I want a developer...
whitewave
grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
(I don't care a lot about shadow details).
I strated developing my films 2 months ago, and 'til now I've used
only ID11 1+1 and Rodinal with Agfa APX 25.
ID11 seems to be a good compromise for what I'm looking for, but
maybe you can suggest me a better choice.
Thanks.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
Any Moose Poster
whitewave <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote:
Then again,...
what you want is someone to do all your testing and give you a
magic bullet knowing exactly what it is your striving for?
Here's some advice get the Film Developing Cookbook and
read it, then select some of the many developers in it and test
the film with the chosen developers, that way you'll have some
real knowledge versus the many opinions that are often expressed
here.
--
Duzz that A moose you ?
Jorge Omar
But lookout for sudden death (it used to be common, nowadays, with the 5l
packet it seems under control,
Jorge
whitewave <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote in
news:8d5cc0h3ogpotvd6e...@4ax.com:
David Kilpatrick
whitewave wrote:
> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>
> I strated developing my films 2 months ago, and 'til now I've used
> only ID11 1+1 and Rodinal with Agfa APX 25.
>
> ID11 seems to be a good compromise for what I'm looking for, but
> maybe you can suggest me a better choice.
>
Well, you could try just diluting ID11 1 + 3 - it means very long dev
times and strictly one-shot working with great care in agitation. But in
exchange, you get finer grain (as long as you stick to 20C temp) and
increased contour sharpness, along with a compensating effect which will
unfortunately boost your shadow details. You then print on a harder
paper, which of course eliminates the grain advantage, but gives you
solid d-max and a crisp look to the print.
David
Nicholas O. Lindan
> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>
> I strated developing my films 2 months ago, and 'til now I've used
> only ID11 1+1 and Rodinal with Agfa APX 25.
ID11 or D-76 1:1 is already an optimum choice, especially good with
Plus-X.
Microdol-X gives finer grain. M-X when used with T-Max 100 results
in Tech-Pan levels of grain. It works well with Tri-x if the negs
are not overexposed or overdeveloped (ie, keep them a bit thin).
I like it 1:1 and have not noticed any increased grain. Stock
keeps a long time, use 1-shot - great for occasional darkroom user.
My developer of choice for anything that isn't Tech Pan.
Xtol is supposed to be better than either of the above but it has
a habit of going inactive w/o warning - no color change, no smell,
just blank negatives. With lots of bottling care and expiration
dates it becomes practical, so they say. I never saw any real
performance advantage over D-76 and M-X.
Other vendors have their own take on the above 4, there is not much
difference between Kodak, Ilford, .... Buy local.
I recomend Technidol & Tech-Pan for the smoothest tones (at 11x14" the
enlargements look like they came from a 4x5 negative.) This
combination is my film/developer of choice. ASA 25 is the same
speed as the late Kodachrome (25) and K-25 was used hand held in Argus
C-3's, so slow speed is _not_ an issue. I use Tech-Pan for
candids, kids playing, high speed action shots (sunny f16 at
1/25th second is sunny f1.4 at 1/2000 of a second, indoors
close to a window. Using lenses wide open the subject becomes very
nicely isolated: try it!)
I guess devlopers are like wheels: even though the design is 5,000
years old, round ones can't be beat.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Michael Scarpitti
Try Acutol. Write to me directly for details.
whitewave
>what you want is someone to do all your testing and give you a
>magic bullet knowing exactly what it is your striving for?
Too many developers, and above all too many developer-film
possibilities.
Now I'm reading Ilford Product Data Guide.
They offer 8 developers, add the ones made by Kodak, the ones made by
agfa and so on.
Ilford:
ID11 - reading at their review it seems what I want
MICROPHEN - Is it useful for push processing only?
PERCEPTOL - the extra fine grain and the excellent definition seems
ok. But is it suitable for slow film only?
DDx - it seems exactly the developer I want, but I think I never saw
it in darkroom suplliers
ILFOSOL and ILFOTEC HC - tell me more. Is Ilfotech the HC-110 from
Ilford? Could I use HC in small tank?
DD and RT - don't mind.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
Studional and Xtol are the ones that looks beter for my needs.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
Jorge Omar
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html
Jorge
whitewave <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote in
news:iugcc0p54me0t8niv...@4ax.com:
BBarlow690
stuff, easy to work with, and designed to give you what you're asking for.
Clayton print developers are quite nice, too.
Bruce
Martin Jangowski
> I've just read Agfa and Kodak developers guide.
> Studional and Xtol are the ones that looks beter for my needs.
If you want to have _endless_ hours of fun, buy several makes of
film and developers and "test" variations.
Don't confuse wimpy testing (that is trying combinations of
film/developer/times with slight variations and recording
and evaluating the results) with "fun"-testing. Just take a
random combination of film/developer/developing-time/film-speed,
expose one roll and develop it. Print a few frames, say "these
combination is bad, the highlights don't 'glow'" or someting like
that, and use the next random combination for the next roll of film.
It is possible to do this for years without stumbling over the
same combination again.
You can add to the fun using exotic developer ingredients.
Dig old recipes out of dusty books and mix developers
with stuff like distilled camel p**s or dried frog innards.
The more exotic the stuff, the better. Don't think about
differences between contact printed LF glass plates from 1900
and modern 135 films, this would only disturb you. If one
recipe doesn't work as intended, search for a more
exotic one.
Under _no_ circumstances use tried and true developer/film
combinations. After all, what does someone like AA or
Richard Avedon know about good B&W-photography?
Just because they used the same combination for years
and _knew_ what a variation of their tested recipes
will bring, don't try to emulate them. This would be
boring and lead to better technique. It is much more
interesting to say things like "this is a good picture,
but unfortunately the Xtol died prematurely" or something
like that. Don't try to keep your processing conditions
like temperature and agitation constant. After all, there
is no fun in identical developed films all the time.
I hope you will be able to find the best combination
for you in the shortest possible time.
Martin
|neo_tokio|
news:8d5cc0h3ogpotvd6e...@4ax.com...
> .....................................
> Marco Baldovin
> www.whitewave.it
Spettacolo
n!
--
http://www.neotokiodesign.com/blog.htm
Magdalena W.
Uzytkownik "whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> napisal w
wiadomosci
> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>Don't know how it would work with Neopan and Plus-X, but an old (?)
Kodak (?) formula called D-23 (look in the Darkroom Cookbook) works
wonders with Tri-X. Less grain than in ID-11, smooth, velvety blacks.
Regards,
Magdalena
Michael A. Covington
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>
> I strated developing my films 2 months ago, and 'til now I've used
> only ID11 1+1 and Rodinal with Agfa APX 25.
>
> ID11 seems to be a good compromise for what I'm looking for, but
> maybe you can suggest me a better choice.
No developer will give you grain with Tri-X that is as fine as a 25 speed
film. However, in general, the way to get fine grain is to avoid
overdevelopment and avoid Rodinal. ID-11 is not bad; Kodak Xtol (if you can
get it) may be appreciably better.
Michael A. Covington
Ilfotec HC is similar to Kodak HC-110, but not identical.
www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110
www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol
In general, avoid *unusual* developers if you want good results. HC-110 is
very reliable and gives fine grain if you don't overdevelop.
Ilford Perceptol and Kodak Microdol-X are speed-reducing developers.
They'll give you fine grain at the expense of maybe 30% of the film speed.
Michael A. Covington
"Martin Jangowski" <mar...@jangowski.de> wrote in message
news:ca70q8$1oeq$1...@inside.p-i-n.com...
> Just take a
> random combination of film/developer/developing-time/film-speed,
> expose one roll and develop it. Print a few frames, say "these
> combination is bad, the highlights don't 'glow'" or someting like
> that, and use the next random combination for the next roll of film.
> It is possible to do this for years without stumbling over the
> same combination again.
Amen! And change camera bodies frequently so you aren't using the same
exposure meter...
Seriously, I second Martin's recommendation: Use a developer that a lot of
people have had good results with, and adjust your technique until you, too,
are getting good results. Overdevelopment is a very common problem.
Norman Worth
between grain and sharpness depending on the dilution. Try it both straight
and diluted 1+1 and see which you like best. Acutol is also excellent.
I've had some good luck with FX-37, and I suspect FX-39 would be a
candidate.
"whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:8d5cc0h3ogpotvd6e...@4ax.com...
whitewave
Maybe I have to give you more details.
I know what T-grain technology is, what technical pan or apx25 (last 6
rolls in my fridge) or efke 25 are.
But for my general purposes photos, read it "street photography", I
want the look coming from traditionl films like tri-x, neopan and
plus-x.
Tri-x has beautiful grain, and it's possibile to control it, two
classical developer like Rodinal or D76 will give strongly different
results with it, for example. D76 1+1 is a general good compromise,
but I wanted to know if any developer could give me a finer grain than
it. (probably with plus-x I'll continue using D76).
Smooth tones and finer grain, this is what I'm looking from Neopan
and Tri-x.
I love photos taken with MF and tri-x320pan, unfortunately I have
only an old Flexaret TLR, so I'm continuing taking photos with 35mm.
I would like to come as closer as possible to MF tri-x look, with my
35mm Contax equipment.
A MF equipment isn't on my next "things to do" list. I'll buy a
500cm only when I'll have enough money to buy also a MF negative
scanner, as Nikon 9000.
Thanks a lot.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
- Kodak Xtol
- Ilford Microphen (it should be designed for traditional films, a
"classic" version of Ilfotec DD-x, that should be for Tgrain. And
it's useful with medium/high velocity emulsions, such tri-x)
- Agfa Studional
(no Acutol in Italy)
David Kilpatrick
whitewave wrote:
> Till now my tests will be on:
>
> - Kodak Xtol
> - Ilford Microphen (it should be designed for traditional films, a
> "classic" version of Ilfotec DD-x, that should be for Tgrain. And
> it's useful with medium/high velocity emulsions, such tri-x)
> - Agfa Studional
>
> (no Acutol in Italy)
>
Chimifoto Ornano do some pretty good copies of most Paterson developers.
My favourite is the exact reverse of what you want - the developer they
labelled 'DX-16 Crowley'! This is Geoffrey Crawley's special
grain-increasing formula, designed to produce maximum grain impact. Only
Chimifoto Ornano, as far as I know, have ever manufactured it commercially.
David
Michael A. Covington
> Thanks to everyone.
> Maybe I have to give you more details.
> I know what T-grain technology is, what technical pan or apx25 (last 6
> rolls in my fridge) or efke 25 are.
> But for my general purposes photos, read it "street photography", I
> want the look coming from traditionl films like tri-x, neopan and
> plus-x.
> Tri-x has beautiful grain, and it's possibile to control it, two
> classical developer like Rodinal or D76 will give strongly different
> results with it, for example. D76 1+1 is a general good compromise,
> but I wanted to know if any developer could give me a finer grain than
> it. (probably with plus-x I'll continue using D76).
A developer with more solvent action, such as Microdol-X or Xtol. But the
main thing is to avoid overdevelopment.
Michael A. Covington
> Till now my tests will be on:
>
> - Kodak Xtol
> - Ilford Microphen (it should be designed for traditional films, a
> "classic" version of Ilfotec DD-x, that should be for Tgrain. And
> it's useful with medium/high velocity emulsions, such tri-x)
That is not a particularly fine-grain developer. Did you mean Ilford
Perceptol (= Kodak Microdol-X)?
Michael Scarpitti
> Thanks to everyone.
> Maybe I have to give you more details.
> I know what T-grain technology is, what technical pan or apx25 (last 6
> rolls in my fridge) or efke 25 are.
> But for my general purposes photos, read it "street photography", I
> want the look coming from traditionl films like tri-x, neopan and
> plus-x.
Paterson Acutol is by far my favorite on all normal-grain films. Send
me some of your film and I will process it for you.
Jorge Omar
ascorbate devs are due to metal contamination.
See (if you have not done already):
http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/ascorbate-dev.html
I had a sudden death faillure with a clone (not Xtol) to which I've added
a lot of boric acid to lower the pH (so it would keep longer) and add
alkali at dev time.
It did not last a week, in agreement with Ryuji's considerations.
The same formula, E76, without the boric acid, was OK for a few months
before I discarded what was left in the bottle (moved to Pat Gainer's
Pglicol/TEA formulas).
Jorge
eric...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:uusgc01i89k4v8bul...@4ax.com:
>
> Just curious... Have you personally experienced an Xtol failure, or
> is this something that happened to somebody else? If it happened to
> you, mind if I add your specifics as to what you did when it failed to
> the faq I'm compiling?
>
> http://canid.com/xtol_faq.html
>
> I've tried to replicate an Xtol failure by using a bottle that was
> over a year old. Kodak recommends no more than 6 months of shelf
> life. Worked fine.
>
> --
> Eric
> http://canid.com/
>
>
whitewave
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> ha scritto:
No, that's Micropen.
Someone told me to use it because it doesn't give more grain than
ID11, but a bit less.
Than I read the Ilford Product Guide where Microphen is declared to
be a developer for medium/fast films (my Tri-x and Neopan).
And its main feature is the possibility to increase speed, and to
give finer grain.
Don't you agree with these sentences?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
>Chimifoto Ornano do some pretty good copies of most Paterson developers.
>My favourite is the exact reverse of what you want - the developer they
>labelled 'DX-16 Crowley'! This is Geoffrey Crawley's special
>grain-increasing formula, designed to produce maximum grain impact. Only
>Chimifoto Ornano, as far as I know, have ever manufactured it commercially.
>
>David
Does Ornano sell its product in USA?
I didn't talk about it because I thought you never heard that name.
They have a good variety of developer for all the needs.
Probably the best for me are:
Fino ST33
Gradual St20
Do you know them?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
ha scritto:
>"whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:8d5cc0h3ogpotvd6e...@4ax.com...
>
>> .....................................
>> Marco Baldovin
>> www.whitewave.it
>
>Spettacolo
>n!
What?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
>Kodak (?) formula called D-23 (look in the Darkroom Cookbook) works
>wonders with Tri-X. Less grain than in ID-11, smooth, velvety blacks.
>
>Regards,
>Magdalena
>
Thanks, good advice.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
whitewave
>A developer with more solvent action, such as Microdol-X or Xtol. But the
>main thing is to avoid overdevelopment.
>
Wich differences between Microdol-X and Xtol?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it
Jorge Omar
lack of sharpness. Not my kind of dev.
I believe D-23 will be in the same class.
Jorge O
whitewave <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote in
news:1ichc0hdmrpc6bc40...@4ax.com:
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > > - Ilford Microphen
> > That is not a particularly fine-grain developer. Did you mean Ilford
> > Perceptol (= Kodak Microdol-X)?
> No, that's Micropen [sic].
> [In the] Ilford Product Guide ... Microphen's
> main feature is the possibility to increase speed, and to
> give finer grain [than what? [ed.]].
>
> Don't you agree with these sentences?
No.
The shadow speed is a function of the film, not the developer.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
>
> >Xtol ... has ... a habit of going inactive w/o warning
> Just curious... Have you personally experienced an Xtol failure ...
Yes. Twice. The first time I thought it was me. Then I read it
is a 'feature' of the developer.
> or is this something that happened to somebody else?
Them too.
> mind if I add your specifics as to what you did when it failed
Tossed it. Never bought more. I'm now a 'Microdol Man' - just like
I was in High School.
> http://canid.com/xtol_faq.html
Quotes: "I decant it into oodles of tiny bottles", "I get 6 months",
"I get _over_ a year [isn't that remarkable]"
My camera store has dated price stickers on it's stuff:
I have a 25 year old bottle of HC-110 concentrate, works just
[as badly] as when I bought it. To tell the truth the last time
I used it was ~4[?] years ago when I gave my neighbor's son a
Smegma 8 and a roll of outdated TMX. The concentrate still looks
good.
My Rodinal, 12 years. Ditto.
I found an old partial bottle of M-X stock in a moving box. Passes the
black tongue test. No sticker, but I moved 10 years ago.
> I've tried to replicate an Xtol failure by using a bottle that was over a
> year old. Kodak recommends no more than 6 months of shelf life. Worked
> fine.
Sounds typical. Some get more, some get less, some get a lot less.
It always goes, it goes fast, you don't know when it goes (+/- a year),
and there is no easy way to tell it went. Many post of developing
the film tongue to verify it still works.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Chris Loffredo
>>Chimifoto Ornano do some pretty good copies of most Paterson developers.
>>My favourite is the exact reverse of what you want - the developer they
>>labelled 'DX-16 Crowley'! This is Geoffrey Crawley's special
>>grain-increasing formula, designed to produce maximum grain impact. Only
>>Chimifoto Ornano, as far as I know, have ever manufactured it commercially.
>>
>>David
>
>
> Does Ornano sell its product in USA?
>
> I didn't talk about it because I thought you never heard that name.
> They have a good variety of developer for all the needs.
> Probably the best for me are:
> Fino ST33
> Gradual St20
>
> Do you know them?
Gradual was "my" developer in another life. Apparently it is similar to
D-76 (or ID-11) diluted 1:1 or 1:3.
I was always very satisfied with it and would use now it if it were
available where I now live.
You should at least compare it with other developers.
Chris
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Wich differences between Microdol-X and Xtol?
As I see it:
M-X Xtol
Made from Made from
Metol lots of stuff that's
S. Sulfite a trade secret
Salt
Years in production
70 [?] 7 [?]
Grain
As fine as it OK, I didn't think it was
can get a whole lot better than
D-76
Speed
I never worry No problem, works fine at
about it -- 400
meter carefully
though.
Reliability
Good, turns Possibly the worst,
brown when no indication of
expired expiration.
YMMV
Jorge Omar
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> As I see it:
>
> M-X Xtol
>
> Made from Made from
> Metol lots of stuff that's
> S. Sulfite a trade secret
> Salt
>
Xtol is not so secret. From the patent and the MSDS lots can be deducted.
Dimezone, ascorbate, sulfite, metaborate, metabissulfite and some calcium
sequestrant from the top of my head.
Do a google groups search for: XTOL: Wow!
Jorge
Donald Qualls
> "whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote
>
>
>>>>- Ilford Microphen
>>>
>>>That is not a particularly fine-grain developer. Did you mean Ilford
>>>Perceptol (= Kodak Microdol-X)?
>>
>>No, that's Micropen [sic].
>
>
>>[In the] Ilford Product Guide ... Microphen's
>>main feature is the possibility to increase speed, and to
>>give finer grain [than what? [ed.]].
>>
>> Don't you agree with these sentences?
>
>
> No.
>
> The shadow speed is a function of the film, not the developer.
>
I have to disagree with that one, Nicholas. Over the last couple
months, I've developed Tri-X in HC-110 B, HC-110 H, Caffenol, and
Diafine -- and got increased shadow speed in that order. HC-110 B gives
shadow speed pretty close to the ISO rating, H a tiny bit more; Caffenol
gives at least 1/3 stop improvement in shadow speed, while Diafine
appears to give at least one full stop.
Interestingly, Diafine also gives the least appearance of grain, at
least on my Arcus 1200 (2400 ppi flatbed scanner with glassless
carrier), and only very slight acutance reduction from HC-110 B. Guess
which developer is now getting my Tri-X, at least that shot in my
Spottie (the only camera I own that's comfortable with EI 1600 in daylight)?
--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
Michael A. Covington
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:AX4yc.5214$Y3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote
>
> > > > - Ilford Microphen
> > > That is not a particularly fine-grain developer. Did you mean Ilford
> > > Perceptol (= Kodak Microdol-X)?
> > No, that's Micropen [sic].
>
> > [In the] Ilford Product Guide ... Microphen's
> > main feature is the possibility to increase speed, and to
> > give finer grain [than what? [ed.]].
> >
> > Don't you agree with these sentences?
>
> No.
>
> The shadow speed is a function of the film, not the developer.
I thought it was generally acknowledged that Phenidone-based developers give
higher shadow speed than MQ developers. Only about 1/3 stop higher.
My brief experience with Microphen, some years ago, was that it gave at
least as much grain as D-76/ID-11, if not more.
Martin Jangowski
>>
>> The shadow speed is a function of the film, not the developer.
> I thought it was generally acknowledged that Phenidone-based developers give
> higher shadow speed than MQ developers. Only about 1/3 stop higher.
> My brief experience with Microphen, some years ago, was that it gave at
> least as much grain as D-76/ID-11, if not more.
I run sensitometric tests with ID11 and Microphen (and several others).
Microphen is a tiny bit faster and a little grainier, but nothing
to write home about. Your 1/3 stop difference is correct... not
noticeable in normal life. I made tests on APX100 and developed
small strips of a film with 36 identical pictures in several
developers ranging from Rodinal over D23, ID11, Microphen,
Xtol to Stoeckler Twobath. It is barely possible to
distuingish enlargements to 20x30cm (from a 24x36 neg)
between Rodinal, the fine grain developers and Xtol.
There is no visible difference between ID11, Microphen and D23
(all used 1+1) enlarged 8x, at 16x you start to see tiny
differences, but these are too small to see at typical
screen resolutions, only in a A/B comparison.
Martin
Elia Freddi
<bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>Uzytkownik "whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> napisal w
>wiadomosci
>
>> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
>> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
>> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>>Don't know how it would work with Neopan and Plus-X, but an old (?)
>Kodak (?) formula called D-23 (look in the Darkroom Cookbook) works
>wonders with Tri-X. Less grain than in ID-11, smooth, velvety blacks.
Very good suggestion. D-23 is really a fine grain developer. The only
cons I found are that there is a certain speed loss and that it can be
critical from acutance point of view - the grain looks a little fluffy
and this doesn't help. In my opinion is a very good choice for
portraits, where normally the highest acutance is not a must.
Rs
Elia Freddi
················································
"Sii tecnico spietato con il mezzo e poeta con la mente" - il ratto
MypagE at http://efreddi.altervista.org/
Michael Scarpitti
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:51:26 +0200, "Magdalena W."
> <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
> >
> >Uzytkownik "whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> napisal w
> >wiadomosci
> >
> >> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> >> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> >> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
> >>Don't know how it would work with Neopan and Plus-X, but an old (?)
> >Kodak (?) formula called D-23 (look in the Darkroom Cookbook) works
> >wonders with Tri-X. Less grain than in ID-11, smooth, velvety blacks.
>
> Very good suggestion. D-23 is really a fine grain developer. The only
> cons I found are that there is a certain speed loss and that it can be
> critical from acutance point of view - the grain looks a little fluffy
> and this doesn't help. In my opinion is a very good choice for
> portraits, where normally the highest acutance is not a must.
> Rs
>
Not a good choice at all. Too mushy. The poster requires 'excellent
acutance' and D-23 will not provide anywhere near that. Too much
solvent. The answer IS Acutol.
Mike King
grain developers usually have some sort of solvent action to knock the edges
off the grains and make the image APPEAR finer grained, high accutance
developers exaggerate the transitions form light to dark and make the grain
edges more pronounced. You've asked for a difficult combination!
If you are going to use Tri-X (or whatever) learn to love the film for the
qualities it possesses, rather than try to bend the material to your
perception of what it SHOULD be. Go to galleries and look at real prints,
invest in a few really good prints (preferably from photographers that
prefer the same type of subjects, have similar habits, use similar gear,
shoot the same types of film and have a workflow similar to yours).
Here's my suggestion. Try either D-76 or ID-11 diluted 1+1, refine your
exposure and processing times, shoot many rolls over a year or ten to get
minimum exposure, minimum processing and total wet times, print with a
diffused light source for smoother transitions between tones and at some
point you'll learn to love the film you are using for it's inherent
qualities or move on to another film. I solved my problem with Tri-X's
grain by simply moving to medium format.
--
darkroommike
----------
"whitewave" <marcob8...@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news:8d5cc0h3ogpotvd6e...@4ax.com...
> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
> (I don't care a lot about shadow details).
>
> I strated developing my films 2 months ago, and 'til now I've used
> only ID11 1+1 and Rodinal with Agfa APX 25.
>
> ID11 seems to be a good compromise for what I'm looking for, but
> maybe you can suggest me a better choice.
>
PG
> ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
PMK Pyro! ;-)
PG
**********************************************
E-mail: piggy_pallaN...@inwind.it
ICQ: 256086181
**********************************************
15/06/04 10.02.54 Portfolio:
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/23832.html
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=42898
**********************************************
Stefano Bramato
> In data Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:48:28 +0200, whitewave ha scritto:
>
> > ...that can give me, mostly with tri-x, Neopan and Plus-x, VERY fine
> > grain, excellent acutance, good contrast and very smooth tones.
>
> PMK Pyro! ;-)
:D
--
John
<mar...@jangowski.de> wrote:
>There is no visible difference between ID11, Microphen and D23
>(all used 1+1) enlarged 8x, at 16x you start to see tiny
>differences, but these are too small to see at typical
>screen resolutions, only in a A/B comparison.
I can see the differences between Microphen and D23 at 8X
easily. In fact I use a 9X loupe for viewing of negs and the
differences are obvious.
BTW, two things you left out for Microphen are :
1) Capacity - Excellent. At least as good as T-Max RS.
2) Durability - 2nd to Rodinal among alkaline developers.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
John
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>My brief experience with Microphen, some years ago, was that it gave at
>least as much grain as D-76/ID-11, if not more.
Slightly more than D76. If used at 1:3, Microphen will look a
lot like Rodinal.
John
wrote:
>The shadow speed is a function of the film, not the developer.
/\/\/\
"largely" ??
John
>My experience with Microdol was very fine grain (even diluted 1+3) but
>lack of sharpness. Not my kind of dev.
>I believe D-23 will be in the same class.
>
>Jorge O
At 1:3 the grain is fine and sharp. I recommend it.