Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,623   Online: 1038
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Acros really is a different fuil in pyro devs, ceasing to become a TMax'alike and really having invisible grain AND edges. I love it, but at £50+ for a box of quickload, it is is for posh hols or when someone else is paying! So far, I far prefer it to Tmax, which seems weird as I have heard so many techie tests saying it is so close to Tmax why pay more for the Fuji - I dont agree. I do feel that because of the ultra fine grain, they only come alive when enlarged a fair bit, remaining a bit toothless when small and a million miles from showing grain - again pyro helps here. On the whole tho I prefer traditional films (where I am able to load darkslides without dust problems etc) and feel that FP4 Efke PL100 are about thes best all round options. I just need some good weather in NW (broken cloud, scattered showers, intermittent sun) to get me out shooting again for some more experiments.....now that a Berlebach is on the way, I cannot wait to try 10x8....but dont fancy any film tests with that stuff!

    Tom

  2. #22
    Baxter Bradford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lymington, South Coast, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    102
    Agree Acros pricing is ridiculous. I have now only used 5 sheets of my "free" 20 sheet QLoad box from the Robert White Velvia QL offer. Nevertheless these sheets leap off the lightbox with real zing, over the other films which have all been in PMK.

    It works out at 4x price of Ilford films and over 3x that of Kodak Readyload Tmax and then you have to try to add space around the edges for that stupid little hole in the corner!

    Like you I still expect to be lugging around lots of darkslides unless they have a serious rethink about the price. It is after all a good time and opportunity for them to push this film as a superior alternative to the Ilford emulsions.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Anyone not familiar with pyrocats abilties to hold highlights, have a peek in the technical gallery (in a few minutes). See APX100 pyrocat test sun on water....I certainly used reduced development as I was testing the film/dev and the normal scenes needed grade 4 (see APX100 pyrocat test Inlet). Even so the sun on water printed at grade 3 (tone etc added in PS, otherwise faithful). 'Inlet' is muddy even at grade 4 and would need lots of hard work in the darkroon. I think I also underexposed...prob forgot filter factor for No 11....

    Tom

  4. #24
    Baxter Bradford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lymington, South Coast, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    102
    Tom
    Another thought is to try the Prescycol dev tested in B+W by Les McLean. I personally didn't find the review too helpful, feeling that smaller pictures and less narrative would have made way for more factual info and/or more inclusion of another trial image; but it did show good seperation in the mid to high greys which you are after, better than PMK in fact.
    I appreciate getting yet another developer is potentially a pain, but it is made by the chap who is now manufacturing Barry T's products. More importantly it seemed to work straight out of the box (or bottles). I intend trying it at some stage, but until my curiosity gets the better of me, have another lot of PMK to get through first.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Personally, I feel that I just need ot get times/concentrations sorted for Pyrocat HD, as the problem I have is the same as I had for B Thortons devs - they need quite a bit more development when VC papers are used and the image was lowish in contrast - Its not the dev's fault, it would appear that I have more work to do!. In all respects pyrocat is the equal of Exactol/Dixactol, but perhaps a more ideal blend of the two, tho perhaps not for smaller formats where Exactol Lux was perhaps finer grained. At the stated times for Exactol Lux/Dixactol , I personally found that anything but a reasonably bright contrasty scene produce muddy prints on VC apart from the highest grades. I used the standard times when shooting very contrasty stuff, printing happily on G3 VC! If dev time was increased much with Dixactol, grain was incredible - I have a 120 film (maco 820C) that looks like 35mm HP5! I have printed the Exactol negs on 3 different enlargers, all with the same results. Even after doing rigid film tests us ing distilled water etc, I found I needed more development, however, times were certainly lower than pyrocat HD - Perhaps the stock solutions were a bit more concentrated? I would guess that Presyscol is not going to be far different from Exactol Lux/Pyrocat, especially as BT said that about 80% of Dixactol users had swithched to exactol....

    Tom

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Just tried expansion in pyrocat for the first time and it worked very well. Time kept same as 1:1 and just used 1.5:1.5. I placed the shadows on Z2.5, highlights falling on 6 (so I knew I would be unlikely to blow this one in my play about) and now a contrasty glowing print on G2.5 VC. I intend to be a bit more methodical in future but this worked nicely. I am tempted to use concentration increases for expansion rather than time as I want to keep times reasonably short at 20 degs C. Can anyone see a problem with this?

    I think some of my concerns about flat subjects (and therefore) expansion were becasue of the terrible experiences I am having with some 10x8 Maco 100 (efke 100 supposedly)...

    Seems to be great so far....so perhaps I am not far off being a one dev photographer!

    Tom

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth
    I am tempted to use concentration increases for expansion rather than time as I want to keep times reasonably short at 20 degs C. Can anyone see a problem with this?

    Tom

    No, in fact I think it is a great idea. I am thinking about working out some different N+ and N- for my favorite films times based on change of concentration rather than changes in time because this will eliminate the increase in B+F that accompanies long development times, especially when developing for alternative processes.

    Sandy

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Just an update on the 10x8 Maco up100 (efke?) I have been having problems with. I just souped the hell out of it using DDX 1:4 at 25 degs C and 15 minutes constant agitation. Still very poor max density despite (just) decent shadow detail (rated at ISO 80 as I intended to expand the scene using pyrocat originally.). I am really not getting anywhere, whereas the other films I have tried work faultlessly in terms of building contrast. Seems that there is something wrong with this film. For whatever reason it is Sh**e! Lets face it if in DDX it just scrapes ISO 80 when dev'd for this long it lacks speed AND Dmax. Reminds me of what people said about bergger being no good for expansion, but great for really contrasty scenes needing N minus development. I'm sprinting back to the warm ilford bosom, now that it available again and never going back. That base fog regardless of developer and susceptibility to scratching is a real pain. The first time I tried Efke pl100 was shooting contrasty water scenes and the prints were lovely. Jut aint working for me in Wales! Maybe dodgy old knackered film I s'pose....

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    No, in fact I think it is a great idea. I am thinking about working out some different N+ and N- for my favorite films times based on change of concentration rather than changes in time because this will eliminate the increase in B+F that accompanies long development times, especially when developing for alternative processes.Sandy
    Does this really happen, Sandy? I've never tried changing developer concs, just time. Why does the B+F not increase proportionally to the contrast index, regardless of the time it takes to generate a given contrast? Afterall, higher strength developer will be more active so it should build fog levels faster than a lower strength developer given the same amount of time. Maybe you have some data to demonstrate this?

    THanks - Kirk

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Does this really happen, Sandy? I've never tried changing developer concs, just time. Why does the B+F not increase proportionally to the contrast index, regardless of the time it takes to generate a given contrast? Afterall, higher strength developer will be more active so it should build fog levels faster than a lower strength developer given the same amount of time. Maybe you have some data to demonstrate this?

    THanks - Kirk
    Kirk,

    What Jay suggests in his related message is very similar to my own intuitive reasoning on the matter. But no, I don't have any data to demonstate that it indeed happens this way, though I have quite a number of observations that suggests that the mechanism he describes is the operative one.

    Sandy

Page 3 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