Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,679   Online: 903
      
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88
  1. #71
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    755
    Images
    7
    I like D-76 just fine. But I don't like the hassle of powders and I'm not organized enough to have a batch ready when I need it. I use mostly TMax.

  2. #72
    MattKrull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    133

    Still new...

    When I bought my film development kit (used) a year ago, it came with 3 packets of D-76 powder, 1 gallon of Kodak stop indicator concentrate (I will never need to buy stop bath again), and 400' of Plus-X 125 (I think I'm about 1/3rd the way through that).

    Understandably, D-76 has been my go to developer. However, the first roll of B&W I had developed at a lab was done in ID11, and it turned out super grainy. Which was a problem, since it was Delta400 and supposed to be very low grain. So I've been warry of D-76/ID11 for Delta. When I bought out an ex-film student's supply of medium format Delta 100 & 400, I was thinking ""Well, time to buy that expensive DD-X stuff".

    Turns out, no need. I've now done a couple of rolls of Delta (including a 400 pushed to 800) and it looks fantastic.

    I've just ordered a bottle of Rodinal in hopes of playing with Retro 80S and going for that high-contrast look. Then last weekend I developed some Plus-X 125 I shot at 500, and you know what, it gives pretty much the look I was hoping for. The rodinal is still on it's way, so I'll still play with it (afterall, I don't have Plus-X for the 645, but I can get Retro 80S for it).

    Between my recent successes with D-76, and this thread, I am totally happy stickign with D-76.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    I moved from ID11 to Ilfotec HC. I prefer the look of FP4 in 120 and pushed HP5 in 135 when developed in Ilfotec HC to ID11. PanF in ID11 is superb though.

  4. #74
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,549
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    I moved from ID11 to Ilfotec HC. I prefer the look of FP4 in 120 and pushed HP5 in 135 when developed in Ilfotec HC to ID11. PanF in ID11 is superb though.
    That's interesting. Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Ilfotec-HC were both designed to be liquid concentrate alternatives to D76 and ID-11, with great keeping properties, but otherwise very similar picture qualities.
    How are the Ilfotec-HC pictures different? Did you develop the negatives to the same contrast before you compared? I'm just asking because I'm curious.
    "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

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    That's interesting. Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Ilfotec-HC were both designed to be liquid concentrate alternatives to D76 and ID-11, with great keeping properties, but otherwise very similar picture qualities.
    Hi Thomas, I don't believe they are too similiar. People usually say that because they look similar, are diluted in a similar way and have similar names but my feeling is that Ilfotec HC is a better developer. I'm kidding though as I have never tried the 'original', but those who did agree with me: http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml and http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

    How are the Ilfotec-HC pictures different? Did you develop the negatives to the same contrast before you compared? I'm just asking because I'm curious.
    I heve been developeing film for close to 20 years now but have never done the contrast thing - no densitometer in my darkroom, sorry. The difference between the ID11 and Ilfotec HC shows at the printing stage with my favorite paper - Ilford MG FB 5k (matt). As you know matt paper has a dynamic range that is more limited compared to glossy, also blacks can be visually weaker. After many random combinations of films and developers, HP5 (and Ilford Pan 400), even pushed, printed marveosusly when developed in Ilfotec HC at 1+31. Another matte paper, Fomabrom variant 112, although not as dead matte as Ilford also gives results to my liking when printed from films developed in Ilfotec HC. Very subjective I know, but I'm sticking to it as it gives me results I like from a paper surface that is not everybody's cup of tea. And more difficult to print too. In each case the paper, either Ilford or Foma, was developed in Neutol NE or Moersch eco 4812.

  6. #76
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,549
    Images
    300
    A comparison between two developers and one film is completely meaningless unless you develop the two negatives to the same contrast.

    That is perhaps an inconvenient truth, but truth all the same. Until that has been done, you have not made an apples to apples comparison.

    What remains is convenience, and how a liquid concentrate that lasts longer might be easier to work with.

    Matt paper doesn't actually have less black than glossy. But it appears that way because of the matte surface, which seems like a veil. I print on both Ilford MGIV fiber matte and glossy, so I know the products well.



    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    Hi Thomas, I don't believe they are too similiar. People usually say that because they look similar, are diluted in a similar way and have similar names but my feeling is that Ilfotec HC is a better developer. I'm kidding though as I have never tried the 'original', but those who did agree with me: http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml and http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml


    I heve been developeing film for close to 20 years now but have never done the contrast thing - no densitometer in my darkroom, sorry. The difference between the ID11 and Ilfotec HC shows at the printing stage with my favorite paper - Ilford MG FB 5k (matt). As you know matt paper has a dynamic range that is more limited compared to glossy, also blacks can be visually weaker. After many random combinations of films and developers, HP5 (and Ilford Pan 400), even pushed, printed marveosusly when developed in Ilfotec HC at 1+31. Another matte paper, Fomabrom variant 112, although not as dead matte as Ilford also gives results to my liking when printed from films developed in Ilfotec HC. Very subjective I know, but I'm sticking to it as it gives me results I like from a paper surface that is not everybody's cup of tea. And more difficult to print too. In each case the paper, either Ilford or Foma, was developed in Neutol NE or Moersch eco 4812.
    "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

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    856
    Images
    9
    Thomas, If I was asked to do a comparison between the two developers I would decline such a request.

    You asked "How are the Ilfotec HC pictures different'' And I gave you my subjective answer. I found you statment that one can't compare two things unless they have proper tools to measure diferences unfounded. I can tell one thing is longer than the other without measuring it - what is needed is experience. I can also say that I prefer one thing over the other.

    I also didn's say that MG FB 5k has less black, nor did I say that matte papers have less black in general as you suggested, what I sad is that MG FB 5k black can be visually weaker.

  8. #78
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,658
    Images
    344
    I believe there were some pictures taken in a concentration camp during WWII which were developed in urine. I think they depicted hangings and were very powerful images. So why are we even contemplating developer variation?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,250
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    31
    I haven't left D76, even though I bought several different developers to try. I did try Acufine and it did a wonderful job and was super easy, but I prefer D76 tonality to it. My only peeve about D76 is that I have to use it up within a month after it's mixed or it goes weird because sometimes out place gets a little too warm. I started out w/ D76 and Tri-X shot w/ a yellow filter thinking to keep things simple (and it was a classic combination I'd heard). The more I develop w/ this system, the more I suspect that I may have started where others finally end. I love the look.

  10. #80
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,549
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    Thomas, If I was asked to do a comparison between the two developers I would decline such a request.

    You asked "How are the Ilfotec HC pictures different'' And I gave you my subjective answer. I found you statment that one can't compare two things unless they have proper tools to measure diferences unfounded. I can tell one thing is longer than the other without measuring it - what is needed is experience. I can also say that I prefer one thing over the other.

    I also didn's say that MG FB 5k has less black, nor did I say that matte papers have less black in general as you suggested, what I sad is that MG FB 5k black can be visually weaker.
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to push buttons or be challenging. I asked the questions that I did to find out how you had arrived at liking Ilfotec HC better than the other developer. I'm very happy that you have a solution that works for you.

    I was just stating fact that there is no value in comparing two developers unless the negatives are developed to the same contrast, which ultimately means that the two developers have been used differently. That might be of use to other forum members, perhaps. I don't know.
    Kind of like testing the handling of almost identical cars, but putting comfortable 195 profile tires on one car, and sporty 225 profile on another, and then comparing results, which doesn't work.

    I understand that you don't want to compare, or change, or any of that. I'm the same way.

    Sorry about the comment regarding papers. I read your post wrong. It is true that the matte papers measure the same range as glossy, but appear less deep because of the surface. I run into that all the time when I print too, and find that I have to treat the same paper with the different surface differently.
    "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

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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