Monthly Archives: February 2015

Anodizing (Again…)

Ok, humor me!

I’m going to show the anodizing process once more, but in a little more detail this time. I just completed the base piece for the front standard and before I scratch the crap out of it putting everything together, I’m going to try to anodize it first. Hopefully preserving some of my efforts to make it look nice. 

Here it is after machining and careful buffing with red scotch brite. 



Now it gets washed thoroughly. 



Next I put gloves on to avoid fingerprints and degrease it. I used Simple Green.  Then it gets rinsed in distilled water. 



From there it goes into the NaOH bath. I went with five minutes this time to see if it would give me more of a matte finish. As you can see, lots of bubbles evolve. It’s some nasty gas that you don’t want to breathe. I find myself coughing if I get too close – open a window!



It gets rinsed again in distilled water, then goes into the tank full of dilute Sulfuric Acid. 



Leads from the car charger are attached (red to the part to be anodized) and power turned on: 12V at 2 Amps.  Lots of bubbles form at the cathode almost instantly. You can’t really tell from a photo but bubbles are just billowing up from its surface. A few form on the part, but not many. 



You wait around for an hour…

And out it comes! It gets rinsed off again and the acid is secured… I think you can see that the surface is less shiny bright. It has more of a satin look to it. 



Now the finish is hydrothermally sealed. In plain English, it gets boiled in water… This is actually how it is done by professional metal finishers – ya boil it!



Find something else to do for another hour and…





I think you can see that it now has a more gray-appearing surface, and it is definitely a more dull finish than I started with. Perfect!

Ok, I’ll be developing about six rolls of film very soon. I went on a few outings and haven’t taken the time to process. That should be my next posting. 

Advertisements

My Mind Wanders

I haven’t done much actual photography of late, but I have been messing around with photo-related stuff. As I mentioned in my last post I’ve been putting in some hours on my view camera. It is turning out quite well! Better than I ever expected it to. 

One problem I have run into is finding appropriate knobs and threaded rods for the controls . I’ve been able to make things work with hardware-store bolts and knobs I have cobbled together from nuts and brass soldered together, but it would be really nice to be able to MAKE exactly what I need. Thus, I have been daydreaming about a mini-lathe to go with my mill. 



Then I could turn knobs, screws and bolts to my heart’s content. I’ve even been thinking about machining my own focusing screw/bolt pair so I can get an even coarser pitch that the 8 tpi I’m currently limited to.

Of course nothing is cheap, especially if it’s nice… And funding this little project is my present dilemma. It’s not that much money, really – less that $1000 – but marital discord would be a likely “unintended consequence” if I don’t handle this carefully. I spent at least a grand getting my milling machine up and running, and it wasn’t all that long ago. My lovely wife has a great memory!

More Home Alchemy!

I’ve been putting in some more time on the 4×5 project. It’s getting very close to being done!

I’ve even started thinking about the metal finishes. To that end I have started experimenting with anodizing my aluminum.

I suppose I could pay to have this done professionally, but where is the fun in that? Instead I bought a liter of battery electrolyte (Sulfuric Acid) for $8 from the auto parts store, and borrowed an old car charger from a buddy (mine is too new-fangled and clever to work for this) and I was off to the races.

The process is remarkably simple. The battery acid is mixed 1:1 with distilled water and placed in the anodizing tank – in my case this was a glass flower vase of convenient dimensions which I discovered beneath the sink. A cathode is inserted into the solution. I used a 10″ length of aluminum angle I have left over and connected it to the black clip of the car charger.

The part to be anodized is cleaned up via sanding, buffing or what-have-you. I deburred all the edges and buffed liberally with red scotch brite. It then gets thoroughly washed, degreased and plunked into distilled water. Wearing gloves to avoid finger prints I degreased again, rinsed and put it into a stiff Sodium Hydroxide solution (conveniently, I have this readily available). The ultra-clean aluminum begins fizzing vigorously as the lye etches its surface, removing old aluminum oxide. Another quick rinse in distilled and into the tank it goes, connected to the charger’s red clip.

Power it up to its 2 ampere setting and billions of hydrogen bubbles start billowing up from the surface of the cathode – if your connections are good, that is. As I mentioned, my charger doesn’t work for this, it is electronically controlled and can tell that it isn’t attached to a battery and does nothing. You need a good old-fashioned one that just does what you tell it.

The water looks gray and cloudy from all the tiny bubbles evolving.

IMG_1605

IMG_1606

It fizzes away for an hour and it’s anodized! The surface changes from bright silver to a nice matte appearance.

The final step (once the part is rinsed off and all the acid is put away) is to seal the finish. This is accomplished by boiling the part for an hour in water. This coverts some of the Aluminum Oxide you just created into a hydrated form which “swells” and closes up the pores which occur naturally.

If desired some dye can be added to color the part. I squirted in some yellow and red food coloring and this is what I got:

IMG_1607

I’m going to leave all my camera parts undyed but I wanted to prove to myself that anodizing had actually taken place. I think it looks pretty cool!

I Made It To The Bottom of the Barrel!

I don’t think I had mentioned here that at the beginning of my Caffenol experiments I bought a 100 ft roll of Ilford FP4+ and popped it into a Watson loader I got off eBay a few years ago.

IMG_1564

Well tonite I finally loaded the last canister. I’ve used up the entire 100 feet.

I think FP4+ has been an excellent film to begin with, but I’m definitely itching to try some different emulsions out.

The timing is quite perfect, as I’ve been able to more or less accomplish what I was hoping to with Caffenol C-B while keeping the emulsion consistent the whole time.

Here is what I am going to try next:

IMG_1527

Variety!

I hope that I find one that I like more than FP4+. If I do I’ll buy another 100 foot roll and keep shooting!

Calibrating A Cheap pH Meter

I mentioned before that I got an inexpensive pH meter on Amazon for $14 delivered. It works, and it provides a reading to one decimal place. That’s probably as much accuracy as I really need for my Caffenol experiments. I have looked at other units that come highly recommended (by the cannabis-reeking guys at the local hydroponic supply store) but cost $100 or more. So I’m going to try to just make due with the El Cheepo.

I did drop a few bucks on bottled reference solutions to calibrate the meter with. I picked up a 7.0 and a 10.0 so I can calibrate the meter for more or less the range I’ll be actually testing.

The 8 oz bottles should last a year or so.

I discovered today that a plastic container for 35mm film works perfectly to hold about 10cc of the test solution and allow the tip of the meter to be submerged. When I’m done I can pop the cap on and save it for next time – though it isn’t a good idea to keep it for very long as dipping the meter in one solution then into the other leads to contamination which alters the pH and sidesteps the whole purpose of the exercise.

Here it is in the 10.0 solution calibrated quite carefully:

IMG_1542

I took the meter out, rinsed it off in fresh, distilled water then plopped it into the 7.0 solution:

IMG_1543

Hmmm… Not too impressive.

If I calibrate to a perfect 7.0 reading then I’m a bit low when I go back to the 10.0 (I think it read 9.6).

Bottom line: cheap meter gives cheap results.

If I continue measuring pH regularly, I may invest in a better meter. I think this one is giving me “ballpark” accuracy and nothing more. That may be good enough for what I’m doing though, as the really important result is how the pictures look and not the exact chemical properties of the developer I used. I just want to be able to tell if my mixes are alkaline “enough” so they have a reasonable shot at actually developing film.

Anything beyond that is just window dressing.

The Shootout

So as I promised, here is a head to head comparison between my Caffenol C-L and Caffenol C-B (my own Borax recipe) test films. It isn’t as satisfying as I would have liked. Comparison is made rather difficult due to big differences in negative density. Studying the histograms of the various negatives I believe that my recipe reduces film speed by at least a full stop, maybe even a stop-and-a-half. As a result, the C-B images are much darker appearing. It makes it hard to compare the grain objectively because the grain in the C-B image is so much much blacker – making it appear more prominent. Considering just the AMOUNT of apparent grain, I don’t think there is much difference. Evaluating the “quality” or aesthetics of the grain, I think C-B might have a slight edge – things appear to be a bit creamier to me, but it depends on where you look. In the end, no vast differences can be appreciated. I do think that the C-H shows more prominent grain than the other two, however. No surprise there, since C-L is billed as a somewhat finer-grain developer compared to C-H.


Caffenol C-H 12 min @ 20ºC

Caffenol C-H 12min 20C Small

Caffenol C-H 12min 20C Crop


Caffenol C-L 60 min @ 20ºC

As an indicator of my haphazard organization (from which I am now reformed) I failed to adequately label the developed film strips from my previous experiments. As a result I’m nearly certain that this strip was developed with 50g/L Sodium Sulfite added to the Caffenol C-L. It wasn’t my intent to scan this negative again, but there it is…
Caffenol C-L 60min 20C Small

Caffenol C-L 60min 20C Crop


Caffenol C-B 60 min @ 20ºC (Agitation every 5 min)

Caffenol C-B 60min 20C (NaOH) 1 Small

Caffenol C-B 60min 20C (NaOH) 1 Crop

In the end I think that yet another head-to-head comparison will have to be made. I’m going to try and sort out the effective film speed of Ilford FP4+ developed in Caffenol C-B. I think it ends up right around ISO 50 rather than box speed of ISO 125. Once I can make a negative with more or less equivalent exposure to ones developed in C-L, a more useful comparison can be made.

The Current Recipe

I haven’t had time to sit down at the scanner yet, but the side-by-side Caffenol C-L vs. Caffenol C-B will be forthcoming. In the mean time, I had a request for the recipe – so here it is. It is heavily based on Caffenol C-L and is definitely still a work in progress:

Caffenol C-B (10% Metaborate)

And here is the same thing as a PDF:

Caffenol C-B (10% Metaborate)

It is a bit labor intensive at the moment. I develop for 60 min at 20ºC with agitation for the first 15 sec then 3 gentle inversions every 5 min for the remainder of the time. I’m hoping to adjust things a little to make it easier, but this is what I have right now.

Some Actual Results With Borax

I have revised my Caffenol C-B recipe. It now includes Metaborate (Borax + Lye) as the alkali rather than just Borax. As far as the pH of the final developer solution this works much better – I ended up with a pH of 9.9 which is well within the “acceptable” range for Caffenol C.

Encouraged by this result, I proceeded to develop the first test film. I again used the basic 60-minutes at 20º Caffenol C-L stand development scheme. And I got actual negatives this time, instead of a blank filmstrip! Success!!

I was a bit disappointed however, the negatives were very thin appearing. So thin in fact, that I thought they were blank when I took the strip out of the fixer. It wasn’t until I held the film up to the light that I saw the image.

I repeated the development, but tried a Semi-Stand development scheme: 60 minutes at 20ºC but with agitation initially, then again at 15,30, and 45 minutes. These negatives appeared to have a TINY bit more density/contrast, but I wouldn’t say they looked significantly better than the first ones.

Back to the developing tank… This time I increased the temperature to 25ºC with 60 minutes of stand development (no agitation). These negs looked closer to normal, but had significantly more brownish stain from the coffee.

Here is how the negs look side by side on the light box:

C-B 60min Stand on Left, C-B 60min Semi-Stand in Middle, C-B at 25ºC on Right
C-B 60min Stand on Left, C-B 60min Semi-Stand in Middle, C-B at 25ºC on Right

As you can see, the right-hand negatives have much better contrast as well as a perceptible brown tinge to them. This doesn’t seem to have affected scanning them much.

Here is how that came out.


Caffenol C-B Stand Development 60min @ 20ºC

Caff C-B 60min 20C 2 Small

Caff C-B 60min 20C 2 Crop


Caffenol C-B Semi-Stand Developent 60min @ 20ºC

Caff C-B 60min SS 20C 2 Small

Caff C-B 60min SS 20C 2 Crop


Caffenol C-B Stand Development 60min @ 25ºC
Caff C-B 60min 25C 1 Small

Caff C-B 60min 25C 1 Crop

Again the differences are subtle, but I think that both the Semi-Stand and Higher-Temp negatives have better contrast. I think that heating up the developer is probably a dead-end if it results in more brown-stain. So at the moment I will pursue further tests with Semi-Stand development. But increasing the processing temperature definitely provided better contrast. If you look at the full picture and notice the foliage beneath the blossoms, everything sort of vanishes in the first two. But is a bit more distinct in the 25º version. I may revisit that in the future.

I also want to re-scan the test negatives from my previous experiment for a side-by-side comparison between Caffenol CL and Caffenol C-B. I realize that I probably skewed my results last time when I adjusted the histograms a bit before scanning in SilverFast. This resulted in a nicer looking picture overall, but may have artificially enhanced the appearance of grain. I made NO ADJUSTEMENTS in the scanning software this time. I’ll do the same for the previous negatives.

That’ll be my next post.