Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,928   Posts: 1,585,197   Online: 748
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,104
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    That was a very easy to understand and thorough explanation thanks! I wish you could "favorite" certain parts of a thread and save them so you don't lose them and can refer back to them without reading through 20 pages of response... Alas...

    Ok (and sorry to hijack this thread) but I am not an optical printer, I use a scanner, so scanability is HUGE for me, if a scanner reads grain better, I can always sharpen in post (which I'm slowly learning how to do) but if a scanner likes sharpness over grain I would go that rout, all I know is for B&W of TX400@400, tmax400@400, Pan F+@50, D3200@3200 and TX400@3200 and a few others, all developed in Ilfsol 3, the best was pan F in both crisp looking at full image and grain at 1:1 viewing, D3200 was better at 1:1 in the grain not having a blurry edge over everything but tmax which was still blurrier than pan F.

    This whole system is crazy haha I never used to think about this when I sent everything out, so I never really knew much and it's a bit overwhelming at times and if I had more $ I could risk just trying out different combo's but instead need to be more careful before I jump in.

    I'm going to re-read your post a few times more, but, I thought Ilfsol 3 wasn't as good for high ASA's and only good for 50-100, at least I read that on ilfords site somewhere, I also get turned off by the words "general purpose" because I often equate that to CRAP like you would call Kodak Gold film a general purpose film... Haha.

    I just want to know if I can get any more out of my Pan F+ from a different developer is all.

    I also have some tech pan and some plus-x that I want to take advantage of so I was thinking Adonol and Acros is cheaper than Delta 100 so I don't know if acros is traditional or Tgrain and what best to use with that?

    So, if I understand things, I've listed film combo's, would you change any of the following? And if its an OR, can you suggest a preferred choice?

    New Stuff I'll use a lot...

    Pan F+ - Ilfsol 3 OR Adonol?
    Acros - Ilfsol 3 OR Adonol? OR ID-II?
    Delta 400 - DD-X
    Delta 3200 - DD-X

    Old stock I want to take full advantage of...

    Technical Pan - Adonol?
    Plus-X - Adonol? OR ID-II?

    I have a lot of 70mm C-41 (like a few hundred feet) that I think I may cross process as B&W so if one of the developers that would be best for only say one type of film up there, but I could also use for the x-process it would be ok to say get THIS lol.

    Few! Ok I'll look at getting that book, thanks in advance for a second reply as well


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    A lot going on here. I'll try to address some of your questions.

    1. Acros: Fuji's tabular equivalent of TMax 100 and Delta 100. In terms of grain it falls in between those two, but closer to TMax (TMax has the finest grain). In terms of tonality, all three are relatively similar until you get to the highlights where Acros has high highlight contrast. Acros's other unique property is a near total lack of reciprocity failure up to at least 2 minutes.

    2. Adonal is Rodinal (or something very close to it). While not a true high acutance/compensating developer, it is quite sharp (and grainy). It has been around forever and can produce beautiful negatives. It has many loyal followers (but watch out they can be pretty militant if you tell them it isn't the greatest developer of all time). Dilutions are most often 1+25, 1+50, 1+100. But it is also sometimes used more dilute, particularly by people who like to develop document-type films (Tech Pan, Adox CMS etc) in it. Beware of advice to stand-develop your film in Rodinal. Stand development can yield unique tonalities and enhance edge effects, but it has risks, and is not simply a substitute for controlled development.

    3. I won't comment further on Ilfosol specifically as I have not personally used/tested it. Best to use Ilford's literature on it. Others here may have more experience to share.

    4. Don't be misled by the term "general purpose". It means only that the developer is balanced to produce high quality results with a variety of materials under a wide range of circumstances, as opposed to something more specialized for a specific purpose.

    So as you may have guessed, when it comes to your list of films and developers, it will mostly come down to what kind of negatives you want as opposed to one developer being "better" or "worse". It is largely a matter of personal preference and workflow.

    -ID11 (D76) can work well with nearly anything. It is most often used at stock strength or diluted 1+1 (which will be slightly sharper and slightly grainier). But you can also use it at 1+3 for very sharp negatives. Diluting will also tend to lower contrast, all other variables being equal). See the other email on the general effects of diluting solvent developers. ID11 is pretty hard to beat.

    -Adonal (see above). It will produce sharper looking, but significantly grainier negatives than ID11 with any film. The images will have a different overall "look".

    -DDX will give you a little more film speed than ID11 and Ilford says it is a good match for the Delta films.

    For Tech Pan, tougher call. Some people like dilute Rodinal with it. Alternatively you can use a special low contrast developer. There are several different options for low contrast development, everything from POTA to TD-3. They can yield very different tonalities and film speeds so experimentation is required.

    Hope this helps.
    Michael

  2. #32
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    Pics or go home :P

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w...rodinal&m=text

    That's Delta 3200 in Rodinal at 3200. A bit or bromide drag, i didn't agitate at all.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  3. #33
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    Pics or go home :P

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w...rodinal&m=text

    That's Delta 3200 in Rodinal at 3200. A bit or bromide drag, i didn't agitate at all.

    OK you made me come to my computer and do stuff....

    Pics...

    Look at the last 4(of the houses), the first two are Delta and Tri-x and the second two are a 1:1 zoom of the same images at the best spot on the image I could find that was in focus (apparently one of them is REALY out of focus haha). Both developed in Ilfsol 3. As you can see the Delta has slightly higher grain but MUCH better shadow detail, and the trix developed and pushed so far didn't quite hit the same level of exposure but you can also see that it isn't really all that bad in grain compared to the delta considering how far it was pushed.

    These are NOT my best work just the easiest thing I could find as an example, this is a shot from one of the surviving houses hit by Hurricane Sandy on the CT shoreline.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/2320889...7631947042968/

  4. #34
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    A lot going on here. I'll try to address some of your questions.

    1. Acros: Fuji's tabular equivalent of TMax 100 and Delta 100. In terms of grain it falls in between those two, but closer to TMax (TMax has the finest grain). In terms of tonality, all three are relatively similar until you get to the highlights where Acros has high highlight contrast. Acros's other unique property is a near total lack of reciprocity failure up to at least 2 minutes.

    2. Adonal is Rodinal (or something very close to it). While not a true high acutance/compensating developer, it is quite sharp (and grainy). It has been around forever and can produce beautiful negatives. It has many loyal followers (but watch out they can be pretty militant if you tell them it isn't the greatest developer of all time). Dilutions are most often 1+25, 1+50, 1+100. But it is also sometimes used more dilute, particularly by people who like to develop document-type films (Tech Pan, Adox CMS etc) in it. Beware of advice to stand-develop your film in Rodinal. Stand development can yield unique tonalities and enhance edge effects, but it has risks, and is not simply a substitute for controlled development.

    3. I won't comment further on Ilfosol specifically as I have not personally used/tested it. Best to use Ilford's literature on it. Others here may have more experience to share.

    4. Don't be misled by the term "general purpose". It means only that the developer is balanced to produce high quality results with a variety of materials under a wide range of circumstances, as opposed to something more specialized for a specific purpose.

    So as you may have guessed, when it comes to your list of films and developers, it will mostly come down to what kind of negatives you want as opposed to one developer being "better" or "worse". It is largely a matter of personal preference and workflow.

    -ID11 (D76) can work well with nearly anything. It is most often used at stock strength or diluted 1+1 (which will be slightly sharper and slightly grainier). But you can also use it at 1+3 for very sharp negatives. Diluting will also tend to lower contrast, all other variables being equal). See the other email on the general effects of diluting solvent developers. ID11 is pretty hard to beat.

    -Adonal (see above). It will produce sharper looking, but significantly grainier negatives than ID11 with any film. The images will have a different overall "look".

    -DDX will give you a little more film speed than ID11 and Ilford says it is a good match for the Delta films.

    For Tech Pan, tougher call. Some people like dilute Rodinal with it. Alternatively you can use a special low contrast developer. There are several different options for low contrast development, everything from POTA to TD-3. They can yield very different tonalities and film speeds so experimentation is required.

    Hope this helps.
    Michael
    Yes this does help, seeing as how Acros is also a T film, I think I'll go with DDX for ALL of the T grains, Stick with Ilfsol 3 for my Pan F+ but experiment when I can, (I was aware Rodinal was Adonol, they bought the patent for it I believe) I'll try the Adonal with my Pan-x/Plus-x/Tech Pan since it's all old anyway I won't mind experimenting.

    When you say "DDX gives you more film speed" do you mean that you can push film further with it than other developers? or am I missunderstanding?

    My main concern was getting the most out of the "Extreme" films (Pan F+ and Delta3200) and also not spending hours developing, my favorite part of Pan F+ in Ilfsol 3 is the 4 minute development time!

    Thanks so much! where did you come from I've never seen you post before but damn you're thorough!

  5. #35
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,953
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Yes this does help, seeing as how Acros is also a T film, I think I'll go with DDX for ALL of the T grains, Stick with Ilfsol 3 for my Pan F+ but experiment when I can, (I was aware Rodinal was Adonol, they bought the patent for it I believe) I'll try the Adonal with my Pan-x/Plus-x/Tech Pan since it's all old anyway I won't mind experimenting.

    When you say "DDX gives you more film speed" do you mean that you can push film further with it than other developers? or am I missunderstanding?

    My main concern was getting the most out of the "Extreme" films (Pan F+ and Delta3200) and also not spending hours developing, my favorite part of Pan F+ in Ilfsol 3 is the 4 minute development time!

    Thanks so much! where did you come from I've never seen you post before but damn you're thorough!
    The rights to the name Rodinal were royally screwed up - essentially the people who now make what was once known as Rodinal aren't allowed to use the name.

    A reference to a developer "giving you more film speed" means that that developer maximizes the density achieved by the film in response to normal lighting - a speed enhancing developer like X-Tol makes it more likely that you will be able to achieve good shadow detail with Tri-X when you meter at an EI of 400 (same as its ISO speed). Another developer (e.g. Rodinal or HC-110 dil B) might require you to use an EI of 320 when metering to achieve the same shadow detail.

    A 4 minute development time is close to being not recommended. It is so short that you have to be very precise to achieve repeatability. I try for at least 6 minutes.

    And Michael comes from up north, in Quebec, Canada, so of course he is thorough
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  6. #36
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    227

    Developer for Ilford Delta 3200

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The rights to the name Rodinal were royally screwed up - essentially the people who now make what was once known as Rodinal aren't allowed to use the name.

    A reference to a developer "giving you more film speed" means that that developer maximizes the density achieved by the film in response to normal lighting - a speed enhancing developer like X-Tol makes it more likely that you will be able to achieve good shadow detail with Tri-X when you meter at an EI of 400 (same as its ISO speed). Another developer (e.g. Rodinal or HC-110 dil B) might require you to use an EI of 320 when metering to achieve the same shadow detail.

    A 4 minute development time is close to being not recommended. It is so short that you have to be very precise to achieve repeatability. I try for at least 6 minutes.

    And Michael comes from up north, in Quebec, Canada, so of course he is thorough
    Thanks Matt,

    Well the nude image of the girl in bed in my gallery was developed at 4 minutes and seemed to be perfect on the exposure, am I wrong? I didn't touch it so its as it scanned and I don't have the scanner adjust for anything.

    So you actually over expose slightly (roughly 1/2 stop) if you plan to use rodinol as an example?

    Good to know

    Wish more people used Ilfslol 3 other than me so I could hear their thoughts and comparisons, ah well, I think I have a good amount of understanding now.


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #37
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,953
    Images
    60
    The problems with short times are:

    1) it is difficult to ensure repeatability, due to factors like varying fill and pour times and inconsistent agitation procedures; and
    2) you are much more likely to encounter problems with uneven development such as mottling or streaking.

    Longer development times help you avoid both types of problems.

    The different speed "tendencies" of different film and developer combinations are a primary reason why it is a very good idea to perform your own speed tests, using your own cameras, lenses, meters, chemistry and techniques to determine what EI works best for you when determining exposure.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #38
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    227

    Developer for Ilford Delta 3200

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The problems with short times are:

    1) it is difficult to ensure repeatability, due to factors like varying fill and pour times and inconsistent agitation procedures; and
    2) you are much more likely to encounter problems with uneven development such as mottling or streaking.

    Longer development times help you avoid both types of problems.

    The different speed "tendencies" of different film and developer combinations are a primary reason why it is a very good idea to perform your own speed tests, using your own cameras, lenses, meters, chemistry and techniques to determine what EI works best for you when determining exposure.
    Gotcha, thanks (on all counts).

    I'm ordering some other developers to see what I like etc. I'm fairly accurate with pour and agitation techniques, I'm anal when it comes to that thankfully, but I'll certainly heed your advice.


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,104
    Agree with Matt. In any case you won't get 4 minute times with most of the combos you listed anyway. For example, for normal contrast you'll likely be somewhere in the 7-8 minute range with Acros/DDX.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,278
    Images
    2
    Has anyone compared DDX and Diafine. I've shot almost a roll at 1600 and it needs development.
    W.A. Crider

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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