Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I will just shoot, not knowing it either, and not being a chemist: too much chloride, fluoride, other -ide in the tap water that reacts with this particular developer? Op 1-dec-05, om 10:22 heeft feli het volgende geschreven: > > On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Daniel Ridings wrote: > >> Feli, >> >> The average temperature of your water is of no interest at all. >> What is of interest is the termperature of your developer when you >> develop film. > > Someone had suggested that the water I was using was too cold, > perhaps in the range of 50F. Usually I simply run a few hundred ml > from the cold tap and mix it with the developer, which then goes > straight in to the tank. I repeated my usual process a few times in > the past two days and took a temperature reading. Regardless of the > time of day, I am averaging approximately 68F. I've developed a few > hundred rolls over the past years with this procedure (using D76 or > FA-1027) and have had quite consistent results so far. > >> >> Assuming you are developing at 68 degrees it looks like one of two >> things: >> >> 1) Your meter is way off > > Nope. I checked both of my meters against my M6 and M7. Just > recently I compared one of them to a friends meter, which is > checked on a regular basis, because he shoots for a living. The > sunny 16 rule > also checks out with all of them. > >> 2) Your shutter is way off > > I don't believe so. I rotate a mix of M2/M4/M6ttl and M7 cameras. > All of them can't be off at once. DAG just checked the shutter on > the M7, when he upgraded the finder, and it's dead on. > > >> Possibly 3 >> You haven't told us what a negative "that looks right" looks like. > > I don't have a densitometer, but am comparing my results to a few > sets of negs (Tri-X@400) I had developed at a local pro lab, which > also uses XTOL. In comparison, the negs I am getting from my batch > of developer clearly look underdeveloped (the clear base is very > dense), when using the 9 min time that Kodak suggests. They are a > good match if I boost the processing time to 15 minutes. > > At this point I am genuinely stumped. I am out of ideas and will > just live with the longer dev. time. > > > Cheers, > > Feli > > > >> Best, >> Daniel > > ________________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 > www.elanphotos.com > > > NO ARCHIVE > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >