Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,862   Online: 1074
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,452
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Honesty can't cite a reference, but I remember reading a list of products that Were Arista labeled that were really Kodak, I could have sworn that was listed as well as tri-x being part of am the Arista line of film.

    I have no recollection as to where I read that, it was a while ago and I don't use it so I can't compare personally.

    Sorry to upset the balance here.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Champion does make chemistry for Freestyle, but I don't know how the arista xtol relates to the kodak branded stuff. It would be easy enough to test, and if it walks like a duck...

  2. #22
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Mark,

    Why do you use DD-X with FP4 when Ilfsol 3 is the branded match? It's not.a Tgrain developer so just curious why you like DD-X over Ilfsol 3?


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't know where you are getting your info but according to Ilford DD-X provides; the best image quality, finest grain, and fastest speed for FP4.

    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...2125850702.pdf

    My personal experience with FP4 and DD-X has been really pleasing and really easy and really forgiving.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,098
    Stone - actually ID-11 (D-76) is still the best overall "match" for FP4 (and virtually any other film!). DDX is recommended by Ilford for best overall image quality with FP4 in a liquid developer (as opposed to a powder mix). DDX is not just for Delta films. And it gives a little more film speed in general than ID-11. Beyond that it's just up to each photographer to work with the combo and decide if he is happy with the tonality, and the balance of sharpness, graininess and speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Mark,

    Why do you use DD-X with FP4 when Ilfsol 3 is the branded match? It's not.a Tgrain developer so just curious why you like DD-X over Ilfsol 3?


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Stone - actually ID-11 (D-76) is still the best overall "match" for FP4 (and virtually any other film!).
    I'll grant ID-11 is a really good developer but better than DD-X, says who? Got a reference for that?

    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  5. #25
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,992
    Images
    226

    Ilfords equivalents?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Stone - actually ID-11 (D-76) is still the best overall "match" for FP4 (and virtually any other film!). DDX is recommended by Ilford for best overall image quality with FP4 in a liquid developer (as opposed to a powder mix). DDX is not just for Delta films. And it gives a little more film speed in general than ID-11. Beyond that it's just up to each photographer to work with the combo and decide if he is happy with the tonality, and the balance of sharpness, graininess and speed.
    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/...ilm+Developers

    That's where I read that Ilfsol 3 was the match for FP4...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #26
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,947
    Images
    60
    Back to Christopher's initial plan.

    It occurs to me that a 52 week project would be an ideal environment for transitioning to use of XTol in a replenishment regime.
    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

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Honesty can't cite a reference, but I remember reading a list of products that Were Arista labeled that were really Kodak, I could have sworn that was listed as well as tri-x being part of am the Arista line of film.
    I have no recollection as to where I read that, it was a while ago and I don't use it so I can't compare personally.
    Sorry to upset the balance here.
    Fair enough. Sorry about challenging you. There's so much hocum on the internet that I've gotten in the habit of questioning anything that's surprising. Anyway, Kodak published an older formula for XTOL in their patent, so it wouldn't take much work to reverse-engineer the current product and make a close clone.

    And speaking of patents, the XTOL patent (US5853964) is dated Dec. 29, 1998, and thus has not yet expired. So the Eco-Pro product must either be produced with Kodak's approval or Freestyle is living dangerously.

    Mark Overton

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,098
    Mark: Just poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to say it is better than DDX. Ilford often recommends ID-11 in the powder column for "best overall image quality" (and DDX in the liquid column) and I just wanted to highlight that. Normally I wouldn't call any of Ilford's or Kodak's developers better or worse etc anyway. I'd just talk about working properties. I have data, but "better"/"worse" is a subjective assessment. Apologies for the confusion.

    Stone: Normally I would recommend going to the manufacturer's tech publications for films (in this case FP4) although the tech publication for FP4 only mentions Ilfosol S, not Ilfosol 3. The point is, a variety of developers will work fine. Ilford's guidelines are useful, but ultimately you have to decide if you like the results or not. "Best overall image quality" is Ilford's guideline for a good balance of characteristics. But you might want more speed, or less graininess, or more sharpness etc. Of course, how you use a developer (dilutions, agitation etc) affects these properties as well.

    Don't sweat it. I'm sure Ilfosol 3 is a fine developer.

  9. #29
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/...ilm+Developers

    That's where I read that Ilfsol 3 was the match for FP4...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think what Ilford is saying is that Ilfosol is somewhat better with slower films than with faster films.

    That is simply "a characteristic of the developer" rather than a "preferred pairing" with a film.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Mark: Just poor wording on my part.

    ...

    Don't sweat it. I'm sure Ilfosol 3 is a fine developer.
    I suffer from that affliction too.

    I agree on the don't sweat it advice, there are more important things to worry about.

    After four years of developing now I believe that it doesn't matter much until someone can fill in the blanks in this statement; "I use "_________" in "________" and I just wish it made things "_________".
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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