Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,764   Posts: 1,484,072   Online: 1052
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    I've been thinking I might try this eventually:

    http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photo...tml#Super_Soup

    Wonder if it would work well with TMZ or Delta 3200? I can get a usable 6400 out of TMZ in T-Max developer. I'd love to get a useful 12.5k. Anything needing speeds faster than 3200 I honestly just prefer digital because film is at the very edges of workable at such speeds, and it's often enough I could use them. But if the miracle is out there...

  2. #12
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    360
    Yes, practice but I can do it due to the "deadline" of the work. Will use XTOL and see what I got. Of course I can use Rodinal...ehehhehe

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,989
    Images
    280
    I've always liked Xtol for its ability to extract shadow detail. It really excels at this.

    Some people like Xtol's tonality, and other people do not. Some people like its fine grain, and other people do not.

    All I know is that I get almost normal tonality when I shoot TMax 400 @ 1600, and use Xtol 1+1 while agitating every minute. Times vary based on contrast while shooting. I also get near normal tonality when I shoot TMax 100 @ 400, agitating every 2 minutes. Times vary based on lighting contrast, of course.
    With TMax 3200 I use replenished Xtol, because the inherent speed is so good. EI 1600 is never a problem, and my preferred speed with it, for best tonality in normal lighting.

    Xtol gives finer grain than TMax. It's also sharper than TMax. And it yields pretty much equal amounts of shadow detail. But it gives a much more muted tonality, and if you can live with that I vote for Xtol. If you like a less muted tonality with highlights that are a bit more 'alive', then TMax should be your choice.

    As for pushing, I don't think that one is all that much better than the other. It's a subjective choice, and your opinion of what the resulting prints look like should dictate that choice.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #14
    mat4226's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Findlay, OH
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    55
    This may sound like an echo of Thom's response above me, but XTOL 1:1 has always been my favorite for push processing. With this combination, I've been able to achieve great looking results up to ASA 3200 with TMax 400 and Delta 3200, and ASA 1600 with Tri-X. In a pinch I've been known to use D76 1:1 for some much grittier push results than XTOL, but like many have said, it's all a matter of taste.
    Co-Host of The Film Photography Podcast, the bi-monthly internet radio show all about film!

  5. #15
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    360
    Yes, I always use XTOL 1:1, like all the results that I had so far. Thanks for all the replies, will use XTOL at 1:1.

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Yes, practice but I can do it due to the "deadline" of the work. Will use XTOL and see what I got. Of course I can use Rodinal...ehehhehe
    Without the benefit of practice I'd suggest following the manufacture's published recommendations to the letter.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17
    Rhodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Figueira da Foz, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Without the benefit of practice I'd suggest following the manufacture's published recommendations to the letter.
    Of course!

  8. #18
    Bertil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    183
    Images
    181
    Haven't been much into push processing, rather the opposite! Once tried using ordinary developers (I think it was T-max-1 400 and T-max developer, maybe it was Tri-x and HC-110): result not very nice, grainy and ugly. Recently made a more convincing try. My idé was this: D-23 is supposed to take everything there is at the shadow part of the negative (the toe part), but suppseed to be slow att the highlight part (though often quite OK depending on the subject). Strongly overdeveloping underexposed negatives with this developer would reasonable be able to raise the middle and highlights enough to make a printable negative. I tried it at 22°C 16 minutes agitating the first minute and than each third minute, and got quite resonable printable negs on TMY-2 (120-film) exposed att iso 1000-1600 (made it possible to hand held Hasselblad 2000FC/M with Tele Tessar 8/500mm using shutterspeeds from 1/1000-1/2000 in not too good light conditions). Exposing att Iso 800 on this film should normally be no problem at all in most situations, as far as I can judge. D-23., perhaps the most simple developer ever formulated!!
    /Bertil

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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