Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,018   Online: 920
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    MattKrull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    While I appreciate the recommendations for various replacement films, that never was the intention of this post. As it is, I enjoy both traditional and T-grain films. On my medium format (where I'm usually going for sharpness) I'm using Delta and like it. As mentioned, I'm looking to try some retro emulsions later, but not yet.

    In 35mm so far I've found myself more drawn to the traditional films (Plus-X for slow, HP5+ for fast), but that's only been scanned. As it is, while I stick to a single developer, I'm very "free loving" with film, and am happy to play with many films and select each roll based on the current project. The large supply of Plus-X gives me a nice 'baseline' film for when I just want to shoot and don't have a specific look going in. I could probably be happy with any one of a half dozen film stocks as my baseline.

    I like the recommendation of finding a baseline replacement before the current roll runs out. I may put in an order for 100' of ORWO over the winter. I'll also probably pick up a brick or roll of FP4 around the same time, since those seem the most similar.

    Back to the Chemistry-for-camera-nerds: I didn't realize different emulsions had different perm abilities. I only knew the silver content was a determining factor of development speed. So what advantages do less permeable emulsions have (since the industry seems to have moved that way)? Or rather, is there some negative side effect (such as shorter shelf life) that comes with more permeable emulsions?

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    Tmax100 is Lovely in 35mm!!

  3. #33
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,806
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Tmax100 is Lovely in 35mm!!
    I believe "lovely" was one of the characteristics that Kodak was after when T-max 100 was first designed. :-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    MattKrull, there are a multitude of factors in an emulsion affecting development times. There are factors affecting induction periods, diffusion characteristics, and development activity itself. These can all be influenced not only by gelatin thickness, hardness etc., but also the structure of the crystals (size, shape, flatness), the composition of the crystals (ratios of bromide, iodide etc.), adsorbed sensitization dyes, acutance dyes, and other emulsion additives.

  5. #35
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Sort of on topic ....

    I've always wondered if Kodak or Ilford or ??? could devise different film formulations that would require exactly the same development time in a commonly used, standard developer.

    For example, change Tri-X, T-Max 100, and T-Max 400 so that they would require exactly the same development time in 20C X-Tol.

    I would think that this would be great for commercial labs.
    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

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    I would much rather the current situation wherein emulsions are optimized to yield specific characteristics by design, and deal with different developing times (which should be a virtually irrelevant issue to anyone interested in high quality output). Any effort to standardize inevitably involves compromising elsewhere (ie image structure, characteristic curve, etc.). Absolutely not worth it in my opinion.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    427
    Back in the 1940's, Kodak B&W films were processed pretty uniformly in D-76 at 68F for 17 minutes. (Yeah, that's a long time.)

  8. #38
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,921
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKrull View Post
    I have a few hundred feet of Plus-X 125 left. When that's done, I'll need to find a new 100/125 speed film. Thing is, I'm cheap and lazy, so I like developing in D-76 at 1:1. And Plus-X is fast (7 minutes at 1:1, 4.5 minutes at stock).

    When I look at my options, they take a lot longer to develop.

    Across 100, 10.5 minutes
    Delta 100, 11 minutes
    Fomapan 100, 10 minutes
    FP4 125, 9.5 minutes
    Kentmere 100, 11.5 minutes
    Rollei RPX100, 8 minutes
    Tmax 100, 9.5 miuntes

    Only the Rollei is in the same league as the Plus-X - and it is not cheap (almost twice the cost of HP5+)
    Okay, I'm not going to moan too much about adding 4 minutes to a process that, all told, takes me almost an hour (from loading the reels to hanging the negatives).

    But it raises the question, why do all the still-produced films take longer to develop than Plus-X? Was Plus-X simply a higher silver content? (I recall someone saying the reason Kentmere takes so long to develop was due to the lower silver content)
    FP4+ in HC-110(B) is 7 minutes... Closest in traditional emulsion to plus-x in speed (but I love FP4+ and personally dislike plus-x so depends if you like it. BUT point is, does that work for you? Fast times and cheap!


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

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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