"piterengel" <pslaviero@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7a8f0325-f343-4429-9f65-1bd35ad5dbdb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I start a new post about this film.
>
> I've tried my first roll, exposed at 25 ISO, taking
> pictures of
> mountain landscape, with few snow and clouds on sky.
>
> I've tried Delagi #8 developer, 15 mins at 20 degrees,
> exactly the
> same used with Kodak TP film. The result is a quite weak
> negative,
> completely different from TP one. So I can conclude, by
> now, that
> Rollei ATP does not seem to be the subsitute of TP. I
> would like to
> try with POTA developer, but after Delagi this seems a
> lost of time.
>
> Looking for technical sheets of Rollei ATP I see another
> developer,
> Docufine LC. From MSDS I find:
>
> hydroquinone 3 %
> sodium hydroxide 1 %
> sodium carbonate 8 %
>
> for a total amount of solids of 12 %
>
> But at point no. 9 of MSDS it is written that the solids
> content is 23
> %, very different from 12 % found before. So, where is the
> trick? Are
> there non dangerous components that increase the solids
> amount but
> essential for developer?
MSDS are legal not technical documents. They often
obscure the contents of whatever they are written for as
much as expose them. Many ingredients do not have to be
listed if they are present in very small amounts. For
instance, Kodak HC-110 contains a Phenidone derivative but
its not included in the MSDS.
I don't remember what is in Delagi No.8 but I am very
skeptical that the Rollei film is much like Tech Pan other
than being a very slow fine grain film. Technical Pan was
not a microfilm although it could be used for document
copying. Some high contrast microfilms can be used as extra
fine grain pictorial films with special developers but there
was something special about Tech Pan which plain microfilm
does not seem to posses.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
