Why do some photographers like HC-110? To me, it sucks -- but I could be wrong.
Marco Milazzo
tank, on a Beseler moror base.
I've tried D-23, 1:1 and a dilute solution of HC-110 (1-79 or so),
rating the film at its stated ASA -- i.e. 100 or 400 .
I like D-23 for a soft, low-contrast look -- useful since I shoot in
the desert and mountains where the light is bright and shadows are
deep -- but my question is: "What's up with HC-110?" Every time
I've tried it, I get a high-contrast negative with blocked-up
highlights and dense, black shadows.
Is it a good developer for certain subjectrs and not others? Would it
help if I cut the ASA in half -- i.e. 50 and 200 -- and developed a
shorter time? Or is that just the way HC-110 negatives look? If so,
why is it highly regarded by people like Ansel Adams and Fred
Picker? To me, it sucks.
What am I missing about HC-110?
Keith Tapscott
"Marco Milazzo" <hgar...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message
news:he2g41l5155fsserk...@4ax.com...
The developer certainly is not bad, the standard dilution for HC 110 is the
so called dilution B which tends to give developing times that are too short
for my own liking, I would suggest that for a convenient liquid concentrated
developer, that you try Ilford DD-X diluted at 1:4 instead. Start with the
standard small tank times minus 10% and round this figure down to the
nearest minute or half minute (Which ever comes first) and see how well your
negatives print.
If the negatives are a little too flat for your enlarger, increase the
developing times in 30 second increments until you reach the required
contrast that you need.
Likewise if the negatives are too contrasty for you, in which case you
decrease in 30 second increments. This assumes that you are not using a
pre-rinse which Ilford do not recommend, if you do use a pre-rinse, then
start with the small tank times.
This all depends on your personal preference.
Keith Tapscott
performs.
"Marco Milazzo" <hgar...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message
news:he2g41l5155fsserk...@4ax.com...
Jean-David Beyer
I use a Jobo 2500 series tank in a Jobo CPE-2 processor.
I have never had trouble with any developer. I control contrast by
changing the development time. I process at 75F because it is too
difficult to use lower temperatures in the summer (though I do it once
in a while by putting a block of artificial ice in the water bath to get
it down to temperature and then removing it. The thermal mass of the
water bath is sufficient to maintain temperature during the developing
step).
I have used different developers in the past, mainly D76 and D76d,
Microdol-X, Diafine, HC-110, and TMax-RS. I have also used D23 and D25
straight, and as bath 1 of two-bath developers (mainly on 4164 Tri-X).
For modern (e.g., TMax) film, I do not like two bath development as the
grain reduction is much less needed and they result in what I would call
"mushy" negatives: a reduction in sharpness that I find unacceptable.
Different developers give different D/H curves, so you will have to pick
among them to find one that gives best results with the materials you
use and the processing system you employ. Sorry, there is no way out of
testing it yourself, since no one else can be assumed to use exactly
your processing methods, and, more important, have your taste and
objectives.
I have found HC-110B a very good developer, convenient to mix. Fred
Picker used to mix 1 ounce of the concentrate syrup (not the stock
solution) with 31 ounces of water to make Dilution B directly. I would
not do that for a roll or two of 35mm film, but it is quite practical
for mixing 1/2 gallon for use in developing tanks. If you find that
gives you less than 5 minutes development time for the contrast index
you require, you could either add water or lower the development
temperature.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:45:00 up 3 days, 1 min, 3 users, load average: 4.46, 4.27, 4.23
John
wrote:
>What am I missing about HC-110?
Add 1 stop to your EI and decrease development by 20% and try
it again. As an alternative you can try the Dilution D (1:9) or even
the Dilution E (1:11) to help with contrast control. HC110 is a good
developer but highly active. I've often thought it might make a good
paper developer.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Gregory Blank
Marco Milazzo <hgar...@elp.rr.com> wrote:
Your possibly running into issues of scene brilliance, without
the compensation of decreasing the development time even
when using high dilutions you still get higher contrast. HC110
in my experience does yield a little more contrast than D23 if used
at the E dilution, I would play around with possibly decreasing
development at your chosen dilution. Why: because HC110 does
produce very nice "grain" it can be a good developer, it is very
consistent.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
UC
sheet film. Unless well-diluted, I would avoid using it for fine work.
Marco Milazzo wrote:
> I'm trying to find a good B/W film developer to use in a Jobo Expert
> tank, on a Beseler moror base.
>
> I've tried D-23, 1:1 and a dilute solution of HC-110 (1-79 or so),
> rating the film at its stated ASA -- i.e. 100 or 400 .
>
> I like D-23 for a soft, low-contrast look -- useful since I shoot
in
> the desert and mountains where the light is bright and shadows are
> deep -- but my question is: "What's up with HC-110?" Every time
> I've tried it, I get a high-contrast negative with blocked-up
> highlights and dense, black shadows.
>
> Is it a good developer for certain subjectrs and not others? Would
it
> help if I cut the ASA in half -- i.e. 50 and 200 -- and developed a
> shorter time? Or is that just the way HC-110 negatives look? If
so,
> why is it highly regardeHCd by people like Ansel Adams and Fred
at @the-wire.dotcom Lloyd Erlick
>Is it a good developer for certain subjectrs and not others? Would it
>help if I cut the ASA in half -- i.e. 50 and 200 -- and developed a
>shorter time?
mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,
You might like the results of exposing your films at
half their rated EI in any case. Judging by the sound
of your subject matter (brightly lit with high
contrast) you might like:
-a lower EI (provides greater shadow detail),
-slightly reduced development (ten or fifteen per cent
less time in developer) (highlights tend to block up to
lesser degree),
-a normal developer like D76 or Xtol diluted
appropriately (personally, I use Xtol diluted 1+2 in
distilled water),
-a slightly soft working developer like D23, perhaps
diluted. (Some people use D23 diluted 1+2 or even 1+3.)
The way to be sure is to make prints from negatives
exposed each way. My prediction is that you will prefer
prints from negatives exposed at about half their rated
EI developed in diluted developer.
If you plan to judge your prints, be sure to include
prints that strike you as having "too much" contrast. I
think it was Ansel Adams who pointed out that it is
best to approach a satisfactory print from the
too-contrasty direction. Human perception seems to
accept 'too little' contrast quite readily, but not
'too much' contrast.
I can't really comment on HC110. I didn't like it much
when I tried it, but that was a lifetime ago. There are
people in this newsgroup who like it very much, though,
so you'll have to experiment to find out your own
preferences.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
John
<jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>I have found HC-110B a very good developer, convenient to mix. Fred
>Picker used to mix 1 ounce of the concentrate syrup (not the stock
>solution) with 31 ounces of water to make Dilution B directly. I would
>not do that for a roll or two of 35mm film, but it is quite practical
>for mixing 1/2 gallon for use in developing tanks.
Actually I don't see any problem in diluting it 1:31 directly.
One could then spit the stock into 2X16oz bottles. I think most
Paterson tanks take around 12ozs though.
Jordan W.
HC-110 is sensitive to dilution and temperature. Ansel Adams and
Fred Picker loved it, but they also did extensive tests with it to
find the optimal EI and developing times for their dilutions of
choice. Your "1-79 dilution or so" sounds pretty arbitrary -- which
dilution is this and how did you arrive at the developing time
and EI for it?
John
<jwos...@fastpantsmail.fm> wrote:
>Your "1-79 dilution or so" sounds pretty arbitrary -- which
> dilution is this and how did you arrive at the developing time
>and EI for it?
1:79 is dilution F. Pretty dilute and I would be concerned
about not developing shadow detail very well.
Jean-David Beyer
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:54:02 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
> <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have found HC-110B a very good developer, convenient to mix. Fred
>>Picker used to mix 1 ounce of the concentrate syrup (not the stock
>>solution) with 31 ounces of water to make Dilution B directly. I would
>>not do that for a roll or two of 35mm film, but it is quite practical
>>for mixing 1/2 gallon for use in developing tanks.
>
>
> Actually I don't see any problem in diluting it 1:31 directly.
> One could then spit the stock into 2X16oz bottles. I think most
> Paterson tanks take around 12ozs though.
>
>
ounces of dilution B to develop one 35mm roll in a 250ml tank, measuring
1/4 ounce of that syrup is difficult to do reproduceably.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:00:00 up 3 days, 1:16, 3 users, load average: 4.26, 4.28, 4.21
John
<jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>The only problem is measuring accurately enough. If you need only 8
>ounces of dilution B to develop one 35mm roll in a 250ml tank, measuring
>1/4 ounce of that syrup is difficult to do reproduceably.
I haven't had that trouble with Rodinal though I agree that
the syrup viscosity can be an issue. Just dilute it 1:1 and then use
0.5 oz for 1:31 or a syringe from a local drug store for higher
dilutions.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> ... I shoot in
> the desert and mountains where the light is bright and shadows are
> deep -- but my question is: "What's up with HC-110?" Every time
> I've tried it, I get a high-contrast negative with blocked-up
> highlights
You are over developing the film.
> dense, black shadows
You are underexposing the film.
HC110 is a 'vigorous' developer and will give much more contrast
than D-23 and a whopping lot more contrast if overdeveloped.
You don't mention the film you are using or the film size. HC110
works best with 120 and 4x5 and up -- it is not really recommended for
35mm -- though I am sure there are folks who swear by it for this format.
It is most often used with Tri-X. I find it results in grainy
negatives and the grain is poorly defined -- squishy.
Try some experimentation:
1) Take one (or more) rolls of identical shots of a typical
problem subject. Shove your meter into the shadows where you
will just want some detail and then close down by 2.5 stops.
2) Develop the cut strips/rolls/sheets at Kodak's recommended time
and at 90%, 80%, 70% and 60% of Kodak's time. Use dilution B -
after you get 'B' to work to your liking then experiment with other
dilutions.
3) Pick a development time that gives you the highlights you want.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
LR Kalajainen
measuring cups (marked in oz., cc's, ml's) it's perfectly easy to
measure an oz. of HC110 and mix it with 31 oz. of water. I did it for
years. Just make sure you rinse all of the goopy syrup into your
graduate. A couple fills of water, shaken with the palm of your hand
over the mouth, does the trick.
I stopped using HC110 B because, while it gave me lovely tones and
contrast, was a little grainier than what I like, and also the
developing times were a little short, although, I could have diluted it
more. But the phenidone/Vitamin C/metaborate soup I use now is 1)much
cheaper; 2)just as convenient to mix; 3)gives slightly longer
development times (6-7 minutes depending on film), and 4)much finer grain.
Larry
Scott Schuckert
> What am I missing about HC-110?
Though I'm sure devotees may flame me, HC-110 isn't really all that
wonderful a developer for the serious hobbyist.
It IS, however, a whiz-bang developer for commercial use. Back when I
ran a couple of rental darkrooms, it was all I stocked. (Users could
bring their own soup, if they liked) Among the advantages were easy
mixing and dilution, and fast action. (time is money)
Whie it could be replenished, it was (at the time) cheap enough to use
one-shot. The photographic results were decent to very good with the
wide range of negatives my customers produced.
UC
Joe Mama
> I like D-23 for a soft, low-contrast look -- useful since I shoot in
> the desert and mountains where the light is bright and shadows are
> deep -- but my question is: "What's up with HC-110?" Every time
> I've tried it, I get a high-contrast negative with blocked-up
> highlights and dense, black shadows.
Didn't you just answer your own question?
> Is it a good developer for certain subjectrs and not others? Would it
> help if I cut the ASA in half -- i.e. 50 and 200 -- and developed a
> shorter time? Or is that just the way HC-110 negatives look? If so,
> why is it highly regarded by people like Ansel Adams and Fred
> Picker? To me, it sucks.
I started using it about two years ago, after too many trial and error
nightmare development stories with many developers. My "ideal" developer is
D-76 1:1, but I don't always shoot enough to keep it safe from oxidization.
Someone suggested HC-110 dil B (1:31 syrup), and I haven't looked back
since. Is it as fine-grained as some other developers? No...Is it easy,
economical, and able to store for long periods? You bet your arse.
I would suggest halving the dilution (1:63 syrup), rating the film at 1/2
the manufacture's rating, and developing about 75% of twice the dil B
development times. Just use those as a starting point, and go from there.
Unless there is a specific quality to a developer you like, I would say try
getting used to HC-110. It is a fantastic developer for me.
Also, I shoot the standard type films like HP5, FP4, Tri-X etc. I'm not a
Tmax/Delta fan. Maybe that has something to do with it.
I go by look, not science, when judging negs/prints. I don't do the
densitometer/zone thing, I just try to get negs that print adequately at
grade 2 or 3.
>
> What am I missing about HC-110?
More than you may think....
Marco Milazzo
HC-110 another try with more exposure and less development and see how
that works. I hope to report back here in a week or so.
BTW, I'm shooting FP4 and HC5 4X5.
Marco
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:56:49 GMT, Marco Milazzo <hgar...@elp.rr.com>
wrote:
>I'm trying to find a good B/W film developer to use in a Jobo Expert
jjs
> tank, on a Beseler moror base.
Why?
-- but my question is: "What's up with HC-110?" Every time
> I've tried it, I get a high-contrast negative with blocked-up
> highlights and dense, black shadows.
First, IMHO, constant agitation is a lousy way to develop B&W film, and
HC110 in standard dilutions is so active that it exacerbates the worst of
constant agitation.
> [...] If so,
> why is it highly regarded by people like Ansel Adams and Fred
> Picker? To me, it sucks.
Did Picker and Adams recommend constant agitation?
jjs
news:114gan5...@corp.supernews.com...
> The only problem is measuring accurately enough. If you need only 8
> ounces of dilution B to develop one 35mm roll in a 250ml tank, measuring
> 1/4 ounce of that syrup is difficult to do reproduceably.
What is wrong with using a medical syringe? Perhaps your location makes them
difficult to acquire? I get them at the local livestock supply shop - cattle
sized everything there. :)
Sherman
Marco,
If you shoot in high-contrast situations you might find Diafine to be to
your liking. It does an excellent job with high-contrast situations and
within limits (greater than 70 degrees F and less than 85 degrees F) time
and agitation have virutally no effect. Fun stuff. I use it for sheet film
and occasionally for MF when I have a high contrast subject. Actually it
works just fine with normal contrast subjects as well.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Nicholas O. Lindan
> I'll give HC-110 another try with more exposure and
> less development and see how that works.
> BTW, I'm shooting FP4 and HC5 4X5.
That combination _should_ give no trouble ... famous
last words.
Marco Milazzo
>First, IMHO, constant agitation is a lousy way to develop B&W film, and
>HC110 in standard dilutions is so active that it exacerbates the worst of
>constant agitation.
HC-110 may not be the right developer to use with Jobo processing.
I'll know more about that after the next round of developing. However
I'm not willing to give up Jobo processing itself just yet. I've
gotten good results with D-23 1:1.
>
>Did Picker and Adams recommend constant agitation?
>
Well no, but John Sexton, Ansel Adams' former assistant recommends it
and he's no slouch.
By the way, if we're going to get into a discussion of constant
agitation vs. intermittant agitation, or Jobo vs. trays, etc., let's
begin another thread.
Marco
Keith Tapscott
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:49:45 -0600, "jjs" <j...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>First, IMHO, constant agitation is a lousy way to develop B&W film, and
>>HC110 in standard dilutions is so active that it exacerbates the worst of
>>constant agitation.
>
> HC-110 may not be the right developer to use with Jobo processing.
> I'll know more about that after the next round of developing. However
> I'm not willing to give up Jobo processing itself just yet. I've
> gotten good results with D-23 1:1.
>>
>>Did Picker and Adams recommend constant agitation?
>>
> Well no, but John Sexton, Ansel Adams' former assistant recommends it
> and he's no slouch.
>
He does indeed.
> By the way, if we're going to get into a discussion of constant
> agitation vs. intermittant agitation, or Jobo vs. trays, etc., let's
> begin another thread.
>
Lets not begin another thread, each method is capable of yielding very
pleasing results. Provided that your processing technique is consistent and
yields a print quality that pleases you, then that is all that matters.
> Marco
>
Stefano Bramato
Ciao Marco,
i like so much HC110 becauseit gives a quite sharp grain and acutance is nice.
BTW it's not the finest grain developer on the market, but it gives IMO my
favourite balance to fine grain-acutance.
In most of times I use it for the 120 format, sometimes i use it for 35mm (
with doubled diluition B and double times of developing).
In every time this is the only one withXtol that give me more consistent
results, even my manual agitation in small tanks--
Ciao,
Stefano Bramato
--
ed io imparo...
jjs
news:424ae...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Marco Milazzo" <hgar...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:f7kl41l67810ouiuv...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:49:45 -0600, "jjs" <j...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Did Picker and Adams recommend constant agitation?
>>>
>> Well no, but John Sexton, Ansel Adams' former assistant recommends it
>> and he's no slouch.
> He does indeed.
Sure, but did Sexton recommend constant agitation? Look into it. Sexton is
alive and well. Ask him if he uses constant agitation. Never mind the
endorsement he made for Jobo.. what does he REALLY use... or does he only
print images that suit the Jobo?
Jean-David Beyer
Furthermore, the only difference between constant agitation and
intermittant agitation and no agitation, except for some atypical
developers, is the developing time required to achieve a given contrast
index. With constant agitatioh less development time is required. If
anything, development will be more uniform.
With dilute developers and thick emulsion films, edge effects may be
more pronounced with less agitation, but since most modern films have
very thin emulsions, these effects are probably more difficult to
observe these days.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 22:20:00 up 5 days, 12:37, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.33, 4.22
Frank Pittel
: "Keith Tapscott" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
: > He does indeed.
My understanding from reading an article he wrote is that Sexton uses a Jobo.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Joe Mama
"Stefano Bramato" <bro...@bramatobros.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cb540b47...@powernews.libero.it...
I use it for the 120 format, sometimes i use it for 35mm (
> with doubled diluition B and double times of developing).
> In every time this is the only one withXtol that give me more consistent
> results, even my manual agitation in small tanks--
As I already had stated. I'd really suggest 65 to 75% of double the time,
rating the film at half its speed. I've used it in roto developing too. Not
Jobo, but its cheap cousin ;=)
the trick is consistency, no matter what camera/film/development/printing
scheme you come up with. most untrained eyes just want to see what is
pleasing to them. they really don't consider density curves, etc. tonality
is usually the barometer. and that's mainly an exposure thing.
the oldest of adages rings true. the neg is the score...the print is the
performance.
jjs
> I do not believe John Sexton would endorse a product he does not use.
I am not trying to cast aspersions against Sexton, however I do wonder if
all of his work is done using a Jobo. A person can change methods over time
while the endorsement stands as if timeless.
> Furthermore, the only difference between constant agitation and
> intermittant agitation and no agitation, except for some atypical
> developers, is the developing time required to achieve a given contrast
> index. With constant agitatioh less development time is required. If
> anything, development will be more uniform.
Understood, but let's not imply that B&W negative development is a
completion process; there are few subjects that have flat enough lighting to
print well when developed completely. Many time/temp combinations require
gentle, infrequent agitation to avoid complete development of near
highlights - in other words, they are underdeveloped (technically speaking).
> With dilute developers and thick emulsion films, edge effects may be
> more pronounced with less agitation, but since most modern films have
> very thin emulsions, these effects are probably more difficult to
> observe these days.
In my humble experience, edge effects do not survive enlargement. I've
looked for it with Efke's 25 stand-processed in Rodinal. If that doesn't
bring out edge effects, I don't know what will. Maybe someone else can point
to my errors.
Jean-David Beyer
> "Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
> news:114mrb5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>I do not believe John Sexton would endorse a product he does not use.
>
>
> I am not trying to cast aspersions against Sexton, however I do wonder if
> all of his work is done using a Jobo. A person can change methods over time
> while the endorsement stands as if timeless.
>
>
>>Furthermore, the only difference between constant agitation and
>>intermittant agitation and no agitation, except for some atypical
>>developers, is the developing time required to achieve a given contrast
>>index. With constant agitatioh less development time is required. If
>>anything, development will be more uniform.
>
>
> Understood, but let's not imply that B&W negative development is a
> completion process; there are few subjects that have flat enough lighting to
> print well when developed completely. Many time/temp combinations require
> gentle, infrequent agitation to avoid complete development of near
> highlights - in other words, they are underdeveloped (technically speaking).
>
>
suggested doing that. Who needs nearly uniformly black negatives for
anything: do not even make good filters for looking at solar eclipses
with the naked eye.
If you develop _to a given contrast index_, it does not matter much how
you do it, provided you give sufficient agitation to obtain uniformity.
The more agitation you give, the less development time is required (all
other things being equal) to obtain that desired C.I.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:20:00 up 5 days, 22:37, 3 users, load average: 4.40, 4.25, 4.19
jjs
> What has development to completion to do with this discussion. No one
> suggested doing that. [...]
I drifted, didn't I. The relevant part was snipped.
> If you develop _to a given contrast index_, it does not matter much how
> you do it, provided you give sufficient agitation to obtain uniformity.
We will have to revisit this after I find a developing regime for a Jobo
that gives me the same shadow detail with lower highlight density than I
got. The agitation was just too vigorous and development times too short.
Frank Pittel
: "Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
: news:114nue7...@corp.supernews.com...
Have you tried the 5 minute prewash that Jobo recommends?
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> jjs <j...@nospam.net> wrote:
> : "Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
> : news:114nue7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> : > What has development to completion to do with this discussion. No one
> : > suggested doing that. [...]
>
> : I drifted, didn't I. The relevant part was snipped.
>
> : > If you develop _to a given contrast index_, it does not matter much how
> : > you do it, provided you give sufficient agitation to obtain uniformity.
>
> : We will have to revisit this after I find a developing regime for a Jobo
> : that gives me the same shadow detail with lower highlight density than I
> : got. The agitation was just too vigorous and development times too short.
>
> Have you tried the 5 minute prewash that Jobo recommends?
I am not JJS, but:
There ain't no way you.... I think thats a 5 minute prewarming and no
I do not do that 2 minutes prewash is fine.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Frank Pittel
: In article <jaudneYTXpp...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > jjs <j...@nospam.net> wrote:
: > : "Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
: > : news:114nue7...@corp.supernews.com...
: >
: > : > What has development to completion to do with this discussion. No one
: > : > suggested doing that. [...]
: >
: > : I drifted, didn't I. The relevant part was snipped.
: >
: > : > If you develop _to a given contrast index_, it does not matter much how
: > : > you do it, provided you give sufficient agitation to obtain uniformity.
: >
: > : We will have to revisit this after I find a developing regime for a Jobo
: > : that gives me the same shadow detail with lower highlight density than I
: > : got. The agitation was just too vigorous and development times too short.
: >
: > Have you tried the 5 minute prewash that Jobo recommends?
: I am not JJS, but:
: There ain't no way you.... I think thats a 5 minute prewarming and no
: I do not do that 2 minutes prewash is fine.
The prewash should be done with water at the proper developing temperature.
That would have the effect of also bringing the tank and film to the proper
temperature. I got the time of five minutes from Jobo.
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> The prewash should be done with water at the proper developing temperature.
> That would have the effect of also bringing the tank and film to the proper
> temperature. I got the time of five minutes from Jobo.
Its ridiculous.
UC
> My understanding from reading an article he wrote is that Sexton uses
a Jobo.
This is absolute proof that he is a fucking idiot.....
Peter De Smidt
> Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The prewash should be done with water at the proper developing temperature.
>>That would have the effect of also bringing the tank and film to the proper
>>temperature. I got the time of five minutes from Jobo.
>
>
Jobo recommends using a 5 minute pre-wash because they found that doing
so gave development times very close to those recommended by the film
manufacturers for inversion processing. Shorter times didn't do this.
Since Kodak went to the trouble to publish times for rotary processing
with Xtol, Jobo said to use those time and don't use the pre-wash. Thus
the pre-wash is not used for any type of quality improvement, it's
simply a way to cut down on testing. It's a bad way, in my opinion,
since it adds 5 minutes to every developing run. Simply do some tests to
find out the best time w/o the pre-wash.
-Peter
www.desmidt.net
UC
Please do us all a favor. Disconnect your feeding tube.
Of all the pretentious, useless, fuckwads on the planet, you are the
Number 1.
Your photographs are useless paraodies of New Age bullshit philosophy.
Your seminars are cultist-led brainwashing of innocents.
Go fuck yourself, John Sexton.
Jean-David Beyer
idiot could make good prints like that.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 20:45:00 up 6 days, 11:02, 2 users, load average: 4.08, 4.05, 4.02
UC
Please do us all a favor. Disconnect your feeding tube.
Of all the pretentious, useless, fuckwads on the planet, you are the
Number 1.
Your photographs are useless parodies of New Age bullshit philosophy.
Your seminars are cultist-led brainwashing of innocents.
Go fuck yourself, John Sexton.
UC
that's where most of my prints end up. -John Sexton, "The Expressive
Black and White Print" by John Sexton"
Too bad they don't ALL end up there....
Frank Pittel
: In article <9emdnbhfNtu...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: > The prewash should be done with water at the proper developing temperature.
: > That would have the effect of also bringing the tank and film to the proper
: > temperature. I got the time of five minutes from Jobo.
: Its ridiculous.
Why do you say that? I started using my Jobo not to long after I started
developing my own B&W and just prior to starting processing sheet film. I
started using the five minute prewash at the recommendation of Jobo and
have continued to do so. I doubt that there is any functional difference
between a two minute prewash and a five minute prewash.
UC
Sheet film? Who gives a shit?
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> I doubt that there is any functional difference
> between a two minute prewash and a five minute prewash.
So why use a 5 minute one? That's 3 extra minutes :-)
Peter De Smidt
> In article <aPOdnXWOz75...@giganews.com>,
> Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I doubt that there is any functional difference
>>between a two minute prewash and a five minute prewash.
>
>
> So why use a 5 minute one? That's 3 extra minutes :-)
>
According to Jobo, a 2 minute pre-wash did not give the same results as
a 5 minute one. If someone is really interested, Jobo had some info
about this on their site, or perhaps Ken Owens or Ricki Stauffer (sp?)
said something on this group. You might try searching for Ken Owens Jobo
pre-soak with Google's newsgroup search engine.
It's too bad that Ken and Ricki don't frequent this group anymore, but
that can be said about a lot a valuable people. Hell, I get nostalgic
whenever Bob Solomon posts. Maybe we should stir up that "APO" thing,
and see if he still has the old gusto.
-Peter
www.desmidt.net
Frank Pittel
Frank Pittel
: In article <aPOdnXWOz75...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > I doubt that there is any functional difference
: > between a two minute prewash and a five minute prewash.
: So why use a 5 minute one? That's 3 extra minutes :-)
It was what I started with and since I get good results I figure
there's no good reason to change.
Gregory Blank
Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote:
> According to Jobo, a 2 minute pre-wash did not give the same results as
> a 5 minute one. If someone is really interested, Jobo had some info
> about this on their site, or perhaps Ken Owens or Ricki Stauffer (sp?)
> said something on this group. You might try searching for Ken Owens Jobo
> pre-soak with Google's newsgroup search engine.
>
> It's too bad that Ken and Ricki don't frequent this group anymore, but
> that can be said about a lot a valuable people. Hell, I get nostalgic
> whenever Bob Solomon posts. Maybe we should stir up that "APO" thing,
> and see if he still has the old gusto.
>
> -Peter
> www.desmidt.net
I blame it on the trolls and various flame wars, just don't get
discouraged.
raoul
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear John:
>
> Please do us all a favor. Disconnect your feeding tube.
>
> Of all the pretentious, useless, fuckwads on the planet, you are the
> Number 1.
>
> Your photographs are useless parodies of New Age bullshit philosophy.
>
> Your seminars are cultist-led brainwashing of innocents.
>
> Go fuck yourself, John Sexton.
Jeez, Peeps! Take yer meds, will ya?
raoul
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Small film benefits from intermittent agitation.
>
> Sheet film? Who gives a shit?
Right on, Peeps! You da man!
nobo...@bigmailbox.net
60 degrees F for 11 minutes, agitate once per minute for 5 seconds.
Scenes in strong late afternoon sun exposed at f8 1/250 via an old
Pentax H3. Gives rich hilights, no blockage in the sky and thin shadows
if those are deep.
John wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:56:49 GMT, Marco Milazzo <hgar...@elp.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What am I missing about HC-110?
>
> Add 1 stop to your EI and decrease development by 20% and try
> it again. As an alternative you can try the Dilution D (1:9) or even
> the Dilution E (1:11) to help with contrast control. HC110 is a good
> developer but highly active. I've often thought it might make a good
> paper developer.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Mark Cassino
Classic Pan 200. Are you leaving the ISO at 200? I thought 60 F was
getting close to (or even below) the threshold at which most B&W developers
were active.
With CP200 in 120 size, I expose at ISO 100, then develop in a solution of
10 cc HC110 and 590 cc water (to make 600cc total.) I develop for 17
minutes at 20C, with gentle agitation every 3 minutes, and then once again
at the start of the final minute. The low agitation is important. For me
this has produced excellent tonality with no blocking up of the highlights
and excellent shadow detail.
- MCC
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<nobo...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:1112419657.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Agit Prop
> UC wrote:
>>> My understanding from reading an article he wrote is that Sexton uses
>>
>> a Jobo.
>>
>>
>> This is absolute proof that he is a fucking idiot.....
>>
> I have one of John Sexton's prints. I cannot imagine that an effing
> idiot could make good prints like that.
Please don't try to make sense with Scarpathetic. You know the liar is
just trying for a tasty troll.
Little Green Eyed Dragon
Agit Prop <Ag...@Prop.com> wrote:
You should read the date of the original response by Jean-David, it was
way back in March.......besides everyone knows including Jean-David
the wacko makes no coherent sense.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.