|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
Yves |
10:44 19 Jan 05 |
|
|
Shannon Stoney |
10:02 7 Dec 04 |
|
|
Don Bryant |
13:00 7 Dec 04 |
|
|
Yves |
9:01 30 Nov 04 |
|
|
Ross Borgida |
11:31 30 Nov 04 |
|
|
Shannon Stoney |
18:09 24 Nov 04 |
|
|
Don Bryant |
13:02 7 Dec 04 |
|
|
Shannon Stoney |
9:44 21 Nov 04 |
|
|
Jorge Gasteazoro |
11:43 21 Nov 04 |
|
  |
Re: weird film test results at 16 min |
|
David B. Mark |
12:13 23 Nov 04 |
 |
Shannon,
This is a weird result. might there have been exposure differences between the two 16 minute negatives? You would not expect a few second's difference in development time out of 960 seconds total to make the slightest bit of difference.
As to Jorge's hypothesis: I defer to Phil on this, but I was under the impression that the BTZS process is relatively insensitive to tube rotation speed -- so long as the tubes are moving fast enough to assure that fresh developer is always available to every part of the negative. Speedier rotation than the minimum necessary shouldn't make any difference: you can't force the emulsion to take up developer any faster than its normal consumption rate in fresh developer. And the minimum necessary rotation is pretty gentle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
