Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by hansbeckert, Oct 28, 2004.
Leica Fotografie article on film developers.
Hans - FP3 + HP4??????? Come on old chap try to stay up with the times how many changes to formulations have taken place since then? You really must try to get out more, we've been sent objects to Mars, the PC is now in almost every home, and I hate to mention it but digital camera technology is even getting into the shops
can you please give the reference to this (volume (year/month) and pages) please?
This should be from the late 70's early 80's since it mentions lots of long gone films.
From what I read there Rodinal doesn;t rate that badly, and yes it is primitive, simple and effective.... over 100 years old and countign
But it's handy to see films like ADOX (efke) being listed there. I doubt that the formulation has changed at all (I think they even mention it being the exact same). Also handy to see Diafine there, along side Neofin & Rodinal... Should make more than a few APUGers happy.
I'm one of them... Thanks Hans
The value of the survey is hardly diminished. The films don't matter so much as the developers, almost all of which are current. This issue is 1/1968. The films haven't changed all that much in any event.
Come on Hans, your telling me that the film producers spend millions of pounds / dollars for the product to stay the same. If things don't change why do we have different times for many of the newer versions of films and not just use the old ones.
My point on the other thread remain the same, those of us that use Rodinal and love it, do so because it gives us the results we want. All the publications every published can be quoted but in the end it's down to personal preference and just because some people like yourself don't like it ..... it doesn't make it the worst soup ever brewed.
The point is that it does not rate near the top in any category.....
I didn't say the films have not changed. Some have, some have not. Plus-X and Tri-X are essentially unchanged, as is (in all likelihood) the Adox/EFKE films. But the most useful aspect of the survey for us today is in the developers used here, which are completely unchanged so far as I know. Thus, we can see how Rodinal works with high speed films (poorly).
Neither do SUVs in fuel consumption, bang for the buck, etc.... and people keep buying those monsters.....
My point? That Rodinal's reputation is not matched by its actual performance...
This is back to the opinions again!
How so? Did you read the article?
Use your eyes or are you blind? LOOK at the pictures... if you like the results use the soup, if you don't move onto another. But use your brain and experience not what data sheets tell you. I agree it's a matter of opion!
Hmmmm....There are speed differences and grain differences. These are not matters of opinion in themselves, surely....they are measurable and observable.
But whether you like a particular film/developer combination is...
Hans - Thank you and that is my point One of the wonderful things about photography is that we can (mostly) choose the combinations that we like for our pictures. Some combinations we like others we hate but that doesn't really make any of them better or worse ... just different. Bit like people really
Some products achieve 'cult' status quite independent of their performance. In the case of Rodinal, I recall when the fad of using it on Tri-X started in the late 1960's. AGFA Brovira #4 paper was used along with this combination. The results were distinctive, but I never cared for it.
Yep ... I think we can agree that you don't like Rodinal and I do. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just like a different look
Unless there is something more definitive than the entry "less", I would tend not to accept this "table" as objective truth.
"Resolution" is, strictly, the ability of an optical system to show two points, closely spaced, as two individual points. With film, many points are of interest, not only two, so the definition is usually expanded to "lines per millimeter." From this chart, I can't see objective information - only the label "less", and that is only for Rodinal 1:50 - apparently 1:25 is .. ?? the same as all the others?
Resolution is really a characteristic of the film. "Fine grain" developers work by diffusing the grain edges, to make the individual grains less noticeable... a "fine grain EFFECT" at the cost of acutance, or "sharpness".
In the end, whether of not a film-developer combination is ACCEPTABLE - or preferable - is an aesthetic decision - up to the photographer - along with many others.
THANKS HANS FOR POSTING THIS.
People can argue interpretations all day but it's good that you spent the time to post the reference.
The way the study was conducted is described in the article. It was quite exacting. Please read in its entirety.
Ah yes, the reference, a possibility of some experimental data. Let's see:
The authors describe this document as a survey, as such, it does not purport to describe a set of controlled experiments and their results. That is good, because the survey has:
No discernable experimental design.
No control samples
No objective standards
Developer dilutions (some are given, some are not)
Maximum resolution is a characteristic of the film. It can, however, change with the developer. In my tests for the article "Salt to Taste" for Photo Techniques, I don't remember the issue, I compared the same film in D-23, D-23 with added sodium chloride, Rodinal with and without added NaCl and with added sodium ascorbate and found differences in resolution that were readily apparent, even though I did not measure them in lines/mm. The most satisfactory to my eyes of the ones I tested was the Rodinal 1+50 + 4 g/l sodium ascorbate.
I agree that it's the photographer's choice, but I think it should be an informed choice. I think also that the same film-developer combination will not be suitable for all purposes.
You were right ... I hadn't read the entire report. I have now. Published in 1968, it still is of some interest.
Now ... objectivity. I did read where they assured the reader that although they didn't quite know how to report the results .. they we still *very* accurate. While this may or may not be true, as far as this article goes, it can be (from experience - it usually IS) a sign that the writer/s are not completely confident in their work. Be that as it may ...
From Column 7 - Graininess"
"... Photographs are designed for visual viewing, and the actual criterion of obtrusiveness or otherwise (??) of grain must therefore be based on visual and subjective determination."
Subjective, not Objective. To me, "subjective" always translates to, "In My Opinion." Further, it claims that magnification, using microscopes, was not feasible, so the viewing was done with the image from a slide projector. Interesting ... but ??? was the "grain" of the screen receiving the image a factor? - And I can't help but wonder why microscopes were "not effective".
The writer might also do well to research the Agfa data sheets for their film, where objective measurements of grain are given ... in terms of "u RMS".
In short, reading the entire article has not changed my opinion of the validity of the data.
Yes, the 'graininess' is to a small extent subjective and imprecise. That's why they assign a range of values to some films. But even with these limitations, clear winners and losers emerge. If the question is asked:
'Is Rodinal a good choice for high speed films?', I would say the answer is 'generally, no.'
Rodinal is not the best among the non-solvent developers. I believe the Paterson developers Acutol and FX-39 far surpass it.
... So, your idea and mine of "Best" are not the same. The revelation of that bit of information doesn't exactly turn my world upside down.
Obviously our ideas of a "clear winner" are not the same either.
Just don't use the word "proof". I break out into hives when I read that word.