Re: [Leica] HP-5 Plus, now Tri-X curl

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Paul-
I used the Tri-X and Plus- X 'Professional' 120 film. It differed from the
'regular' Tri-X and Plus-X in that according to the 'dope' sheet, the film
back was coated with a 'toothed' surface for retouching. Assuming the back
of the film had a coating even in the 'regular' non -professional film, then
it might serve to counter any curl from the emulsion side. I don't know of
any reason that such a coating on the 35mm film would be useful- the thought
of trying to retouch a 35mm negative sends shivers up and down my spine!
Your "Print Flattening Solution", if it is still made by Kodak, was/is a
glycol material, similar to Photo-Flo- I used to use it to get a really high
gloss, and minimum curl on glossy ferrotyped prints, way, way back in the
troglodyte days of photography!
Good Luck- I hope you find a solution (no pun intended)!
Dan ( Jukin' and a-jivin') Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Arnold" <osprey@bmt.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] HP-5 Plus, now Tri-X curl


> Dan --
>
> I'll give the Photo-Fo 1/2 dilution a shot. Hadn't thought of that, though
> using the chemical bath I sometimes use to flatten FB papers had occurred
to
> me.
>
> Actually, by weighting the negatives down to straighten them, the curl is
> not a significant printing problem; but that can be a nuisance; it's
> sometimes like waiting for a wine to come of age.
>
> The thing that confounds me is that there is no HINT of curling with 120
> film -- Kodak (Tri-X, Verichrome & Plus X) or Agfa.
>
> I'm glad this subject came up. Thanks.
>
> -- Paul Arnold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] HP-5 Plus, now Tri-X curl
>
>
> > John et al-
> > Right you are- I am in NC and the humidity is not too dry, then again, I
> do
> > use Photo-flo 200 at about half the recommended dilution, and it could
be
> > that it is somewhat hydroscopic and absorbs moisture, at least enough to
> > prevent a wicked curl.
> > I wonder then if the distortion of the image from that great a shrinkage
> > might make other discussions about the accuracy of the film's ability to
> > record what you see accurately, moot!
> > Perhaps Ilford has a thicker base, anyone actually measured them?
> > Dan
> >
>
>