is your sodium hydrogen sulfate not lab grade? Does it have substantial amount of chlorides as impurity?

Regarding base fog, you might be aware that Kodak D-67 is a well-known first developer in reversal processing of B&W film. D-67 is basically D-19 with some thiocyanate added to it. No benzotriazole was needed.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Is your sodium hydrogen sulfate not lab grade? Does it have substantial amount of chlorides as impurity?

Regarding base fog, you might be aware that Kodak D-67 is a well-known first developer in reversal processing of B&W film. D-67 is basically D-19 with some thiocyanate added to it. No benzotriazole was needed.

Nope, it's not reagent grade, it's technical grade. Who knows what other stuff is in there. I'm aware of D67, I've used it in the past. It's not that D19/D67 is a bad developer in general. Fog can be a problem only when the Dmax of a film has a rather low value, as is the case of Fomapan R 100. So, perhaps if I used benzotriazole, I'd get a little less fog, so a bit more density. Fomadon LQR, being a PQ developer likely has some and is what is used as a developer in the kit.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Ok, against the backdrop of this insight, how much thiosulfite/thiocyanate would you recommend @Anon Ymous to use in his D19 first developer for Foma-R film to get clear highlights? In your experience, what's the minimum amount of halide solvent that makes a real perceptible difference to the first development of a film like Foma-R?

hypo 0,3g to 0,5g in 1 liter of fd

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

If i had
a) bleached long enough
b) a bleach that didn't have a rehalogenating effect
then my minimum density would be better. In order to get a better maximum density, a lower fog first developer should be used. Perhaps some benzotriazole would make things a bit better.

watch out also the type of halide solvent you're using. Hypo gets you higher fog than DTOD

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Nope, it's not reagent grade, it's technical grade. Who knows what other stuff is in there. I'm aware of D67, I've used it in the past. It's not that D19/D67 is a bad developer in general. Fog can be a problem only when the Dmax of a film has a rather low value, as is the case of Fomapan R 100. So, perhaps if I used benzotriazole, I'd get a little less fog, so a bit more density. Fomadon LQR, being a PQ developer likely has some and is what is used as a developer in the kit.

Is the film expired? And if yes, how much is expired?
How it was stored?
At what temp do you run your process?
Constant inversions?
Have you tried Ilford PQ Universal?