Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,592   Posts: 1,546,001   Online: 935
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,464
    I have used the Clayton F-76+ with Fomapan and like it a lot. I tried Ilfosol-3 before that and couldn't stand it.

    Right now I'm using HC-110, dilution H with Fomapan and like that too. But not as much as the F-76+
    - Bill Lynch

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    518
    Been gone all day getting a dog/puppy for my 83yr old mommy and haven't checked back here until now. Bill, I like what I hear and can't wait to give it a try. I checked my email and got a invoice/shipping confirmation from Freestyle so it won't be long now. I've done a ton of searching and there's not a wealth of information about F76+, but the one thing I did find common about it is that no one said anything bad about F76+. Some folks said it's fantastic, some said it's very good, same as D76, no better than..........................., but no one said it was lousy. Might just turn out better then I expected? We'll see I guess. JohnW

  3. #23
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I tried F76+ in its FA-1027 guise from Photographers' Formulary
    I've read other, prior comments that some think F76+ and FA-1027 are the same developer. What evidence does anyone have that that suggestion is correct? Just wondering, because I've been tempted to try FA-1027. I have tried F76+ and wasn't knocked out.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    but the one thing I did find common about it is that no one said anything bad about F76+.
    John, I don't know, if you met Tom Abrahamsson. He is very well known on Rangefinder Forum and an avid experimenter.
    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=116836
    Yeah... something bad about F76, but also easily countered by proper and simple action.

  5. #25
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301

    Clayton F76+ and Arista Premium Liquid developer

    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    I've read other, prior comments that some think F76+ and FA-1027 are the same developer. What evidence does anyone have that that suggestion is correct? Just wondering, because I've been tempted to try FA-1027. I have tried F76+ and wasn't knocked out.
    An acquaintance sent Clayton an email and asked to confirm, and they did.

    No film developer is going to 'knock you out'. Remember, the neg is only an intermediary. I have prints from negs made with that developer, and I have nothing but good experience to tell, after i used it for a while and did the usual tweaking.

    I guess I'm the kind of guy that likes to claim that the end results are 95% about skill and 5% about materials.

    But one man's ceiling is another man's floor. You're not wrong and I'm not necessarily right. Hope you found something else that works well.
    "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

  6. #26
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    6
    I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.
    Hmmm! Where did it fall down on the tone quality? Just curious? If it's like D76, just even a little bit, it's not a 100% compensating developer, but you can make it act like one. I just want something that my grandkids can use that will give them good clean results, is bought over the counter/online, in liquid form and isn't life threatening. I could go with Xtol or HC-110, but I also like the cost factor with F76+ and it's simple to use.. If three of four of my G-kids and myself use it then I might not have a problem of shelf life/going bad. Plus, I'd like to see what it does for myself and then I'll know for sure whether it's all hype or not. JohnW

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    I said "knock me out" because of all the hype associated with FA-1027, so if F-76 is the same, I was expecting…well, something special, or unique. Just as Edwal 12 has specific characteristics, or a glycin developer, I had expected F-76 to present a specific characteristic that made the developer something beyond D-76. I didn't find that F-76 provided the tonality I wanted -- which ran counter to my expectations re: FA-1027.
    I still fail to understand. Tonality is still affected way more by how you expose and process the film than the developer itself. What exactly did not happen that made you go 'not my thing'?
    I'm surprised and trying to understand what happened.

    I attached a scan of a contact print I made from a 4x5 negative a little while back. I shot it using Tri-X and used FA-1027. Contact printed. I don't think another developer would have done anything to improve the print. It might have changed the negative slightly in tonality, but usually it's something that can be compensated for to a large extent come printing time. We have so much control over the work flow, both negative processing and printing, by just changing technique, that I usually don't understand why people make such a big deal out of developers. Sure, Edwal 12 has special properties, absolutely, but you can get 80-90% of it by just changing how you shoot and process the film.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2004_river_01.jpg  
    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 12-14-2013 at 01:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "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

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I still fail to understand. Tonality is still affected way more by how you expose and process the film than the developer itself. What exactly did not happen that made you go 'not my thing'?
    I'm surprised and trying to understand what happened.

    I attached a scan of a contact print I made from a 4x5 negative a little while back. I shot it using Tri-X and used FA-1027. Contact printed. I don't think another developer would have done anything to improve the print. It might have changed the negative slightly in tonality, but usually it's something that can be compensated for to a large extent come printing time. We have so much control over the work flow, both negative processing and printing, by just changing technique, that I usually don't understand why people make such a big deal out of developers. Sure, Edwal 12 has special properties, absolutely, but you can get 80-90% of it by just changing how you shoot and process the film.
    Yes, I was wondering the same thing Thomas. Expose for the shadows and shorten or extend the developing time a little and "bingo"! Tonal range should not be a problem as I see it, but maybe it just didn't have that "certain look" for him. That contact print sure looks to have a very, very nice tonal range to me and the highlights don't look excessive on my screen. It probably is no magic bullet developer, but it certainly doesn't look like a bad bullet at all. We'll see when I get it. JohnW

  10. #30
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    6
    Is it permissible that I just say that I didn't like F76? If it works well for other people's workflow, I'm happy for them. MY POINT was that I was simply trying to determine on what basis people were saying F76 is the same as FA-1027. That issue has been addressed above.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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