Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,702   Posts: 1,482,657   Online: 683
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    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.
    OK, I guess I was a little puzzled by the "tonality" thing. I hadn't read anywhere in my searches where anybody had made any complaints about the tonality rendered by this developer with any film. So, you're saying it just wasn't your "cup of tea" as to say. JohnW

  2. #32
    Trask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    974
    Images
    6
    In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.
    Whatever floats your boat! I was doing some assuming also and just assumed your exposure matched your developing time/temps with F76+ as in testing. I keep forgetting that many folks, here and other places, will buy a developer or film and run it at the suggested manufactures times/EI's, without setting up their own trials. I'm not saying that it would have made any difference in forming your opinion about F76+, but it is possible. There I go again, assuming! Maybe you did do your own personal exposure/development test and still didn't like it? You like Rodinal and APX100 while Joe Blow doesn't care for it and that makes sense to me. Stick with what you like and know. For me? I'm going to give it a go and see what I think after I do a little testing. Maybe you and I will have the same opinion about F76+ when I'm done testing. Oh, I love Rodinal semi-stand 1:100 with Fuji Acros and Ilford PanF. It doesn't get much better then that. JohnW

  4. #34
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    In another post I read that tonality is more affected by how the film is exposed and processed than what developer is used. I read that to mean that one could achieve similar tonality across a variety of developers depending on how the film was exposed and processed. So, logically, I could make D-76 and an amidol developer produce similar tonality if I were able to expose and process the films properly in each of these two developers. Perhaps that is true -- I have not taken the time to test a variety of developers with one film to determine if I can make the results of each developer resemble the other. I prefer to focus on what strength each developer brings to the table in terms of tonality and select the developer I prefer. So, for example, I really like APX100 in Rodinal -- I like what I see at the end of the process. I may not like, for example, APX100 in D23 as much. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, but it seems to me that APUG discussions are full of persons who say they prefer how their negatives look in Developer X instead of Developer Y. I cannot understand why it seems to have struck some readers that my suggestion that I didn't like the tonality I obtained from F76 is somehow aberrant or that fact that I don't like the tonality is because of faulty exposure or process. So -- can we leave it that I didn't like F76? And since I didn't like F76, I was interested to know that FA-1027 is the same developer so I can assume that I won't like it either.
    You are certainly allowed your opinion, and I respect it.

    I was merely curious about what exactly it was that you didn't like. I found that FA-1027 was pretty efficient in the shadows, like DD-X, and that it gave me wonderful highlight separation, like Xtol. But grain was a little bit more like D76, which for me is just fine, especially with 4x5.

    So, I ended up using my film at box speed, and agitating every minute for 10 seconds, and after adjusting my developing time I got negatives that print really well, and looked a lot like my prints from DD-X negatives, but a little bit more muted in the highlights, but you can compensate for that in the printing by burning with a higher grade filter in the highlights for more 'zing'.
    That's what I ended up doing with the film and the developer in order to get what I wanted from it.

    I agree that a lot of the threads here on APUG are about film and developer combination, and I also think that a lot of that information is misleading. While films and developers have certain characteristics, like how they see color, or the 'built-in' contrast, but most of those things can be countered by using correction filters and change your technique. Resolution and grain are about the only things you can't change much. The rest is just part of a system that is much bigger than the individual components.

    To those who don't believe me, I recommend shooting a roll of film with a normal contrast scene. Develop your film in something like D76 that you can dilute, and develop half of it using standard agitation, say 10s every minute. Then take clip tests and develop those but you agitate every 5 minutes for 10 seconds, and you keep adjusting total developing time until you have highly similar overall contrast. Now print both of these otherwise identical negatives at the same contrast level, and watch what happened to the outcome. You'll find that the 5m agitation will help shadow values come up significantly, while highlights are shouldered off, while mid tones stay largely the same. Just by changing how you develop the film will drastically change your results.

    To make it even simpler, you can also do a comparison of developing time only, where you can go from thin under developed negatives to very high contrast over developed negatives that will give you completely different prints, by changing one single variable in your development. Those differences are way more than what changing materials will accomplish.

    But, I understand the fun and allure of experimenting. It IS fun to try different films, to shoot in all sorts of lighting conditions with them, to push them to their limits and beyond by intentionally screwing up with exposure and developing, just to see what happens.

    Use what you love, have fun, and don't let my curiosity be something that's negative, please. It wasn't intended. I was just trying to figure out what was behind your comment of not liking it.
    "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. #35

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    329
    Yes, Thomas, that was my point too! I really didn't care one way or the other whether Trask liked F76+ or not, but I just wonder where the "tonality" let him done. Compressed mid-tones, no sparkle in the highlights...............etc.? I guess I'll find out shortly. JohnW

  6. #36
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,144
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    timor,
    Chemically! I don't want my grandkids messing with stuff that's too potent. Right now they use my darkroom with me, but I'd like to get them setup to at least do their own negative processing at home. Then they could come here and we could print. The kiddies range from 11yrs to 18yrs old and there are eight of the little buggers. Of course they are not all interested, but four of them I can see have a smidgen of interest. I thought they might just get "turned on" just a little more if they could at least do some of this on their own instead of under grandpa's wing. Plus, that's how you learn. JohnW
    Iapplaud your efforts of teaching your grand children. your reward will be theirmemories of a great grandfather!As far as safety goesjust teach them safe darkroom tech niques and they'll be fine. no food or drink in the darkroom, and, you can never wash your hands too often.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #37

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Iapplaud your efforts of teaching your grand children. your reward will be theirmemories of a great grandfather!As far as safety goesjust teach them safe darkroom tech niques and they'll be fine. no food or drink in the darkroom, and, you can never wash your hands too often.
    Thanks Ralph, but I don't know how much will sink in to their little heads. Maybe nothing will spark their interest at the moment, but maybe a few years down the line the light bulb might just turn on. I will teach them the right way to do things and grandma has already taught them the "not often enough" hand washing scheme from day one. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "go back and wash them again". I just wanted to start them with chemicals that were less hazardous than what I use. That way they could do a little bit at home without any big problems. If one or two of them really get hooked I have three extra enlargers in the loft of my garage and extra lenses in my darkroom. Who knows?? All I know is that you have to at least try to lead the horse to water, but he'll decide whether he wants a drink or not and you can't make him. My Clayton F76+ is suppose to arrive today along with a few other items from Freestyle. I have a roll of Acros 35mm waiting for it. JohnW

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,084
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    Thanks Ralph, but I don't know how much will sink in to their little heads. Maybe nothing will spark their interest at the moment, but maybe a few years down the line the light bulb might just turn on. ...If one or two of them really get hooked I have three extra enlargers in the loft of my garage and extra lenses in my darkroom. Who knows?? All I know is that you have to at least try to lead the horse to water, but he'll decide whether he wants a drink or not and you can't make him.. JohnW
    I think it's great. Just make sure they have prints to take with them and show off. And though sometimes there's years between leading that horse to water and it's deciding to drink, it can still pay off.
    "Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer

  9. #39

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by mgb74 View Post
    I think it's great. Just make sure they have prints to take with them and show off. And though sometimes there's years between leading that horse to water and it's deciding to drink, it can still pay off.
    That's my belief too! I'm a horse that was led to water many times before I finally decided to take that first drink. I don't mean just in the realm of photography either. JohnW

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    ?..My Clayton F76+ is suppose to arrive today along with a few other items from Freestyle. I have a roll of Acros 35mm waiting for it. JohnW
    You should be very pleased with Acros in F76+
    - Bill Lynch

Page 4 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