'Graininess' Rodinal 1:50 and Ilford Fp4+ YOUR OPINION SOUGHT!!!
hap...@my-deja.com
I am looking for your opinions, please reply if you can. I am looking
for sharp, contrasty negatives, little grain, using B&W film. Please
suggest what film developer, film combination I should use to obtain
above.
I printed some 8 x 10's last week from Ilford B&W negs. ISO 125 Fp4+ in
Rodinal 1:50 for 8.5 min.
I can definately see 'the grain'. The 8 x 10's are sharp, however. I am
wondering whether I should be seeing grain at all. I was expecting this
combination to result in very fine / little grain.
I have done some prints with Kodak 400 CN film (B&W using C-41 process)
and 8 x 10's are super super sharp, no grain, however they need more
filters for contrast. Should I even compare the two films for sharpness
and graininess?
I also have Ilford Ilfosol-S film developer. Maybe this will give the
results I am looking for.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ARTHUR GRANT
hap...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for your opinions, please reply if you can. I am looking
> for sharp, contrasty negatives, little grain, using B&W film. Please
> suggest what film developer, film combination I should use to obtain
> above.
>
> I printed some 8 x 10's last week from Ilford B&W negs. ISO 125 Fp4+ in
> Rodinal 1:50 for 8.5 min.
>
> I can definately see 'the grain'. The 8 x 10's are sharp, however. I am
> wondering whether I should be seeing grain at all. I was expecting this
> combination to result in very fine / little grain.
Of course you will see grain from a ASA 100-125 film in an 8x10 if you are
talking 35mm as the fim size. Why do you think people use medium and large
format cameras if 35mm negs had the fine grain and high sharpness
necessary? 35mm is really a small format film. It is generally the choice
for journalists due to the smaller camera size. If you want fine grain you
should try the slower (PanX) varieties of 35mm film or try renting a medium
format camera just to see the difference a larger negative actually makes.
On the subject of development alone, I have heard that Rodinal is actually
reputed to be used when graininess is DESIRED for effect. It delivers
rather long tonal ranges which I like, however (I use the 1:25 dilution).
Also, sharpness and graininess do NOT go hand in hand: you can have a
grainy developer with high accutance (which to me is more important than
grain). I don't know why I think this, but for fine grain I might suggest
Microdol used straight for fine grain with contrasty negs. Bear in mind
this is from my past darkroom experience and I am getting back into
developing after an extended absence.
> I have done some prints with Kodak 400 CN film (B&W using C-41 process)
> and 8 x 10's are super super sharp, no grain, however they need more
> filters for contrast. Should I even compare the two films for sharpness
> and graininess?
The two films are not the same ... one is conventional black and white, the
other C41. The C-41 film is designed for people who do not develop their
own film; they can take it to their corner photomat that processes C-41 and
they will get back black and white prints. However, "real" conventional
black and white film it is not.
> I also have Ilford Ilfosol-S film developer. Maybe this will give the
> results I am looking for.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Mark E. Fohl
>Hi,
>
>I am looking for your opinions, please reply if you can. I am looking
>for sharp, contrasty negatives, little grain, using B&W film. Please
>suggest what film developer, film combination I should use to obtain
>above.
>
>I printed some 8 x 10's last week from Ilford B&W negs. ISO 125 Fp4+ in
>Rodinal 1:50 for 8.5 min.
>
I agree with the other poster that people use Rodinal when they *want*
noticeable grain. Might I suggest that you use the same speed film,
either Ilford's ro Kodak Plus-X, then use Microdol-X 1:3. Some people
say that Microdol-X causes a loss of sharpness, but I don't beleive
them. I did some testing (subjective, however), and I found very little
difference in sharpness between negatives developed in Microdol-X 1:3 and
those developed in D-76. You do see a little loss in film speed, about
1/2 stop to a stop, but I find that to be not too objectionable. Microdol
is an inherently un-contrasty, but you can increase contrast by increasing
development time.
Regardless of the film format that you use, you will get less grainy relults
with Microdol-X.
Good luck,
-- Mark
andy
well her's my two cents worth. I use rodinal 1+50 with FP4 but on 5x4
and of course no grain and a lovely tonal range. when i used 35 mm I
used rodinal at 1 to 50 but with tmax100 develop for about 9 mins
approx and rate it at 64 iso you should get the results you are looking
for. I think grain size has more to do with film type rather than the
developer used rodinal just makes the grain appear sharper.
regards
Andy
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
SlberFuchs
1)There are other fine grain developers you can try as well in addition to
microdol but I suspect the results will be about the same.
2)Try a more dillute solutiuon of Rodinal. 1:100 is what I use when I want to
bring otu the full potential of the film and the developer.
3)Consider a different film. If your goal is maximum sharpness then the
slowest, finest grained film you can find is a good starting point. The
ultimate is Kodak Tech Pan (which requires a special developer for continuous
tone negs) or EFKE R 25. I ahve been using the EFKE whenever I could get it
for many years and find that it, developed in either Microdolor Rodinal 1:100
depending on what I am shooting, gives me the best I can get from 35mm.
4)Remember that even at 8x10 there are many variables taht will ahve a major
impact. Camera movement, lens quality, etc. All by way of saying it is a tiny
negative and requires a lot of work for large enlargement ... if max sharpness
at sizes larger than 8x10 is your goal you might want to consider starting with
a narlger negative.
Ted
photo...@rlett.fsnet.co.uk
1-75 for 10 mins
1+100 for 13 mins both @ 20oC
See the results
--
Photography can never grow up if it imitates some other medium. It has to
walk alone; it has to be itself.
Bernice Abbott.
See my photography: http://www.rlett.fsnet.co.uk
<hap...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8cjkoq$e2a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for your opinions, please reply if you can. I am looking
> for sharp, contrasty negatives, little grain, using B&W film. Please
> suggest what film developer, film combination I should use to obtain
> above.
>
> I printed some 8 x 10's last week from Ilford B&W negs. ISO 125 Fp4+ in
> Rodinal 1:50 for 8.5 min.
>
> I can definately see 'the grain'. The 8 x 10's are sharp, however. I am
> wondering whether I should be seeing grain at all. I was expecting this
> combination to result in very fine / little grain.
>
> I have done some prints with Kodak 400 CN film (B&W using C-41 process)
> and 8 x 10's are super super sharp, no grain, however they need more
> filters for contrast. Should I even compare the two films for sharpness
> and graininess?
>
Bogdan Karasek
What is EFKE R 25 film?
Bogdan
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
________________________________________________________________
Richard Knoppow
>In article <8cjkoq$e2a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <hap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am looking for your opinions, please reply if you can. I am looking
>>for sharp, contrasty negatives, little grain, using B&W film. Please
>>suggest what film developer, film combination I should use to obtain
>>above.
>>
>>I printed some 8 x 10's last week from Ilford B&W negs. ISO 125 Fp4+ in
>>Rodinal 1:50 for 8.5 min.
>>
>
>I agree with the other poster that people use Rodinal when they *want*
>noticeable grain. Might I suggest that you use the same speed film,
>either Ilford's ro Kodak Plus-X, then use Microdol-X 1:3. Some people
>say that Microdol-X causes a loss of sharpness, but I don't beleive
>them. I did some testing (subjective, however), and I found very little
>difference in sharpness between negatives developed in Microdol-X 1:3 and
>those developed in D-76. You do see a little loss in film speed, about
>1/2 stop to a stop, but I find that to be not too objectionable. Microdol
>is an inherently un-contrasty, but you can increase contrast by increasing
>development time.
>
>Regardless of the film format that you use, you will get less grainy relults
>with Microdol-X.
>
>Good luck,
>
>-- Mark
>
>
Microdol-X, when diluted to 1:3 has considerable edge effects so is
a pretty sharp developer. It also looses its extra fine grain
qualities when used diluted. At 1:3 its grain and speed
characteristics are about the same as for D-76.
When used full strength it has little edge effect so does not
produce the actance effect it has at 1:3 and which is a characteristic
of diluted Rodinal. It does have very fine grain, although I find it
only slightly finer than D-76. It also looses about 3/4 stop of speed.
These effects are due to the very low activity of the developer and
its fairly high sulfite content.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Jaykhill
Rodinal is definitely not a developer to use if fine grain is a desirabble
result.
A decent compromise is to use Rodinal 1:75, with about a 5% soldium sulfite
solution, rather than plain water.
If I recall, about twelve-fourteen minutes ought to be about right with FP-4.
John Cahill, Mt. Vernon, VA USA
Randy Stewart
<bkar...@videotron.ca>Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:38:38 -0400 writes:
:>
:>Hi,
:>
:>What is EFKE R 25 film?
:>
From prior description, it sounds like the old Adox KR14, a film made in
Germany until sometime in the early '70s by Adox. Of the three B&W films Adox
made, this one had a slightly non-panchromic senstivity which some people
liked for its unique perfomance. Very fine grained and sharp, but very slow,
similar to Panatomic-X of the same vintige. EFKE acquired the license to make
the old Adox KB/KR 21, a conventional film of the same period similar to
Plus-X, but this is the first time I've heard that they were making another of
the old Adox films - would like to hear more and find a source to try some.
Since EFKE is in the former Yugoslavia, there is some possiblity that the
political and economic problems of that region may terminate this thread.
SlberFuchs
production facility out of Yugoslavaia to the Czech Republic but not srue about
that. As i mentioned earlier, the EFKE emulsions are available from Freestyle
Sales in LA, sorry but I dont have their website handy.
NOW what I would like is for them to ressurect ADOX's old ISO 12 speed film ...
the finest grain B&W film ever made. I jsut ordered some of the 25 and will
let everyone kow how it performs.
Ted
Pam Niedermayer
Pam
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Pam Niedermayer
Branko GT
which means it's 120 format film. 35mm format film is KB20 (was KB14) ( I
beleive this is the original Adox designation and I beleive it stand for
Klein Bild )
The speed is ISO 20/14 .
Efke is brand name of Fotokemika which was always (and still is) in Zagreb,
Croatia. Now, it is true that Croatia was part of Yugoslavia but the factory
it did not move, only the borders changed.
cheers
bgt
"SlberFuchs" <slber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000408155139...@ng-md1.aol.com...
rlf/zpf
used with APX 25, produces results that can rival my 8 x 10 contact
prints. Comparable size with no grain problem and very very sharp. I
have also used it for portraits with APX 400 and the dilute solutions do
not result in pronounced grain. Also, try Ilford Pan F. Very nice film!
rlf
david thurlow
I'd be really grateful if anyone could let me have times for APX400 at these
dilutions.
David
rlf/zpf <r...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:38F6C0...@halcyon.com...
Dave
been developing some 35mm roll film ... Ilford HP5+ lately. I never
worried much about grain with 120 and 4x5 films. My 8x10 enlargements
from Hp5+ 35mm negatives developed in 1:25 Rodinal have had too much
grain for my tastes!)
In fact, I developed a roll of HP5+ this morning using Ilford's
Ilfosol-S, because I'd been using it before -- and my kids have been
using it in my darkroom -- with some pretty nice results. It seems
that the grain is not nearly as pronounced with the Ilfosol-S diluted
(1:9) as it is when I use Rodinal! -Dave
Jaime Fischer
14/04/2000 02:52:
> Good Advice! In 120 format I have found that Rodinal, 1:50 and 1:100,
> used with APX 25, produces results that can rival my 8 x 10 contact
> prints. Comparable size with no grain problem and very very sharp. I
> have also used it for portraits with APX 400 and the dilute solutions do
> not result in pronounced grain. Also, try Ilford Pan F. Very nice film!
> rlf
> SlberFuchs wrote:
Hi
I think we are comparing apples and oranges
First, sharpness is a subjective impression that has little to do with fine
grain, it has to do more with high acutance.
Any high acutance developer will give the impression of sharpness,
regardless of the actual size of grain. Besides, almost all high acutance
developers are known for building some sort of grain onto the negative.
On the other side, fine grain developers are known mainly for poor acutance
( reduced *sharpness* )
If anybody knows a developer with high acutance, building fine grain onto
the negative, showing full gradient of densities Ilford FP4 is capable, I
want to hear about it.
regards
Jaime Fischer
christer
Jaime Fischer wrote:
Count me in too, but only if it also increases film speed. Regards, Chris
christer
Peter Wright
Peter
SPECTRUM
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:55:54 -0400, in rec.photo.darkroom you wrote:
>Hi
>
>I think we are comparing apples and oranges
>
>First, sharpness is a subjective impression that has little to do with fine
>grain, it has to do more with high acutance.
Sharpness per se is NOT a subjective impression. It is
measurable and definable both with instruments and mathematically.
>Any high acutance developer will give the impression of sharpness,
>regardless of the actual size of grain. Besides, almost all high acutance
>developers are known for building some sort of grain onto the negative.
All that I know of enhance the perception of sharpness through
exaggerated adjacency effects.
>On the other side, fine grain developers are known mainly for poor acutance
>( reduced *sharpness* )
This is not accurate and in fact Dr. Richard Henry proved as
much by taking measurements with a micro-densitometer. The results can
be read in "Controls in Black & White Photography" .
>If anybody knows a developer with high acutance, building fine grain onto
>the negative, showing full gradient of densities Ilford FP4 is capable, I
>want to hear about it.
D-76 has worked well for quite some time. 1:1 is about as good
as it gets. My advice is to simply get a bigger camera. Eliminate the
petty obstacles and get on with photography.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer, webmaster and P/T darkroom wizard !
WORLD FIELD PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOC.
Think BIG ! Really BIG !
Alexander Selzer
>
> I have not seen any times published for Rodinal at 1:75 and 1:100 dilutions.
Calbe Fotochemie makes the R09, which is the same as Rodinal and the
published the following table which is based on times for 1+40.
Delut. 1+20 1+60 1+80 1+100 1+150 1+200
Faktor 0.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0
They recommend 8-10 min. for APX 400 with 1+40.
Alex
--
Alexander Selzer http://selzer.home.pages.de
JLENSIGN
testing, HC 110 dilution B or a higher dilution, with gentle agitation, will
give, IMHO, the best possible balance of sharpness (acutance), grain, film
speed and tonal range. I'd also use a water rinse rather than a stop bath.
I would avoid developers like Microdol-X even diluted since they gain their
"finer grain" by disolving some of the silver halide-include some of the image.
The acutance of such negatives is less than those of the above named
developers, and far less than Rodinal (which I would only use at very high
dilutions with 25-50 ISO films.
I'd tend to think most films-and problems people have with tonality and
sharpness and grain-are over developed, over agitated, and the temperatures of
all the solutions and washes are not kept constant at the same degree, and the
negatives are often dried very quickly with high heat.
It's just thatmany dark room workers often do not take the care they need to
to have the best quality negative. Jim
christer
you use. Agfapan 400 needs development times increased by about 50% when dilution
is changed from 1+25 to 1+50, T-Max 100 needs almost triple the 1+25 time if you
go to 1+50. At least that is waht the Agfa book says. Regards Chris
david thurlow
equates to a minimum of 10ml per film, which is fine if, like me, you use a
hand tank with a 500ml capacity for 120 film and dilute no more than 1:50.
However, diluting 1:100 will need only 5ml developer concentrate. This is a
very small quantity. Will such a small quantity be sufficient to develop the
film properly, or will it be necessary to mix 1000ml working strength
solution in order to use the 10ml minimum concentrate? ( 5ml seems hardly
enough to cover the surface of the film)
David
christer <ch...@almqvist.net> wrote in message
news:39003A57...@almqvist.net...
Bruce McLaughlin
minimum amount of developer needed to develop the film than you need
enough volume of the diluted solution to provide that minimum amount.
Obviously that can be a problem with high dilutions because a large
amount of working solution will be needed to provide the minimum actual
developer concentrate needed to do the job. I know this has been a
problem with using Xtol with Jobo tanks which ordinarily require only a
small volume of working solution in rotation development. But
particularly if Xtol is diluted 1:1 or more, the small volume of working
solution that otherwise would be sufficient for rotational development
of sheet film in a series 3000 tank will probably not provide the
minimum of Xtol required per film.
Of course, the best means of finding the answer is to try it with your
film and equipment. If the resulting negatives appear underdeveloped
after they were exposed at an appropriate EI, then you probably need to
either increase the volume of working solution or decrease the dilution
rate.
Christer Almqvist
Bruce McLaughlin wrote:
> snip
>
> Of course, the best means of finding the answer is to try it with your
> film and equipment. If the resulting negatives appear underdeveloped
> after they were exposed at an appropriate EI, then you probably need to
> either increase the volume of working solution or decrease the dilution
> rate.
I called up Agfa in Leverkusen and what they said is exactly what you can
read above.
I know people who think that 3ml per film is sufficient, but I have not
tried this myself. And I guess it also depends on what film you use.
--
Christer Almqvist