shaking up your stock solution

From: Shannon Stoney ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/15/05-07:06:22 AM Z
Message-id: <a06210200bf76ae6a598c@[10.0.187.3]>

It turned out that the problem was not old film. It turned out that
I needed to shake the DDX stock solution better! This is not
something I thought you needed to do, but I did some testing with old
and new film, and I found that if I shook the DDX bottle before
pouring off the 40 ml I need to dilute 1:8 for my tube processing, I
got much better results. Surprise! Many people on the pure_silver
list thought that the chemistry in DDX should stay in suspension just
fine and that shaking was not necessary. The bottle has no
instructions on it about shaking before using. But, from now on, I
will shake!

--shannon

PS: My mail program thought that Sandy's note here was Spam! I
wonder why. Maybe because it didn't have spam, eggs, spam, toast,
spam, grits, spam, and pancakes with it.

>That is my experience also. I have used TRI-X 320 on and off for
>over twenty years in the field, and I have also run numerous BTZS
>type tests on it. It is one of the most stable films I have used, as
>all of the tests I have done have been virtually dead on with
>reference to the others, except for a slight difference in B+F
>resulting from age and conditions of storage.
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>At 02:15 PM 10/13/2005, you wrote:
>>Shannon,
>>
>>I have worked with TriX for over 30 years, and have found it to be a very
>>stable film. I have shot new fresh out of the box and have worked with a lot
>>of old film. TriX Has very good keeping power I think one of the best. As to
>>unprocessed film I have been known to have film in holders for up to a year
>>with out much problem.
>>
>>The new and old TriX IMO is pritty much the same. I did the new Kodak times
>>and went back to my old notes. As a teache of workshops and classrooms. I
>>find that when you go down the path of tube processing you start to walk a
>>fine line in negative quality. When you work with small amounts of developer
>>you run into problems.
>>
>>Make sure your chemistry is fresh and dump after use. Please scan a negative
>>and pm it to me
>>
>>Jan Pietrzak
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Shannon Stoney <sstoney@pdq.net>
>>>Date: Thu Oct 13 12:30:34 CDT 2005
>>>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>>Subject: expiration dates on film boxes
>>
>>>I've been thinking about Dan's idea of the "end of the silver era"
>>>hypothesis about inconsistent results with TXP. I just looked at the
>>>two boxes of TXP that I have. One was bought at a local camera store
>>>and has an expiration date of 2/2008. I used this film a couple of
>>>weeks ago in New Orleans and it performed perfectly. The other came
>>>from BH PHotovideo and has an expiration date of 3/2006. It seems
>>>that this box from BH is two years older than the other box! I have
>>>not used this film yet.
>>>
>>>That got me wondering: how is film dated? How long is it expected
>>>to last? That is, when a sheet of TXP is absolutely fresh, right out
>>>of the factory, how much into the future is it dated? And why would
>>>the camera store have much fresher film than BH?
>>>
>>>--shannon
>>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; name="SpamAssassinReport.txt"
>>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SpamAssassinReport.txt"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.417 (Entity 5.417)
>>
>>Spam detection software, running on the system "mx2.clemson.edu", has
>>identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
>>has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
>>similar future email. If you have any questions, see
>>postmaster@clemson.edu for details.
>>
>>Content preview: Shannon, I have worked with TriX for over 30 years, and
>> have found it to be a very stable film. I have shot new fresh out of
>> the box and have worked with a lot of old film. TriX Has very good
>> keeping power I think one of the best. As to unprocessed film I have
>> been known to have film in holders for up to a year with out much
>> problem. [...]
>>
>>Content analysis details: (5.6 points, 5.0 required)
>>
>> pts rule name description
>>---- ----------------------
>>--------------------------------------------------
>> 0.2 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
>> 1.7 RM_fl_ConsWord6s To contains word consisting of
>>consecutive consonants
>> 0.2 MR_NOT_ATTRIBUTED_IP Beta rule: an non-attributed IPv4 found
>>in headers
>> 3.5 VOWEL_FROM_7 Impronouncable from header (7+
>>consecutive vowels)
>> 0.0 NO_RDNS2 Sending MTA has no reverse DNS
Received on Sat Oct 15 07:04:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:19 AM Z CST