I'm well south of the Arctic Circle, so I only get about 20 hours of darkness. And I need that sleep to catch up, as the summer has 20 hours of daylight ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by philldresser
Printable View
I'm well south of the Arctic Circle, so I only get about 20 hours of darkness. And I need that sleep to catch up, as the summer has 20 hours of daylight ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by philldresser
[quote="Ole"]Tried stand development for the first time today...
I had some pre-mixed FX-2 sitting around from developing this weekend's worth of 5x7" film. I did half in Pyrocat-HD, half in FX-2 to see what the difference is.
Just curious to know what difference you found, if any, between the negatives developed in FX-2 and Pyrocat-HD?
Sandy
A quick look at the negatives shows that FX-2 seems to give slightly better speed (more shadow separation), but poorer highlight separation. I will make some prints tomorrow, as the stain of Pyrocat-HD makes it very difficult to assess negatives visually. Both sets were developed by inspection to about the same visual density.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
If the prints confirm these observations, I'll turn to FX-2 for "small" negatives and poor light, using Pyrocat-HD for larger negatives to be contact printed. The FX-2 (or as close to it as I could get) seems to be a very good choise for stand development, at least...
I followed the recipe in "The Film Development Cookbook" with the following modifications: Replaced crystalline potassium carbonate with anhydrous, reducing the amount by 20% as well as replacing 10% of the sodium sulfite by sodium bisulfite. This was because I don't have crystalline K2CO3, which is said to contain some bicarbonate giving a buffering effect. Using a bisulfite/sulfite mix gives the same effect.
In the tests that I've run with Pyrocat HD and stand development, I've seen about a 1/3 stop loss in speed. I get full film speed with standard development, but find that the shadows are lacking for stand dev when rated at the manufacturers speed.
I can't really say anything about that, as I haven't tried Pyrocat-HD with stand development yet. The films I did with FX-2 seems to indicate that this may be so in that case too, but the films were different (FP4+ and TMX vs. PL100), and the camera/lens were different too (shutter sped may be different). FX-2 with normal development seems to give a slight speed increase (about 2/3 to 1 stop), which is what I'd expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverpixels5
My belief is that if there is a loss of film speed with stand development with either FX-2 or Pyrocat-HD the reason is development time was not long enough for the dilution used. In this case it is merely a question of getting the right combination of dilution and time of development. So if you are getting reduced film speed with eithe of these developers I would recommend that you either make the dilution slightly more energetic or increase development times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ole
The more critical issue is evenenss of development. That is the thing I am always most concerned about with stand development.
Perhaps I'll try a longer time then. I have yet to encounter any fogging or infectious dev with one hour of development, so we'll see what a longer time yields.
I've just done some Delta 3200 (120) in PCAT this way-40 mins in paterson tank-negs look vg (just a few marks on one side)-rated at 1600.I agitated for 1 min at the beginning and 1 min halfway through. Should you just do one roll at a time in the same tank?