Alpha_Geist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
rscheffler wrote:
Sorry for the slow reply. I think it just needs a major temperature difference, but for my thinking, it would logically occur with a hot to cold shock because the cold will cause the emulsion to suddenly contract, at which point it would tear, resulting in reticulation. When it happened to me, it was Tri-X in the late 80s and relatively early in my home developing learning curve. It's possible I was negligent about not raising the stop bath and/or fixer to 68˚F and just left them a lot colder (which could have been possible since it was winter and our basement where I processed was not insulated). But I kind of remember the water wash might have been just the cold line, which would have come straight from very cold Lake Ontario via the water treatment plant.
IIRC from reading tech sheets back then, newer emulsions may have become more resistant to reticulation. I think if you wanted it to happen, you could try normal development and a very warm wash for 5-10 minutes, followed by a plunge into ice water. You could test this by clipping some of the film leader section from a standard development and putting just it through various hot/cold cycles to see if you can provoke anything, rather than 'sacrificing' an entire roll before determining the parameters that might work relatively consistently.
Thinking about this a bit more, it's probably why 'hardening fixer' became pretty much standard. If you're going to try this, see if you can source a non-hardening fixer. Or, after the developer, do a two-stage stop bath. One that is very warm, the second that is ice cold, which could just be ice water. Then regular, or relatively cold fixer.
Different but similar, back towards the end of my time with film (~2001), a set of APX100 negs in a negative sleeve sheet got accidentally soaked without my knowledge, then dried. It resulted in the emulsion swelling in certain areas then contracting as it dried, but also cracking. I think because it didn't get consistently wet, the wet parts of the emulsion swelled but couldn't push beyond the remaining dry areas, so kind of buckled and resulted in weirdly shaped ripples and distortions as it pressed against the plastic sleeve.
BTW, your film scans look great in the 'red' series and earlier. Maybe almost too good, haha. Was that with the Negative Supply kit, or was it something else?...Show more →
Thank you very much for your insightful reticulation reply, Ron! The logic of temperature delta/shock from hot to cold makes the most sense. I know I was developing Tri-X (expiry ~2017) in the Cinestill Df96 monobath and rushed the development. I recall bringing my monobath to as close to 68 deg F by feel/touch memory, rather than verifying with a thermometer and using my bathroom room temp stop bath solution. For the wash I just turned on the water in the tub and let the water flow and circulate within the development tank. I'm thinking I used too warm of a wash, but 1) I know I was in a hurry and 2) it was a few months ago and I'm frequently forgetting what I had for dinner the previous night. Ha!
Your comment about hardening fixer piqued my interest. Up until recently I've only developed B&W using two developers, Kodak D-76 with their standard Fixer and the Cinestill Df96 monobath. (I've used Adox Adonal on my last two rolls of B&W.) I know I've had to make new D-76 some months ago, but I did reuse my (old?) fixer...which I have now disposed of. When I first saw my scanned (reticulated) negatives on my computer screen for the first time, I immediately thought my processing was off (dev time) or that my monobath and/or fixer was compromised. Now that I look back at it, I used the Df-96 monobath with its non-hardening fixer with a relatively recent, but expired, roll of Tri-X. I guess in my case, the old adage "Haste makes waste" are not to be taken lightly. Back to the non-hardening fixer, though. When I bought some more powdered Kodak fixer last week, the sales rep mentioned some things about non-hardening vs hardening (or just regular?) fixer and how it could have a detrimental effect of making the negative brittle, but flatter (more resistant to curl) and easier to scan. I didn't have time to ask him more about it since I made a quick stop to pick up the fixer before heading off (late) to work. I have a TMAX 100 35mm roll that expired back in 2009 that I'm thinking of using and developing with the sole intention of reticulation. I'll try your normal dev with warm wash and an ice dunk. I'll make sure to not use the Cinestill monobath and develop using Kodak chemistry (D-76 and fixer). It would be a fun experiment!
Thank you for the film scans compliment Ron! All of my film scans and postings have been with the Negative Supply kit. I received my kit earlier in the week and have been developing and scanning almost every night. I'm planning on scanning some 120 film later tonight (Portra 160). I know the NS kit keeps my negatives flatter than my previous Plustek and Nikon Coolscan film carriers. Comparing my first scans with the NS kit and the previous scans of two Ektar rolls, I can see a difference in the quality of the finished image. I'm attributing that to becoming much more comfortable using the NS kit, knowing how to better prepare the negative (air blower, cloth gloves, clean surfaces, etc.), using a smaller f-stop and longer shutter speed, and spending more time with Negative Lab Pro. I've used NLP before, but only for B&W images. Now that I've scanned about six 35mm rolls of film, I'm getting the hang of how to use NLP to get the images I want. It was a little bit of a learning curve compared to B&W conversion with it, but I'm really happy with its color negative processing.
One thing I will try next is to change the shutter to full electronic for my next scans. I want to try and eliminate any possible movement during the A7RIV camera "scan". Maybe I was use to it, but you really notice how loud the mechanical shutter is of the A7RIV when you're the only one up at 3am and the house is dead quiet and BAM! The shutter goes off. 
Extra: I'm using my Sigma 70mm art macro lens at f/11. I know diffraction comes even more into play the greater the megapixel count of the sensor. I'm curious if I'm losing out on sharpness by using f/11. I will need to experiment with larger apertures and make comparisons.
Edited on Nov 07, 2020 at 04:42 PM · View previous versions
|
