Re: [inconsistent results with TXP

From: Shannon Stoney ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/13/05-12:40:18 PM Z
Message-id: <a06210206bf745a603ed7@[]>

>This is a perfect example of why we process few pieces at a time, so
>as to make adjustments when processing the bulk of the film.

I do six at a time, in tubes.

I am thinking that it illustrates the value of learning to process
sheet film by inspection. I tried this before and felt as if I could
not see anything! But maybe it's worth trying again.


>----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon Stoney" <>
>To: <>
>Cc: <>
>Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:56 AM
>Subject: [inconsistent results with TXP
>>Hi, I have been shooting TXP for some time in the 4x5 format. I
>>have tested it and I use the BTZS system to expose and develop it.
>>I shot about 75 exposures over the summer and I'm just now
>>processing it.
>>Most of the film seems underexposed and underdeveloped. I can
>>probably print it, but it will be tricky. I don't understand this,
>>because some film that I shot just last week is perfect.
>>I have two theories about why this might be happening:
>>1) maybe the film I used over the summer was old. I can't remember
>>if I used some that had been stored for a while or what. If the
>>film was a year or so old, would that make it less responsive to
>>exposure and development?
>>2) Maybe if film sits around waiting to be processed for several
>>months, it loses responsiveness to chemistry? (I have not found
>>this to be particularly true in the past however.)
>>3) Maybe I consistently metered wrong, or the meter was messed up.
>>But I just had the meter checked and it was fine. Also it was fine
>>when I used it for the batch of film I shot and processed last week.
>>there could be any number of other things going on too. But I
>>think I have eliminated all the other possible variables.
Received on Thu Oct 13 12:47:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:18 AM Z CST