Why hate D-76
MICA
I was just wondering why everyone seems to hate D-76 developer? I have
used Perceptal and D-76 and no matter what they 'say' haven't seen much
of a difference, except perceptal took twice as long. Grain was the same
for the same film, exposed the same and of the same subject (18% gray card)
Tom Reinhardt
been mixing and using this developer for more years that I'm willing to admit
and it's always been the "standard against which all others are judged." So, I
guess I cannot help you here, unless it's just a matter of people hating
anything that is held out to be a "standard?"
TomR
Louie Powell
care for mixing developers - or anything else- from powders. Hence, I
prefer HC-110.
"MICA" <McM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BFAC515...@hotmail.com...
Michael Larsen
for mixing either but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do!
Mike
--------------------------
Michael Larsen
Worldview Photography
Ron
to them, is exactly the same as D-76 (only you mixed it 1:2 instead of 1:1).
I use it with HP5+ and it's great. I haven't tested results against
developing similar negs with D-76, though.
RON
"Louie Powell" <ljp...@banet.net> wrote in message
news:4UzK7.648$2s.5...@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
ShadCat11
the same category as D 76. Typically, in return for slightly finer grain,
Perceptol charges a 1 stop film speed penalty. OTOH, D 76 produces fine enough
grain and delivers full film speed. Decades ago, film characteristics made
Perceptol a viable choice. Modern films make it unneccessary.
Some people, I believe, continue to use it because they like its "look," always
a valid consideration. Otherwise, I'm not sure what technical considerations
would keep this developer on the market. I invite response from them which
etc.
Until Xtol came along, my primary b&w developer for decades was D 76. Although
occassionally seduced by some other product, I would eventually return to D 76,
and at length, except for specialty and push-processing brews, stayed with it.
While particular developers could best it on a single criterion, such as
sharpness, grain etc., as an overall balance of qualities, D 76 had no
superior. Xtol, however, has seemingly squared the circle with finer grain,
greater sharpness and increased film speed, compared with D 76, so I switched.
But when the lights go on again, the difference is really slight. I can't
imagine why anyone would hate D 76.
Allen Zak
Louie Powell
I live in a metropolitan area that includes the capital of the state of New
York. 500,000 souls live here, more or less. Until last week, we had one
decent camera store, and a bunch of Ritz Camera/one-hour places.
Last Thursday, the good store, where I have been doing business for more
than 30 years, closed to move to a new location. Yup - relocating their
darkroom department, their outstanding selection of Nikon and Hassleblad
equipment, their collection of antique wooden cameras.
Yesterday, I visited the new store - I was the first customer through the
door. Looks just like a Ritz Camera now. One hour machine, lots of promo's
for Kodak color, but no darkroom stuff any more. No Nikons, no
Hassleblads - just junk.
So the problem is that I can't try Naaco whatever, cuz I can't buy it!
Sure, I may be able to mail-order - but then, I spent half an hour scouring
the B&H web site today for something that I know they have but couldn't
find.
"Ron" <rg...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k7CK7.109717$XA5.18...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Rick Schiller
accutance and controlable contrast. But in one or several of these
criteria anothe developer may do something more to your liking. But its
just like the IRS being like a softly inflated Beach Ball. You push in on
one side thinking it gives but the back end tightens up. You want more
sharpness? You get more grain. You want more speed? You get more grain and
contrast.
D76 is great.
Rick
In article <3BFAC515...@hotmail.com>, McM...@hotmail.com says...
Francis A. Miniter
developer to it. If it has strengths that D-76 does not have, it is praised in
comparison to D-76. If it fails to meet the strengths of D-76, there is the
standard quietly sitting there. It is all too easy to get irritated with the
standard. It just keeps sitting there being the standard, rather like the way the
Yankees keep winning or the Roadrunner keeps evading Coyote.
Francis A. Miniter
Malinda Welte
only used D-76. I have been well pleased with the results with all the
films I've tried and will keep it as my standard as I branch out and try
different developers now that I have some favorite films. I believe in
learning something thoroughly before trying something new and then just
change one factor at a time (ie. developer, film, time, etc).
"Tom Reinhardt" <to...@mems-exchange.org> wrote in message
news:3BFAC766...@mems-exchange.org...
John
<min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>rather like the way the
>Yankees keep winning
?
Ummmm, well, something like that ;>)
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Website ------------------- http://www.darkroom-pro.com
Formulas,Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
=======================================
Stephe Thayer
> I don't "hate" D-76. I like the resuts I get from it very much. I don't
> care for mixing developers - or anything else- from powders. Hence, I
> prefer HC-110.
>
Same here. I've used D-76 and it works fine. I've used the liquid ilford HC
developers and they work good too. rodinal is alos good. The only deveolper
I hated was ilfosol-s and only because all I ever got was negs that were
too thin to print no matter how long I tried to develop them!
--
Stephe
Ron
for me there, but I would part with 4 of them, as my main film/developer is
no longer HP5+/Super76.
RON
"Louie Powell" <ljp...@banet.net> wrote in message
news:WsDK7.526$vq.8...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
W. Paul Mills
I have never met anyone who hates D76. It is probably the best
general purpose developer available off the shelf. Many have used
D76 (or Ilford ID11) as there first standard developer. When I was
shooting Tri-X at 1600, I used Acufine. Now days I use THE hated
developer XTOL with TMAX or Delta films. But, I would use D76 just
about anytime, if my favorite was not available.
Paul
--
* For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, *
* that whoever believes in Him should not perish... John 3:16 *
Tom Reinhardt
hate to admit that, but I did start *very young*) and I have to tell you that
your approach is a prescription for success. Of course, a potential problem
here is that after thirty years, I still don't know that I know 'it
thoroughly.' But, I always knew when something screwed up that it wasn't the
film developer ... hmmm, come to think of it, this could be a bad thing too.
Happy shooting,
Tom
Sriram
Where I live, you don't get the 1qt or 1/2gal packs. The darn thing
dilutes to 3.8 litres - that's a storage problem and it's bound to get
oxidised before I use it all up. I use ID-11 or HC-110 instead.
John
<min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>One alternative is to buy the chemicals and make up what you need as you need it.
>
>Francis A. Miniter
Exactly. Another would be to make up a concentrate and
store it in small glass bottles. Rodinal wasn't the only
high concentration developer. In fact it should be hard to
make up a 2X concentrate of D-23. It could be diluted 1:5
and would probably store quite well.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
MICA
I have had mixed 3.8, 1/2 full bottles of D-76 last for over a year. It
did, it worked near full strength when I used it. I dont think you can
mix portions of the 3.8 liter package as you need it for it is a powder
and measuring the powder will give undesirable, nonconsistant results.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
David
a few years ago I've been using "SPRINT" chemistry including film developer
because of it's ease of use and storage advantages. I understood that
"Sprint" developer was the same formulation as D-76 but I never confirmed
that. I'm not much of a "tester", has anybody compared the two and are
there any Sprint shortcomings?
Dave Jerauld
Richard Knoppow
I think Sprint uses Phenidone in all their developers. The whole
line is intended for institutional or school use where the least
hazard of toxicity is desired. Phenidone has a much lower occurance of
alergic reaction than Metol, so Sprint tends not to use Metol in its
formulas.
Ilford also uses Phenidone in many of its packaged formulas.
Microphen is essentially a Phenidone version of buffered D-76. The
difference is a slight gain in film speed and slightly larger grain.
DDX is a liquid concentrate version of Microphen.
Bromophen is an Ilford print developer which is essentially a
Phenidone version of Dektol. Again, slight differences, Bromophen
tends to produce slightly cooler tones and has slightly greater
capacity.
I don't have the MSDS for Sprint chemicals but the ingredients list
on the containers suggest they are not much different from the Ilford
products.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Frank Webb
I can't say that I hate D.76 with a passion but I do like to be able
to control the environment.
D.76's introduction was literally revolutionary when introduced as it
resulted in 35mm negatives with reduced grain at no cost to the speed
of the emulsion.
D76 relies upon a large quantity (almost to saturation limit) of
Sodium Sulphite to perform the triple role of preservative, alkali, &
silver halide solvent. This is essentially the "break through" that
was D76
What are D.76's historic problems:
1. The PH of a freshly made up solution will actually rise with
age resultin in variability of development.
2. The enormous amount of Sodium Sulphite means that this
developer is not at all useful as either a compensating developer or
an acutance developer. The Sodium Sulphite prevents proportional
exhaustion of the developer in over-exposed areas (eg sky without
yellow or orange filtering) so that development "keeps going"
resulting in what has been termed "solvent blocking".
The silver halide solvent properties of Sodium Sulphite also prevent
crisp sharp edge effects characteistic of Pyrogallol or Pyrocatectin.
The formulas below offer a very good alternative to continuing to use
"off the shelf" products as the offer a great deal of control for the
circumstances and the film.
The DK50 without the alkali is also an excellent two bath developer.
I have been using modified versions of DK-50 for many years with
excellent results achieved from a variety of films.
I have been able to achieve very good results using:
AGFA APX-25
Kodak TMAX-100
Kodak Plus-X
Kodak TRI-X
Ilford Delta-100
Ilford PANF+
There are three formulas that I use, of note however is that apart
from one formula I leave out the alkali and make up as a more
conentrated developer.
The original kodak DK-50 formula is;
Metol = 2.5grams
Hydroquinone = 2.5grams
Sodium Sulphite [anh] = 30grams
Sodium Metaborate [Kodalk] =10grams
Potassium Bromide 0.5grams
Water to 1.0 Litres
My variants are:
Formula #1
Metol = 2.5grams
Hydroquinone = 2.5grams
Sodium Sulphite [anh] = 30grams
Potassium Bromide 0.5grams
Potassium Chloride =15grams
Water to 500ml
Formula #2
Metol = 2.5grams
Hydroquinone = 2.5grams
Potassium Metabisulphite = 5grams
Potassium Bromide 0.5grams
Water to 250ml
Formula #3
Phenidone = 0.2grams
Hydroquinone = 2.5grams
Sodium Sulphite [anh] = 30grams
Sodium Carbonate = 15grams
Borax [Sodium Tetraborate] = 10grams
Potassium Bromide 0.5grams
Water to 1.0 Litres
Alkali Solutions
Alkali Solution #1
Sodium Carbonate [anh] = 37.5 grams
Water to 500ml
Alkali solution #2
Sodium Carbonate 37.5grams
Borax = 10grams
Water to 500ml
The above three variants on the original Kodak formula allow much
greater control depending and allow the developer to be tailored to a
particular film or circustances (ie push or compensating)
Formula #2 is an excellent compensating developer with edge effect
enhancement due to the absence of Sodium Sulphite. Without the
sulphite it is much less likely that highlight blocking will occur as
the developer will be more readily exhausted where a large amount of
silver bromide is to be reduced.
In the case of formula #1, the typical developer to water dilution is
about 1 part developer to 9 parts water. I usualy make up 1litres of
working solution so this equates to 100ml of developer stock to 900ml
of water.
In the case of formula #2 only 50ml of developer stock is required due
to the increase concentration.
The amount of alkali solution will vary depending upon the film type
and the contrast required. A good starting point with Alkai solution
#1 is 40ml of alkali solution added to the 1+9 developer solution.
Development times would start at say 6 minutes and range to 9 minutes
depending upon film type and contrast required.
Formula #3 works best with AGFA films as I find these films seem to
need much more "aggressive" development. The Ilford films produce the
highest contrast and the Kodak would be between the Agfa and Ilford.
The addition of Potassium Chloride considerably helps to reduce grain
clumping and hence "graininess".
The compounded Sodium Carbonate + Borax alkali has very good buffering
qualities and also can reduce the clumping of grains due to in part to
the reduced PH.
I hope to publish more details because I do find these formulas
produce very consistent and quite pleasing results with very good
tonality, if in particular reliability is what you value then these
formulas are very reliable.
In the past I would have only used Pyrogallol but the cost of Pyro and
the inconsistent results are something that can be quite troublesome.
I loathe the pre made up formulas, in particular HC110 as you are left
with no control.
John
(Frank Webb) wrote:
>
>What are D.76's historic problems:
>
>1. The PH of a freshly made up solution will actually rise with
>age resultin in variability of development.
Of course this has been a non-issue since the "D"
(buffered) version was introduced.
>2. The enormous amount of Sodium Sulphite means that this
>developer is not at all useful as either a compensating developer or
>an acutance developer.
Unless you simply dilute it to 1:3 at which time you
will develop plenty of compensation and adjacency.
Sriram
in these chemicals, and no one stocks it here. Anyhoo, since ID-11
1 litre packs are available, it works out much better for me and
the chemicals are fresh.
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3BFC7FBF...@attglobal.net>...
Scott Ullman
> So the problem is that I can't try Naaco whatever, cuz I can't buy it!
> Sure, I may be able to mail-order - but then, I spent half an hour scouring
> the B&H web site today for something that I know they have but couldn't
> find.
Freestyle sells it.
--
Scott Ullman
sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude
(Remove "i_hate_spam" and change "ude" to "edu" to send e-mail.)
Michael Larsen
They have a pretty good line of chemicals. You can get on their mailing
list for catalogs as well if memory servers. I've been getting catalogs
from them for a long time.
Mike
-----------------------------
Michael Larsen
Worldview Photography
XxxFM2NxxX
you're delusional.
read the thread.
ken
"MICA" <McM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BFAC515...@hotmail.com...
Dan Smith, Photographer
> Louie Powell wrote:
>
> > So the problem is that I can't try Naaco whatever, cuz I can't buy it!
> > Sure, I may be able to mail-order - but then, I spent half an hour
scouring
> > the B&H web site today for something that I know they have but couldn't
> > find.
>
> Freestyle sells it.
>
One is about as good as another if you work with them a bit & learn their
characteristics. Personally I have finally switched to Dammitol for
developing negs & it works just fine and without all the worry of precise
temps, agitation & whatnot.
dan smith
John Garand
WROTE:
>I loathe the pre made up formulas, in particular HC110 as you are left
>with no control.
Odd. I always thought Adams was a proponent of using control in film
development. After years of D-76 use, he settled on HC-110 as his
developer of choice. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by
"control", and you do not mean variation in development as advocated
by Adams in "The Negative"?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
MAF
as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera, grain
was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
"John Garand" <Garand_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:=aMGPMcdPVw9WN...@4ax.com...
John
<mfel...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Adams came to dislike developers with large amounts of sodium sulfite (such
>as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
>decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera, grain
>was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
I doubt if Adams gave much thought as to the chemical
composition of the developer but I'm certain that he picked
HC110 for it's one redeeming quality. Consistency. Probably
the same reason he used Kodak's Tri-X Pro.
Rick Schiller
But I will say TXP to my eye looks less grainy and just as sharp in D76 & 76
1:1 then in HC110. In fact it seems to be one of the few films that benefits
very little, if at all, in sharpness by the use of HC110. And clearly I'm
not the master printer (nor every will be) that Ansel Adams was, but I find
TXP in D76 to have an easier curve to print. I just like it better and there
has been some literature on the odd H&D curve of TXP in HC110.
This is no dig on Ansel Adams. The guy was an innovative and brilliant
technician who shared his knowledge freely and did much to further Fine Art
Photography.
Rick
In article <cd3e0u0v6qaqckusg...@4ax.com>, jo...@darkroom-pro.com
says...
MAF
> <mfel...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> >Adams came to dislike developers with large amounts of sodium sulfite
(such
> >as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
> >decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera,
grain
> >was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
>
> I doubt if Adams gave much thought as to the chemical
> composition of the developer but I'm certain that he picked
> HC110 for it's one redeeming quality. Consistency. Probably
> the same reason he used Kodak's Tri-X Pro.
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas
On page 183 of "The Negative" (1981 version), Adams says in the section on
"Fine-grain developers":
"A more pronounced reduction in graininess is available with developers that
contain a silver solvent, usually sodium sulfite (in Kodak D-23, D-25, and
to degree D-76, and others). The reduction in grain size is accompanied by
a reduction in acutance, however, and the negatives usually have a soft
quality lacking in "edge.""
On page 185 Adams says his preference has "been for sharp, well-defined
grain which yields crisp enlargements and enhances apparent image
sharpness."
It is correct, however, that Adams cautioned against making "too much of the
issue of developer choice, since the effects of variations are perhaps not
as vital as many suppose them to be." (also page 185).
Jeff Novick
In reading 'Controls In Black and White Photography' by Dr. Richard Henry,
his experiments with Tri-X show a clear difference in acutance using HC-110
and D-76, with HC-110 being noticeably higher. He also points out there is
no noticeable increase in grain using HC-110 with Tri-x. One would assume
there would be, but his book consistently exposes myths and misinformation
concerning all aspects of photography. Definitely worth the read. The only
thing I'm not sure of is which Tri-x he is referring to. And, would there
be any difference in the findings with either of the Tri-x's? It's too bad
that his experiments and writings were done before the advent of new
technology films. It would have been even more interesting to see his
results using these films and various developers.
I haven't used Tri-x with HC-110, so I can't speak from personal experience,
but, from the number of posts I've seen on this ng, I think that HC-110 is
the most favored developer for Tri-x.
Jeff
"Rick Schiller" <rsch...@att.net> wrote in message
news:62FN7.136492$WW.86...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
MAF
HC-110. Since many of his negatives were 8x10, grain was the last thing he
worried about.
Adams used various different dilutions of HC-110 to achieve desired results
(1:7 for normal development, 1:3 for "extra strength in the negative," 1:15
for contraction, and occasionally 1:30 or more for compensating effects. All
of the above are dilution from stock, not the concentrate. ("The Negative",
1981 edition, page 187)
Also keep in mind that both the film and developer formulas have changed
slightly over the years.
"Rick Schiller" <rsch...@att.net> wrote in message
news:62FN7.136492$WW.86...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John
<mfel...@qwest.net> wrote:
>It is correct, however, that Adams cautioned against making "too much of the
>issue of developer choice, since the effects of variations are perhaps not
>as vital as many suppose them to be." (also page 185).
Thanks for the refresher. Actually I think the quote
above is more applicable today than when Adams was shooting
as todays emulsions seem more resistant to the effects of
sulfite. I'll have to dig around but I'm sure that Haist did
quite a bit of work on the effects if sulfite. I remember
that the effects below 8.5% were minimal. Again that was
pre-T-Max et al.
MAF
>
> >It is correct, however, that Adams cautioned against making "too much of
the
> >issue of developer choice, since the effects of variations are perhaps
not
> >as vital as many suppose them to be." (also page 185).
>
> Thanks for the refresher. Actually I think the quote
> above is more applicable today than when Adams was shooting
> as todays emulsions seem more resistant to the effects of
> sulfite. I'll have to dig around but I'm sure that Haist did
> quite a bit of work on the effects if sulfite. I remember
> that the effects below 8.5% were minimal. Again that was
> pre-T-Max et al.
>
> Regards,
> John S. Douglas
Yes, and when D-76 is diluted to 1:3, it has reasonable sharpness. Since
T-Max is more resistant to high temperature grain clumping (up to 75F) than
conventional films, I wouldn't doubt that it is somewhat more resistant to
the effects of sodium sulfite as well.
Rick Schiller
My "tests", which are limited to my eyeballs, differ with Mr. Henry's
scientific findings with the ISO 400 TriX. I think the best balanced
developer for TX is D76, that balance being grain, sharpness, film-speed,
contrast/printing curve. With the "regular" TX I found HC110, in 35mm and
120, to have a noticeabley different look than D76. HC110 gave a more
pronounced & coarser grain structure; but, with greater edge sharpness and
what appeared to be a sharper print. The grain is so coarse that I would not
use this combination in 35mm but it would be accpetable in 120. "To each his
own." With TXP, Kodak doesn't recommend D76 1:1 because of lack of contrast.
No problemo, shoot it at 200 and develop 110%-115%.
HC110 is the closest developer to D76 in performance, as represented by Kodak.
HC110 is economical and versatile and the unmixed syrup seems to last a very
long time, at least several years if any indication by the 1/2 full bottle I
have.
best,
Rick
In article <ADFN7.3333$2m5.71...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
jhno...@pacbell.net says...
Robert Hoffman
> I doubt if Adams gave much thought as to the chemical
> composition of the developer but I'm certain that he picked
> HC110 for it's one redeeming quality. Consistency. Probably
> the same reason he used Kodak's Tri-X Pro.
You've hit the nail on the head, John. Few people realize that
Adams also used extreme dilutions of HC-110, with amazing results.
I can't remember the actual dilution, but it was a far cry from
Dilution B!
Tri-X Pro and HC-110 is definitely one of the all-time classic combos.
Robert Hoffman
Robert Hoffman
The upsweeping H&D curve may seem odd to some, but that's what gives
Tri-X Pro its exceptional tonal separation.
Robert Hoffman
ShadCat11
Isn't the curve similar to TMY in Tmax developer? If the tonality of the two
films are comparable, TMY would have finer grain and greater sharpness and
would therefore produce superior results under similar conditions. Or have I
misread (or mis-remembered) the graph?
Also, I seem to recall that TXP in sheet film format is somewhat different than
the roll film emulsion.
Comments, anyone?
Allen Zak
Jeff Novick
obvious, that people see things differently. My comments about HC-110 and
Tri-x were based on the responses that I've read on this ng with a decided
majority rating it as the best film/developer combo. Perhaps many of these
shooters use larger format film where grain is less of an issue. Maybe
shooters like you who primarily shoot people, shun any graininess in prints,
especially with 35mm. In this case, any 400 speed of the old school is
going to fall short especially if you do this for a living.
As a side note, as others have pointed out, developers like HC-110 and
Rodinal at higher dilutions actually acheive a finer grain than their
'recommended' dilutions by the manufacturers. Richard Knoppow pointed out
recently that results in Rodinal at 1:100 was finer grained than at the
lower dilutions. Something to do with ph. This has been my experience with
Rodinal at 1:100. Ansel used super high dilutions. But, of course, he used
big sheets of film.
Jeff
"Rick Schiller" <rsch...@att.net> wrote in message
news:WuPN7.203401$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Robert Hoffman
>
> Comments, anyone?
>
> Allen Zak
I could be wrong, but I believe the emulsions for Tri-X Pro in sheet
and 120 are the same. Tri-X pan in 35mm is a different animal.
Robert Hoffman
Rick Schiller
120/220 and as TXT in sheet film. TXP/TXT has a retouching surface that TX
does not.
Rick
In article <3C0831AC...@interaccess.com>, san...@interaccess.com
says...
John
<jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>As a side note, as others have pointed out, developers like HC-110 and
>Rodinal at higher dilutions actually acheive a finer grain than their
>'recommended' dilutions by the manufacturers. Richard Knoppow pointed out
>recently that results in Rodinal at 1:100 was finer grained than at the
>lower dilutions. Something to do with ph.
Rodinal uses sodium hydroxide as a alkali. The
buffering potential (the amount of ions in reserve) in
hydroxides as very, very low. They are similar to static
electricity. Carbonates and other alkali's have a
significant reserve and alter pH very little until extremely
diluted.
Rick Schiller
will handle highlight much better (IMHO) than TMY, a film I would not use
under studio strobes. The H&D curve for TXP almost looks depressed, giving a
very long toe and brilliant highlights. TMY is a shorter toed film with a
much more straight line H&D curve.
Rick
In article <20011130184317...@mb-da.aol.com>, shad...@aol.com
says...
Rick Schiller
conclusions? TMY is certainly finer grained in D76 than TX; but, the TX has
better edge definition, though slight.
I certainly agree with your other comments, though I think for normal
developement Adams used HC110 in B dilution and in (much) more dilute
concentrates for N- and N+ zone schemes. Shooting 4x5 and larger it would
seem that grain is the last thing one would think of. Using smaller format
is where the piper has to be paid in terms of gaining one desireable quality,
such as sharpness, with the loss of another desireable quality, such as fine
grain.
Sometimes I think this is the only usefull usenet group.
Rick
In article <UFVN7.3964$SS5.107...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
jhno...@pacbell.net says...
Jeff Novick
will process it in Rodinal 1:100. I may add sodium sulfite but will
probably do it straight so I have something to compare it with. I would
think that D-76 1:3 would sharpen up TMY and still give it good grain. From
everything I have seen with TMY, IMO, it is better for people than Tri-x in
35mm.
An interesting aside. I just finished processing a roll of Delta 100 35mm
in Rodinal 1:100. Under the same conditions, studio lighting, comparing it
to a roll of APX100 also developed in Rodinal 1:100, the Delta film had more
noticeable grain and a less pleasing look than the APX. Delta being a very
fine grained film obviously doesn't do well in Rodinal. APX100 is fabulous
in it. I am wondering if there is any correlation with the Tmax films in
Rodinal with the Delta. If I process any more Delta in Rodinal, it will be
with SS added.
In Dr. Henry's charts, I also noticed some odd granularity results that I
wouldn't have guessed at. My conclusion is that each film must be tested in
a particular developer to judge just what the granularity and acutance will
be for that combination. The axiom 'Fine grained developers for fine
grained films' may hold up, especially with the new films. My desire to use
Rodinal and experiment with it is the cost, it is liquid, and, you can
control contrast like no other developer I have ever used. At high
dilutions with certain films, it's really wonderful.
Jeff
"Rick Schiller" <rsch...@att.net> wrote in message
news:iIWN7.203880$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rick Schiller
Rick
In article <quXN7.3989$4Z1.109...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
jhno...@pacbell.net says...
Robert Hoffman
>
> I have just received an order of TMY and have not shot any as of yet. > I will process it in Rodinal 1:100. I may add sodium sulfite but
> will probably do it straight so I have something to compare it with.
Back in the days when I used Rodinal all the time, I found that adding
sodium sulfite(50g./liter)gave more shadow density. I don't actually
know why, but you could definitely see the difference with matched
prints. I think I rememember reading somewhere that the sulfite allowed
the developer to "penetrate" the emulsion more effectively, thus
creating more low-end density. I have no idea if this is true or not,
but I liked the way my negatives looked with the Rodinal/sulfite combo.
Rob
bsa...@ix.netcom.com
What effect did the sulfite have on the development time, if any?
Bert
Robert Hoffman
It shortened development about 10%.
Rob
Jeff Novick
"Robert Hoffman" <san...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C092A6B...@interaccess.com...
With APX400 at Ei250, I add 30g per 300ml. This is a lot more than you used
and I haven't noticed any shortening of development times. This may have
something to do with using Rodinal at 1+100. If anything, the film could go
longer.
Jeff
bsa...@ix.netcom.com
I now have access to a densitometer. I am going to do some experimenting while
I learn how to use it. This should be useful in more than one way.
Bert
John
wrote:
>I now have access to a densitometer. I am going to do some experimenting while
>I learn how to use it. This should be useful in more than one way.
>
>Bert
Like many I would find your results most interesting.
I'm particularly interesting in film speed, adjacency and in
granularity. Please let us know your results.
bsa...@ix.netcom.com
I will do some testing in the near future and post them. A mixture of Tri-X,
T-Max and D23 straight and 1:3 and Rodinal 1:100 with and without sulfite.
Also, Rodinal 1:25 with and without sulfite for Ilford Pan-F+.
Bert
John
wrote:
>Also, Rodinal 1:25 with and without sulfite for Ilford Pan-F+.
Now PanF+ in D23 1:3 ought to be one sweet
combination! If you don't try it I will. I'll have to use
rollfilm unfortunately . Could you imagine a contact print
on Azo from 5X7 PanF+ ? !
Anyway, just let me know.
Robert Hoffman
> and I haven't noticed any shortening of development times. This may have
> something to do with using Rodinal at 1+100. If anything, the film could go
> longer.
>
> Jeff
I did some experiments years ago with Rodinal and sulfite at 10grams
per liter, 25grams/liter, 50grams/liter, and 100grams/liter. I noticed
increased shadow density at 50grams/liter, which corresponded to the
sulfite amount in D-76 @ 1:1. I didn't see any improvement at 100grams
per liter, so I standardized at 50grams/liter. At the time, I was using
Tri-X Pro and Rodinal at 1:25. I believe using this film combined with
the stronger Rodinal dilution accounted for the shorter development
time.
Robert Hoffman
Robert Hoffman
> I will do some testing in the near future and post them. A mixture of Tri-X,
> T-Max and D23 straight and 1:3 and Rodinal 1:100 with and without sulfite.
>
> Also, Rodinal 1:25 with and without sulfite for Ilford Pan-F+.
>
> Bert
Looking forward to your results, also.
Robert Hoffman
Robert Hoffman
> Now PanF+ in D23 1:3 ought to be one sweet
> combination! If you don't try it I will. I'll have to use
> rollfilm unfortunately . Could you imagine a contact print
> on Azo from 5X7 PanF+ ? !
Rob
John Hicks
<san...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>I did some experiments years ago with Rodinal and sulfite at 10grams
>per liter, 25grams/liter, 50grams/liter, and 100grams/liter.
Over the years I've used Rodinal at various dilutions with and
without sulfite; I found that at little as 10g/L sulfite in Rodinal
1:50 to 1:00 raises the "real" speed of HP5+ from EI 200 to EI 320. Up
to 50g/L slightly decreases granularity. I found that the sulfite
concentration didn't affect CI or development time required a whole
lot; without density readings the difference probably would've gone
unnoticed.
I found no significant differences in EI, CI or granularity for TMX
in Rodinal 1:100 with or without 10g/L sulfite.The added sulfite did,
however, straighten up the very high end of the curve.
Lately I followed up on a tidbit from Patrick Gainer suggesting that
4g/L sodium ascorbate "improves" Rodinal more than sodium sulfite.
First results are that speeds for HP5+ and TMX are down by 1/3 stop
and curve shapes are normal. The negs (4x5) look mighty sharp (as
expected from Rodinal) through the loupe and I think granularity is
about the same or perhaps less than Rodinal with sulfite.
---
John Hicks
Robert Hoffman
John Hicks wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:12:01 -0600, Robert Hoffman
> <san...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >I did some experiments years ago with Rodinal and sulfite at 10grams
> >per liter, 25grams/liter, 50grams/liter, and 100grams/liter.
> I found no significant differences in EI, CI or granularity for TMX
> in Rodinal 1:100 with or without 10g/L sulfite.The added sulfite did,
> however, straighten up the very high end of the curve.
Without the sulfite, you were seeing some shouldering? This is inter-
esting, because, in many cases, highly dilute developers tend to
shoulder. Looks like Rodinal/sulfite is having your cake and eating
it too, since you get increased shadow density from compensation, along
with good separation in the highlights.
> Lately I followed up on a tidbit from Patrick Gainer suggesting that
> 4g/L sodium ascorbate "improves" Rodinal more than sodium sulfite.
> First results are that speeds for HP5+ and TMX are down by 1/3 stop
> and curve shapes are normal. The negs (4x5) look mighty sharp (as
> expected from Rodinal) through the loupe and I think granularity is
> about the same or perhaps less than Rodinal with sulfite.
Keep us posted on these tests.
Robert Hoffman
John Hicks
<san...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Without the sulfite, you were seeing some shouldering?
Right, but it's all above 1.65DU/Zone X and the rate is rather
slight, I don't think enough to be very useful. I just compared some
plots of TMX in Rodinal 1:100 w/intermittent agitation, TMX in Rodinal
1:100 w/ascorbate in rotary agitation, TMX in Ilfosol-S 1:14 rotary
agitation and TMX in D-76H 1:3 rotary agitation; curve shapes are
essentially the same, with the slight shoulder.
For intermittent agitation I use the half-full tank method, which
amounts to dip'n'dunk, with 30 seconds initial agitation followed by
two inversions every 30 seconds. It's pretty vigorous, nothing gentle
about it, but I get very even development with no mottling or streaks.
Most likely reduced agitation would allow some compensating effect but
I don't like the unevenness it tends to produce.
Back when I tried the TMX in Rodinal 1:100 w/sulfite I noted that
the curve straightened right up, become dead-straight out to the
limits of my test, 2.40DU or Zone XIV, whichever comes first, but
since that was the opposite of what I wanted I didn't pursue that any
further.
This brings to mind an article by Phil Davis in a DI newsletter a
while back; he was promoting DI #13 developer as a contraction
developer for TMX and indicated that it provides reduced midrange
contrast while maintaining higher contrast at both the low and high
ends, sort of a reverse of an S-shaped curve, so that may be worth
pursuing. DI #13 is available from Photographers Formulary; I don't
think the formula has been published.
---
John Hicks
Robert Hoffman
> For intermittent agitation I use the half-full tank method, which
> amounts to dip'n'dunk, with 30 seconds initial agitation followed by
> two inversions every 30 seconds. It's pretty vigorous, nothing gentle
> about it, but I get very even development with no mottling or > streaks.
Yes, I discovered this is the way to go, after blowing so many rolls
with "gentle" agitation. I figured, what the hell, and tried extremely
vigorous agitation, i.e. not filling the tank all the way and giving
it rough, snapping, inversions. Wow, what a difference that made! I
ended up getting almost perfect density matching from center to edge.
> Back when I tried the TMX in Rodinal 1:100 w/sulfite I noted that
> the curve straightened right up, become dead-straight out to the
> limits of my test, 2.40DU or Zone XIV, whichever comes first, but
> since that was the opposite of what I wanted I didn't pursue that any
> further.
That's amazing - all the way to 2.4DU without a shoulder. This would
yield linear, non-compressed, high-value separations.
Robert Hoffman
John Hicks
<san...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>That's amazing - all the way to 2.4DU without a shoulder.
Acros 100 and HP5+ in Rodinal 1:100 will do that, as will HP5+ in
D-76H 1:1.
Actually the only films I use that show a significant shoulder down
in the "printable" range with normal development are Delta 400 and
Delta 3200.
---
John Hicks
Jeff Novick
other films at 1:100 and use gentle agitiation intermittently and have never
gotten uneven development or streaking. In fact, I often use 2 inversions
every minute. Is this a phenomenon associated with TMX only?
Jeff
"Robert Hoffman" <san...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C0A9901...@interaccess.com...
John Hicks
wrote:
>I haven't used TMX with Rodinal, yet, but, I regularly use Rodinal with
>other films at 1:100 and use gentle agitiation intermittently and have never
>gotten uneven development or streaking. In fact, I often use 2 inversions
>every minute. Is this a phenomenon associated with TMX only?
No, not at all. Common symptoms of insufficient agitation (motion,
not time) are large areas of uneven density that should be even,
somewhat less density at the center of a filmstrip than at the sides,
streaks of uneven density across the film associated with the sprocket
holes and streamers of more or less density usually from a small area
of much higher or lower density.
Some developers are much more prone to unevenness than others, and
some films are much more prone to unevenness in one developer than
another film.
If you're not getting any unevenness...smile and keep on doing what
you're doing. <g>
---
John Hicks
Robert Hoffman
card at Zones IV, V, and VI. Process and print the developed frames.
If they are smooth from center to edge, without any edge-effects
caused by the reel, you are doing it right. I never was able to get
smooth, consistent frame-edge to frame edge density until I went to
vigorous agitation.
Robert Hoffman
MAF
> Here's a test for even development. Expose several frames of a grey
> card at Zones IV, V, and VI. Process and print the developed frames.
> If they are smooth from center to edge, without any edge-effects
> caused by the reel, you are doing it right. I never was able to get
> smooth, consistent frame-edge to frame edge density until I went to
> vigorous agitation.
>
> Robert Hoffman
variables may be introduced, such as camera and enlarger lens light
fall-off, and enlarger light source fall-off. Light fall-off from the
lenses could be probably be minimized by using very small apertures; and one
can determine enlarger light source fall-off ahead of time by testing the
enlarger light source without a negative.
Vigorous agitation does has its advantages with regard to even development,
but tends to increase contrast and decrease adjacency effects.
Robert Hoffman
My error - I should have said "proof" the negatives. This takes the
enlarger out of the process. Also, by exposing the entire roll, you
can see if the density is consistent from the first frame to the
last.
I found that three vigorous inversions each 60 seconds was sufficient
to give even density. Excessive contrast was never a problem with this
technique.
Robert Hoffman
Robert Hoffman
MAF
"Robert Hoffman" wrote in message >
> I found that three vigorous inversions each 60 seconds was sufficient
> to give even density. Excessive contrast was never a problem with this
> technique.
agitation technique should not cause contrast problems, and should yield
good adjacency effects..
John Hicks
>agitation technique should not cause contrast problems
The main reason excessive contrast occurs with increased agitation
is simply failure to shorten development time sufficiently. There's no
rule of thumb; testing three films in order to match curve shape and
CI of intermittent and rotary agitation I found time differences from
15% to 35%.
---
John Hicks
Mark Rabiner
Gordon Couger
>
> > I doubt if Adams gave much thought as to the chemical
> > composition of the developer but I'm certain that he picked
> > HC110 for it's one redeeming quality. Consistency. Probably
> > the same reason he used Kodak's Tri-X Pro.
>
> Adams also used extreme dilutions of HC-110, with amazing results.
> I can't remember the actual dilution, but it was a far cry from
> Dilution B!
>
> Tri-X Pro and HC-110 is definitely one of the all-time classic combos.
I like HC 110 and Rodenall because I can make up from concentrate and use as
one shot and never have to worry about the age of the developer. One more
variable removed.
Gordon
Richard Knoppow
I am guessing but one of the effects of sulfite being a halide
sovent is to make available more development centers resulting in a
practical increase in film speed. At some point with increased solvent
effect the reverse is true because some development centers are
destroyed by the solvent action.
The effect can not be judged by the amount of sulfite used alone
since the time of action is important. For instance, D-76 and D-25
have exactly the same sulfite content but D-25, full strength, looses
about one stop of speed. The developing time in D-25 at a given
temperature is considerably longer than in D-76 which accounts for the
greater solvent effect.
Rodinal tends to deliver less speed than D-76 but the addition of
sulfite to the working solution will bring it back up to some degree.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
John Hicks
Knoppow) wrote:
> Rodinal tends to deliver less speed than D-76 but the addition of
>sulfite to the working solution will bring it back up to some degree.
I've usually found a 1/3 stop speed increase (or back up toward
rated speed) with fast film and no increase with slow film. Also, as
little as 10g sulfite added to 1 liter working solution has the same
speed-increasing effect as larger amounts.
---
John Hicks
Xosni
> Jeff,
>
> My "tests", which are limited to my eyeballs, differ with Mr. Henry's
> scientific findings with the ISO 400 TriX. I think the best balanced
> developer for TX is D76, that balance being grain, sharpness, film-speed,
> contrast/printing curve. With the "regular" TX I found HC110, in 35mm and
> 120, to have a noticeabley different look than D76. HC110 gave a more
> pronounced & coarser grain structure; but, with greater edge sharpness and
> what appeared to be a sharper print. The grain is so coarse that I would not
> use this combination in 35mm but it would be accpetable in 120. "To each his
> own." With TXP, Kodak doesn't recommend D76 1:1 because of lack of contrast.
> No problemo, shoot it at 200 and develop 110%-115%.
>
> HC110 is the closest developer to D76 in performance, as represented by Kodak.
> HC110 is economical and versatile and the unmixed syrup seems to last a very
> long time, at least several years if any indication by the 1/2 full bottle I
> have.
>
> best,
>
> Rick
>
But, which dilutions are you referring to exactly?
Xosni
Mark Rabiner
It was a much sharper developer at that dilution and with much more
pronounced edge effects. But a tad grainier.
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com
John Garand
>Adams came to dislike developers with large amounts of sodium sulfite (such
>as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
>decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera, grain
>was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
I have no problem with that proposition. But the issue was Mr. Webb's
statement that the darkroom worker is left with "no control",
particularly with use of HC-110. Are you saying that the control Mr.
Webb means is control of grain and not any "Zone system" (or BTZS)
concept of development control? Or are you saying that Adams gave up
on development control in favor of avoidance of sodium sulfite (a
point I have not gained from reading his work)?
>
>"John Garand" <Garand_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:=aMGPMcdPVw9WN...@4ax.com...
>> ON Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:12:46 GMT, gink...@vicnet.net.au (Frank Webb)
>> WROTE:
>>
>> >I loathe the pre made up formulas, in particular HC110 as you are left
>> >with no control.
>>
>> Odd. I always thought Adams was a proponent of using control in film
>> development. After years of D-76 use, he settled on HC-110 as his
>> developer of choice. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by
>> "control", and you do not mean variation in development as advocated
>> by Adams in "The Negative"?
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
>> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
maf
posting), hopefully I did it correctly.
I am not exactly sure what is meant by "control" in all the posts below, but
you seem to be equating it with changing development time and/or dilution to
effect the contrast and tonal range of the negative. I believe that both
D-76 and HC-110 can be used in this manner, although perhaps it easier with
HC-110.
My comment about sodium sulfite had nothing to do with "control" in any
definition. One the things (not the only thing) that influenced Adams'
decision on developers was his preference for those without (or very small
amounts of), sodium sulfite. Adams believed that sodium sulfite decreased
sharpness (or acutance) by dissolving the edges of the grain crystals. As
Adams says in "The Negative" (page 185, 1981 edition): "My preference has
always been for sharp, well-defined grain which yields crisp enlargements
and enhances apparent image sharpness". Adams also says that ones tolerance
for grain in achieving high image sharpness can be influenced by the size
negative that one uses, and the subject matter (landscape vs. portraiture,
etc.). Prior to the availability of HC-110, Adams used other developers
without sodium sulfite such as FG-7.
>
"John Garand" wrote in message
> I have no problem with that proposition. But the issue was Mr. Webb's
> statement that the darkroom worker is left with "no control",
> particularly with use of HC-110. Are you saying that the control Mr.
> Webb means is control of grain and not any "Zone system" (or BTZS)
> concept of development control? Or are you saying that Adams gave up
> on development control in favor of avoidance of sodium sulfite (a
> point I have not gained from reading his work)?
> ON Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:54:20 -0700, "MAF" WROTE:
> >Adams came to dislike developers with large amounts of sodium sulfite
(such
> >as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
> >decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera,
grain
> >was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
> >
> >>"John Garand" wrote in message
> >> Odd. I always thought Adams was a proponent of using control in film
> >> development. After years of D-76 use, he settled on HC-110 as his
> >> developer of choice. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by
> >> "control", and you do not mean variation in development as advocated
> >> by Adams in "The Negative"?
>>>
Frank Webb
<Garand_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ON Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:54:20 -0700, "MAF" <mfel...@qwest.net> WROTE:
>
>>Adams came to dislike developers with large amounts of sodium sulfite (such
>>as D-76), which he believed resulted in less sharpness, although it did
>>decrease noticeable grain. Since he often used an 8x10 view camera, grain
>>was not a problem with just about any film/developer combination he used.
>
>
>I have no problem with that proposition. But the issue was Mr. Webb's
>statement that the darkroom worker is left with "no control",
>particularly with use of HC-110. Are you saying that the control Mr.
>Webb means is control of grain and not any "Zone system" (or BTZS)
>concept of development control? Or are you saying that Adams gave up
>on development control in favor of avoidance of sodium sulfite (a
>point I have not gained from reading his work)?
>
>>
>>"John Garand" <Garand_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:=aMGPMcdPVw9WN...@4ax.com...
>>> ON Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:12:46 GMT, gink...@vicnet.net.au (Frank Webb)
>>> WROTE:
>>>
My posting seems to have wipped quite a bit of comment, the control
that I was referring to was not simply one of dilution
but the ability to change the proportion of alkali to developing
agent as well as the ratio of developing agent to Sodium Sulphite,
simply diluting a commercial developer such as HC110 or D76(D) will
not achieve this.
The modifications to DK50 have worked well for me as has the venerable
D1, (ABC) Pyro formula because you have the ability to change the
proportion of the three key ingredients.
It is interesting the allegiance to HC110.
HC110 is quite a cocktail but I would suggest that without any slight
on KODAK, that it is a manufacturers attempt at an overall compromise
between the somewhat mutually exclusive objectives of:
1. Low cost to manufacture
2. Consistency of results
3. Shelf life and working life
4. Fine grain
5. Actuance & Resolution
I ardently believe that you can always prepare a better suited
developer to your needs if you make it up yourself, you defintely do
not need the complex structure of HC110 if you make up the solutions
from the base components on a needs basis.
Granted of the shelf prodcuts such as HC110 do offer convience but
there is a trade off.
Even D76 and ID11 (and D76D) are not the same as the formulas detailed
in countless books and magazines, have you ever tried trying to mix
all the constituents of D76 at once?
Metol simply will not readily dissolve in a concentrated solution of
sodium Sulphite that D76 contains, something else has to be added to
allow this to happen. Similarly the "modern" D76 also contains an
anti- silvering agent.
As Steve Anchell in his most excellent books has pointed out, to
guarantee the composition of a developer it is best to make it up
yourself.
best regards ............ Frank Webb
Scott Ullman
> Decades ago, film characteristics made Perceptol a viable
> choice. Modern films make it unneccessary.
>
> Some people, I believe, continue to use it because they
> like its "look," always a valid consideration. Otherwise,
> I'm not sure what technical considerations would keep this
> developer on the market. I invite response from them which
> etc.
If you dilute it 1:3, it works as a high-accutance developer, and
it loses it's speed-reducing and grain-reducing characteristics.
(This also means that it's dirt-cheap to use.) I'm hoping to find
the time to experiment with TMX at this dilution, because it will
give the kind of long devlopment time that T-Max films seem to
like, in this case 19 minutes at 68F.
--
Scott Ullman
sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude
(Remove "i_hate_spam" and change "ude" to "edu" to send e-mail.)
GaryB
basis and found it to show decent detail in the low exposure areas.
The contrast was lower than D76 and controllable in developing.
Opinions?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:21:23 GMT, Scott Ullman
<sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude> wrote:
>Shad...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Decades ago, film characteristics made Perceptol a viable
>> choice. Modern films make it unneccessary.
>>
>> Some people, I believe, continue to use it because they
>> like its "look," always a valid consideration. Otherwise,
>> I'm not sure what technical considerations would keep this
>> developer on the market. I invite response from them which
>> etc.
>
>If you dilute it 1:3, it works as a high-accutance developer, and
>it loses it's speed-reducing and grain-reducing characteristics.
>(This also means that it's dirt-cheap to use.) I'm hoping to find
>the time to experiment with TMX at this dilution, because it will
>give the kind of long devlopment time that T-Max films seem to
>like, in this case 19 minutes at 68F.
gj...@REMOVETHISmediaone.net
Studio 324
Richard Knoppow
Packaged D-76 does not seem to contain an anti silvering agent.
There was one in ID-11 for a time but it no longer appears on the
MSDS.
I am not sure what Kodak does to D-76 and Dektol to allow mixing the
Metol with everything else. I suspect there is a sequestering agent
present at low enough concentration so that it does not have to show
up on the MSDS.
Buffered D-76, D-76d, can be varied in activity over a very wide
range by changing the ratio of the Borax and Boric acid. That was one
of the reasons it was devised. For "normal" activity, i.e., the same
as the unbuffered version, the amounts of each are 8grams/liter.
D-76 can also be made up with Kodalk. With a 1:1 change in quantity
with the Borax its a little more active, but not very much. About
twenty years ago the packaged version of D-76 contained Kodalk.
Diluting developers changes their characteristics based on the
concentration of sulfite in the undiluted developer and the buffer
capacity of the alkali. Highly buffered developers develop more slowly
but are likely not to vary so much in other properties. High sulfite
developers will loose some of the effect of the sulfite, both as a
halide solvent and as an anti-oxidant. Rodinal, which has little
sulfite and little buffering, becomes finer grained, D-25, which has a
lot of sulfite and is slow, becomes coarser grained but film speed
increases.
Both have increased acutance effects, but for different reasons. D-25
starts to get them because there is no longer enough sulfite to stop
the local exhaustion effects and because there is less metol in
solution, so it tends to exhaust faster. Rodinal has little sulfite to
begin with so its edge effects are due mainly to the low concentration
of the developing agent.
Rodinal with sulfite added, begins to act more like a Metol and
sulfite developer. The sulfite will help to reduce emulsion swelling
from the hydroxide alkali and also reduces the amount of oxidation of
the devleoping agent.
It is possible, BTW, to make p-aminophenol developers without using
hydroxide but not highly concentrated solutions. "Normal" solutions,
made with carbonate, will have very similar properties to a Metol
developer. In fact Metol and p-Aminophenol are very closely related.
p-Aminophenol is advantageous for highly concentrated developers but
is inferior in normal solutions.
I am not sure a better developer than some standard formula can
_always_ be concocted but there are certainly times when this is true.
ShadCat11
basis and found it to show decent detail in the low exposure areas.
The contrast was lower than D76 and controllable in developing.
Opinions?>>
Excellent developer. I switched from D76 two years ago, mostly for improved
performance with high speed films like TMZ or Delta 3200 and for greater ease
in mixing..
I find most films in Xtol yield @ 1/2 stop more speed at a given contrast
compared to D76, but except for that, I don't see any other differences at my
usual enlargement sizes (max 11X14). Kodak claims finer grain and greater
sharpness than D76, and could be noticeable in big enlargements, 16X20 and up.
I just haven't done any from my Xtol negs yet.
Allen Zak
Allen Zak
Rick Schiller
still a sharper developer than Xtol. Xtol does have finer grain; but, finer
grain is not improved sharpness.
Rick
In article <20011213181145...@mb-fz.aol.com>, shad...@aol.com
says...
John Garand
>I have tried to reconstruct the posts below in the correct order (top
>posting), hopefully I did it correctly.
>
>I am not exactly sure what is meant by "control" in all the posts below, but
>you seem to be equating it with changing development time and/or dilution to
>effect the contrast and tonal range of the negative. I believe that both
>D-76 and HC-110 can be used in this manner, although perhaps it easier with
>HC-110.
>
>My comment about sodium sulfite had nothing to do with "control" in any
>definition. One the things (not the only thing) that influenced Adams'
>decision on developers was his preference for those without (or very small
>amounts of), sodium sulfite. Adams believed that sodium sulfite decreased
>sharpness (or acutance) by dissolving the edges of the grain crystals. As
>Adams says in "The Negative" (page 185, 1981 edition): "My preference has
>always been for sharp, well-defined grain which yields crisp enlargements
>and enhances apparent image sharpness". Adams also says that ones tolerance
>for grain in achieving high image sharpness can be influenced by the size
>negative that one uses, and the subject matter (landscape vs. portraiture,
>etc.). Prior to the availability of HC-110, Adams used other developers
>without sodium sulfite such as FG-7.
Thanks. Just trying to understand the issue raised regarding HC-110
and control. As Mr. Webb has now responded, it appears his control
is alteration of the developer's chemical composition to achieve his
desired results and not some time or dilution type of development
control.
John Garand
>I have tried to reconstruct the posts below in the correct order (top
>posting), hopefully I did it correctly.
>
>I am not exactly sure what is meant by "control" in all the posts below, but
>you seem to be equating it with changing development time and/or dilution to
>effect the contrast and tonal range of the negative. I believe that both
>D-76 and HC-110 can be used in this manner, although perhaps it easier with
>HC-110.
>
>My comment about sodium sulfite had nothing to do with "control" in any
>definition. One the things (not the only thing) that influenced Adams'
>decision on developers was his preference for those without (or very small
>amounts of), sodium sulfite. Adams believed that sodium sulfite decreased
>sharpness (or acutance) by dissolving the edges of the grain crystals. As
>Adams says in "The Negative" (page 185, 1981 edition): "My preference has
>always been for sharp, well-defined grain which yields crisp enlargements
>and enhances apparent image sharpness". Adams also says that ones tolerance
>for grain in achieving high image sharpness can be influenced by the size
>negative that one uses, and the subject matter (landscape vs. portraiture,
>etc.). Prior to the availability of HC-110, Adams used other developers
>without sodium sulfite such as FG-7.
Thanks. Just trying to understand the issue raised regarding HC-110
and control. As Mr. Webb has now responded, it appears his control
is alteration of the developer's chemical composition to achieve his
desired results and not some time or dilution type of development
control.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!ua4canc3ll3r
From: John Garand <Garand_...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: cmsg cancel <EuUkPGhAUvc2rv...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <EuUkPGhAUvc2rv...@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:43:27 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.EuUkPGhAUv...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009772389 4410 166.102.15.34 (31 Dec 2001 04:19:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Dec 2001 04:19:49 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Unac4ncel: yes
X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10 and the Sandblaster Cancel Engine Build 74 (19 March 1999)
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.