I'm So Blue

This is a place to post pictures of your latest work.
Locked
Dutchelm05

I'm So Blue

Post by Dutchelm05 »

More like blooper-grams Danny.

So just to ask some opinions, I was thinking of somewhere between 1-2% AmDi (1-12-100) or (2-12-100).
I was thinking of doing a range of emulsion but my plate will be full with all the other stuff out there.

On the other hand, it may be adding yet another variable. I could have been over exposing with 2.5%. For the test this weekend should we close the loop using the same emulsion receipe?

Any ideas?
Danny Bee

I'm So Blue

Post by Danny Bee »

Dutchelm05 wrote:More like blooper-grams Danny.

So just to ask some opinions, I was thinking of somewhere between 1-2% AmDi (1-12-100) or (2-12-100).
I was thinking of doing a range of emulsion but my plate will be full with all the other stuff out there.

On the other hand, it may be adding yet another variable. I could have been over exposing with 2.5%. For the test this weekend should we close the loop using the same emulsion receipe?

Any ideas?
1.3 to 1.5 with my process is too blue.... 1 to .9 gives a nice yellow

a idea to try which im mixing right now is 1/ 7 /100 you can make dcg as low as 2-7 this gives you a very wideband (strong white with a slight color cast)
JohnFP

I'm So Blue

Post by JohnFP »

If you have to make plates anyway, why not make some plain gelatin covered plates and then put in different concentrations of AmDi sensitizer. Be sure your plate is sured and chilled (fridge) and your sensitizing solution of AmDi and water is chilled to keep the gelatin from disolving off the plate.

I promise, as soon as I get back into the lab, that will be my choice of coating. Long life of plain gel in fridge, availablity to change concentration and.......... the plain gelain can be done with loads of white light spot lights for greater visiblity during the coating process.

But i am sure there is a small amount of learning curve with changing that as well as anything.

So, in my humble opinion, leave everything exactly the same and change one thing at a time( Exposure time, etc...). You will get the added benifit of seeing first hand what one varible does when it is changed.
Dutchelm05

I'm So Blue

Post by Dutchelm05 »

JohnFP wrote:If you have to make plates anyway, why not make some plain gelatin covered plates and then put in different concentrations of AmDi sensitizer. Be sure your plate is sured and chilled (fridge) and your sensitizing solution of AmDi and water is chilled to keep the gelatin from disolving off the plate.
Yes you are right for the long term this could be the way to go.
JohnFP wrote:So, in my humble opinion, leave everything exactly the same and change one thing at a time( Exposure time, etc...). You will get the added benifit of seeing first hand what one varible does when it is changed.
I agree John, I will keep it at 2.5% for this round just to close the loop. Perhaps if the kids give me time I will coat some at 1% as well just to compair, I get sloppy when there is too much on my plate so I will play that one by hear.

It brings me to a question John. The reason I went 2.5% in the first place was based on your work using 488nm and 515nm (at 3%). I know you also did work at around 457nm with the argon. Was that still at 3% as well?
Danny Bee wrote:1 to .9 gives a nice yellow
I do like the yellow/gold holograms, and if this is the formlua for it I would like to try it. Yellow is high on the eye response curve.
Danny Bee

I'm So Blue

Post by Danny Bee »

JohnFP wrote:If you have to make plates anyway, why not make some plain gelatin covered plates and then put in different concentrations of AmDi sensitizer. Be sure your plate is sured and chilled (fridge) and your sensitizing solution of AmDi and water is chilled to keep the gelatin from disolving off the plate.

I promise, as soon as I get back into the lab, that will be my choice of coating. Long life of plain gel in fridge, availablity to change concentration and.......... the plain gelain can be done with loads of white light spot lights for greater visiblity during the coating process.

But i am sure there is a small amount of learning curve with changing that as well as anything.

So, in my humble opinion, leave everything exactly the same and change one thing at a time( Exposure time, etc...). You will get the added benifit of seeing first hand what one varible does when it is changed.
i agree with john you must first find a place that works for you (and getting results) then you can start making changes....one varible at a time..... also for the beginning i would not change your process system untill you get a coating in the ball park.... remeber we have been in a while...and you havent and need to get the feel of the process... so find a place to start that works then go from there.... you have made great steps in making good 532nm dcg.... and that work is very great!!!! blue 457nm will take a bit more work to handle
Colin Kaminski

I'm So Blue

Post by Colin Kaminski »

Danny Bee wrote:
JohnFP wrote:
Colin wrote:There is a ton of good information in this thread. John are you interested in organizing it and putting it in the trouble shooting section of the wiki?
I would/will when we come to a final consensus on the issue. :?
this is a bit off subject ... john how did you do you tag lines on the bottom of your post :D ...im post to be very tecky... but i gess i miss that :oops:
Go into the User Control Panel (link in the upper left section of the header) and look for your profile. Change your signature and it will appear on all the posts.
Dutchelm05

I'm So Blue

Post by Dutchelm05 »

Dutchelm05 wrote:you have made great steps in making good 532nm dcg.... and that work is very great!!!! blue 457nm will take a bit more work to handle
So 532nm is like training wheels :)

Thanks all for your support and great collaboration.

What did I hear recently.... True success is achieved when WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. Milton Wolf (was he a hologapher :? )
Colin Kaminski

I'm So Blue

Post by Colin Kaminski »

Dutchelm05 wrote:What did I hear recently.... True success is achieved when WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. Milton Wolf (was he a hologapher :? )
Ahh, thanks to you guys the Holography Forum is truely greater than the sum of it's parts! :D
JohnFP

I'm So Blue

Post by JohnFP »

Without splitting hairs, I always measure concentration as a % of AmDi to Gelatin. That is the ratio you get after the film has cured and dried. So a 2:14:100 is 14% AmDi to gelatin. Now I can add and extra 20grams of water (120) or take away 20 grams of water (80) and when the plate is dry it may be thicker or thinner but I still have a 14% AmDi to gelatin. Telling me your emulsion is 1% AmDi and including the water really tells me nothing about the final concentration of the AmDi in the cured and dried film and would also need you to always tell me the amount of water so the true AmDi concentration in the final film can be calculated. Does that make sense?

But back to the question. I shot all three wavelengths using 1.5:12:100 (13%) to 4:14:100 (29%). By your %-ages that would be 1.3% and 3.3%. But there are so many variables that affect the outcome that unless all my parameters and envionmental factors are reproduced, you may not get the same thing. The rule of thumb is a higher concentration of AmDi to Gelatin results in a bluer shifted final hologram because so much of the final material (AmDi) is being removed. And less AmDi allows longer wavelegths to be had more easily.

Adding water yields a thinner final emulsion which is great for broadband (gold). Taking some water away results in a thicker emulsion which can be manipulated in two ways. One, if long and cold processed it can yield a narrow band hologram. If short and hot processed it can yield a white hologram.

I personally have to disagree with you Danny, I have seen no additional issues with shooting with 457. I don't think it is any harder or different then shooting in 488 or 514.
Dutchelm05

I'm So Blue

Post by Dutchelm05 »

JohnFP wrote:Telling me your emulsion is 1% AmDi and including the water really tells me nothing about the final concentration of the AmDi in the cured and dried film and would also need you to always tell me the amount of water so the true AmDi concentration in the final film can be calculated. Does that make sense?
I got it John, thanks. But if I use, let's say (stupidly :) ) 4 grams of AmDi and 28 grams of gelatin in 100ml of water and said I am using a 14% AmDi to gelatin wouldn't I get some funky monkey results :? ?
JohnFP wrote:By your %-ages that would be 1.3% and 3.3%. But there are so many variables that affect the outcome that unless all my parameters and environmental factors are reproduced, you may not get the same thing.
Yes this is biggest problem with much of these experienments. Everything is so interdependent and linked. I was thinking about it last night thinking even if I bracket the exposures, the fixing on each area should technically be different as well as the water bath. So based on your statement, if DCG is not reproducible do you have a process? :shock: Perhaps I'm splitting hairs now. I think what you may be saying is if you do X if shifts this way and if you do Y in shifts that way, the final "tweak" is compensating for environmental factors...

I cleaned the glass and molds last night. I have 3 5X12 for 20% AmDi to gelatin (2.5-12-100) and 3 5X12 for 8% (1-12-100). I will coat tomorrow morning and shoot throughout the day. The only danger is sometimes I will get a low yield from the mold process for some goofy reason. If that's the case I will need to reset on Sunday.

I am sending the plates to everyone today, As crazy as it sounds, a lot of people thought they were cool because there had splashes of color which added interest (go figure :| )
Locked