Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,959   Posts: 1,558,200   Online: 1156
      
Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 202
  1. #21
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,336
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    So Ian, it was my understanding that for a given film, fine grain developers essentially make a slightly softer images than high sharpness developers. For example that XTol used straight would produce finer grain than XTol at 1:4 because at 1:4 it has less solvent effect to smooth the edges. Am I off in that thinking?
    It's a balance, Xtol at Full strength and replenished gives the best all round qualities in terms of fine grain, sharpness and tonality, better than fresh unused Xtol which is still good but I'd use at 1+2 for the best balkance if used dilute. I used to do that with ID-11/D76.

    If I went for a true fine grain developer like Perceptol or Microdol-X I'd again use at 1+2 and that combination does give the best balance of speed, sharpness, fine grain and tonality. I have a friend who uses Perceptol like this.

    So yes in the example you gave above you're right but I was referring to the differences between a fine grain developer like Perceptol and a standard like ID-11/D76.

    Ian

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,877
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    So Ian, it was my understanding that for a given film, fine grain developers essentially make a slightly softer images than high sharpness developers. For example that XTol used straight would produce finer grain than XTol at 1:4 because at 1:4 it has less solvent effect to smooth the edges. Am I off in that thinking?
    Mark, perceived sharpness seems to have more to do with graininess and edge effects. The smooth edges thing (traditional acutance) doesn't really hold water when you look at what is happening at the microscopic level. It also depends heavily on the film. For example when Altman and Henn did their famous study of solvent effects, guess what - with Panatomic-X, D-25 (an extra fine grain, highly solvent formula) produced the same acutance as D-76 1:1 but with significantly lower graininess. The results were the opposite with Tri-X. Richard Henry's tests were similarly illuminating in revealing that generalizations are impossible. One constant appears to be that you pay a substantially higher price in graininess to get a modest increase in acutance. You might want to check out my thread in the exposure forum.

  3. #23
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,631
    Images
    152
    All the things people mention about temperature, minimizing exposure, etc will not substantially effect the grain size.....smaller golf balls. If you like the classic look, try another classic developer like HC110 or D76 or Ilford's equivilents. HC110 is much less grainy than Rodinal and a little more than D76.
    Your first 10,000 pictures are the worst - HCB

    www.markjamesfisher.com

  4. #24
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    602
    >> For short: Use Rodinal at 16°C, with longer development time. The factor is around 1.6.
    > How do you agitate?

    I gave the factor for longer dev time, because you may use your ususl agitation scheme. Simply multiply the time for 20° with 1.6.

    I agitate continuously.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  5. #25
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    >> For short: Use Rodinal at 16°C, with longer development time. The factor is around 1.6.
    > How do you agitate?

    I gave the factor for longer dev time, because you may use your ususl agitation scheme. Simply multiply the time for 20° with 1.6.

    I agitate continuously.
    For how long? How many times per minute?

    For eg, @mono suggests:


    Quote Originally Posted by mono View Post
    Go with 1:50 and lower temperatures.
    HP5+, 400 ASA, 23 min at 16 C.
    There is an article (http://home.arcor.de/piu58/fotoweb/a...ze/Rodinal.pdf) about Rodinal development with lower temperatures, but only in German.

    What kind of agitation would one use?

    X sec continious initial, then x sec every y minute?
    Andy

  6. #26
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    602
    >> I agitate continuously.
    > For how long? How many times per minute?

    I turn the tank top down, wait a second or two, turn it back, wait a second or two ... continuously. But that plays not a lage role. Keep your way of agitation and multiply the times for 20° with 1.6.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  7. #27
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    686
    Images
    4
    If you like that look and do not want to see as much grain, use thornton. If the chems are not found locally, B&H will ship internationally.

    Thornton is a high acutance developer, especially when used standing. Being 2 step developer the dev times are short enough not to have any of the typical streaking associated with stand. The recipe is posted on this site.

    Here is something shot with neopan 400. Sorry I have no samples for hp5+, but you would be in the same ball park.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8864450999_e35503c9c6_z_d.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	133.4 KB 
ID:	70603
    Get it right in the camera, the first time...

  8. #28
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by mrred View Post
    If you like that look and do not want to see as much grain, use thornton. If the chems are not found locally, B&H will ship internationally.
    Thornton is a high acutance developer, especially when used standing. Being 2 step developer the dev times are short enough not to have any of the typical streaking associated with stand. The recipe is posted on this site.
    By "Thornton" you mean the two-bath developer called DiXactol = stain developer from Barry Thornton?
    See: http://www.barrythornton.com and http://www.apug.org/forums/forum223/...-two-bath.html and http://www.monochromephotography.com...920_83800.html and http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/dixactol.htm.

    One of the developers on my list to try sometimes.
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  9. #29
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    686
    Images
    4
    No, just the D23 variant.
    Get it right in the camera, the first time...

  10. #30
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    686
    Images
    4
    Get it right in the camera, the first time...

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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