Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,939   Posts: 1,557,393   Online: 974
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    773
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    Does this make sense to you?

    Mirko
    Well, not really From a marketing standpoint of view they look very similar, Schärfesteigernder Enwickler on both bottles. And since I prefer the tonality of Neofin to Rodinal I think I might prefer Crawley's brew.

  2. #12
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,460
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    Sharper than Rodinal is tough to achive. Stop using rotation. It´s inferior by any means. I wonder why people use rotary processors at all for B&W.
    I am not very optimistic about B&H stocking our products. The chain gets to long and the price to high.
    Apart from this analog does not seem to be in their main scope anymore.
    I only JUST started rotary processing... I keep seeing that many prefer it... Why is it inferior?
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #13
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    Why is it inferior?
    The problem is the constant agitation. Stand development would be the opposite. The reason why you inverse the tank only after a certain timespan is so that the developer physically exhausts itself in areas where the film has been hit by more light. So the further development/darkening of these areas is prohibited to a certain extend until you inverse again and fresh developer is being brought in. This leads to a better speed utilisation and higher compensation (you can develop longer without the lights blowing out). Sharp edges (Kantenschärfe) are also produced by this effect because the opposite effect takes place on the edge (not exhausted developer from the areas where the film has been hit by little light spreads a bit into the darker areas causing the edges to darken more than the actual area.

    I have to close again with the question if this makes sense (my english seems to degrade) :-)

    Mirko

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,460
    Images
    225
    Your English is better than my ability to speak your language

    Most makes sense, except the end with the edges, are you saying stand is SHARPER but causes more grain? Or that rotary is sharper and causes more grain (which some think is bad?) I found that rotary "blurs" the edges but have only used Rodinal in Rotary so far ... Is this incorrect?
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #15
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,006
    Your English is fine but many of us have tried both and simply don't agree with you.

    If times are adjusted for the same contrast, I can't tell the difference between my rotary developed negatives and inversion developed negatives. Well, except that the rotary ones are never, ever, uneven (exception - I've had some problems with 4x5 in the 2509n reels and tanks lately that I didn't use to have. For some important negatives I went back to deep tanks and hangars.) But once I went rotary my rollfilm has never gone back, except for Diafine which doesn't need the temperature control and recommends only very gentle agitation.)

    This is with conventional developers - mostly T-Max RS and D76 1+1 in my case. I have not tried rotary with Rodinal. I didn't like Rodinal in conventional processing (I know, I'm a heretic, but no matter what I did it just looked weird in a way I didn't like) so I gave it up a long time ago. I have some more to experiment with again when I get the urge.

  6. #16
    Kevin Caulfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,102
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    52
    Mirko, thanks for bringing back FX-39. So, you have the recipe? What's in it?
    Hopefully it will be available in Australia.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    773
    Images
    9
    Anchell and Troop say similar thing as Mirko of Fotoimpex.

  8. #18
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    are you saying stand is SHARPER but causes more grain?
    This is more a question of which developer you use. Sharpness usually comes together with grain. This the common way of perceiption by humans.

    Rotary has little effect on grain. The only difference between stand/inversion and rotary is this local exhaustion phenomen which shields the highlights a bit and causes the edge effect.

    @ Roger: With D76 or ID 11 you will most probably see no big differences as these developers do not work sharpness increasing and have a very large equalizing power. So with these developers the above described effect is lowered to an extend that it probably can be neglected.
    The effect is most visible in one shot-high dilution developers and not with a strong stock solution brew.

    With Rodinal and a non tabular film, many people do see it.

    But I am not on a mission here against rotation. Just pointing out what I know.

    The advantage of controled development might outrun the disadvantage of 1/3rd of a stop of speed difference. Especially when you work the zone system and compensate it with exposure.

    There is also a controled inversion processor: The wonderful Heiland TAS http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/darkr...obo-tanks.html

    We use the above in or testlab.

  9. #19
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,006
    I can see that. Having learned before anyone heard of (or at least wrote about) "stand" development I still find that a bit odd. When I want compensation I typically use Diafine (my standard developer for Pan F+ for example.) And no, I don't use it for rotary development. My negatives are sharp enough for me, and I mostly control highlights with conventional minus development unless they are really extreme.

  10. #20
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    Having learned before anyone heard of (or at least wrote about) "stand" development I still find that a bit odd
    In my lab I have a brochure about stand development which was written in 1914 if I recall right (for sure before WW had ended). I bought it in a Vienna antique shop 10 years ago.
    It makes reference to Rodinal and I think it was written by Agfa in Berlin Kreuzberg SO 36.
    Before they moved to Rummelsburg they were located in Kreuzberg. Then they moved to Wolfen, then partially to Leverkusen, you know the rest...

    I am sure your negatives are more than fine Roger. If you control highligts and compensate by a bit with extra exposure and control your process you will have perfect negs, for sure better than those of 95% of the others.

    On the other hand however someone who´s new to the business and does not know about all these things is well off with a developer which yields the speed (most cameras tend to underexpose), equalizes the negative contrast and gives him a bit of sharpness and grain for the classic look.
    He´ll most likely be using a simple tank with less options of control than you have so the equalizing effect of the "stand development" (it really isn´t yet) adds a bit of a bonus for him.
    So FX-39 will hoepfully find his fans and you please stick to Diafine :-)

    Mirko

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin