Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,909   Posts: 1,521,569   Online: 806
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Bruce Robbins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Carnoustie, Scotland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    109
    If I was starting over in photography again I'd exclusively use Tri X and D76 and and save myself a lot of fannying about and wasted time. If the grain was too big for some 35mm stuff I'd use a Rolleiflex. Simples!

    Mind you, I suppose I'd have nothing to write about on my blog then!

    ~
    The Online Darkroom
    www.theonlinedarkroom.com

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    I certainly agree that in small format Tri-X rated at 200 or 250, light yellow filter, developed in D-76/ID-11 @ 1:1, is classic for general photography/street photos/environmental portraits.

    You can waste so much time trying to make other combinations work.

    XTOL will provide similar contrast, 1/3 increase in shadow detail with a 10% increase in enlargement. XTOL is more environmentally friendly. It will have a longer shelf life than D-76.

    I agree with the last poster....compliment a 35mm with a Rollei TLR if you have a darkroom.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 01-10-2014 at 07:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,164
    Images
    289
    When I first practiced photography in 1988 I ended up using D76 with Tri-X film. My dad helped me develop my first film.

    For some reason I haven't used D76 much over the years, but recently I was given a few bags of it, so I decided to try it. With Tri-X and TMax 400 it has been absolutely wonderful so far. I plan on continuing to use it, due to its broad availability, and for the lovely results. The negatives print like a dream.

    I've even experimented a bit with Thornton's two-bath for dummies, where you use your normal developer, like Xtol or D76, and develop for about two thirds of your normal developing time. Then you follow with a three minute bath in a solution of two heaped tea spoons sodium metaborate in one liter of water. Really great for controlling highlights and obtaining easy to print negatives. You retain most of the original D76 quality, but you 'even out' the tonality of lower and higher contrast frames a little bit.

    Anyway, film and developer choice is an important piece of the equation, but it isn't nearly as important as what you do with 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

  4. #14
    Bruce Robbins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Carnoustie, Scotland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    109
    Film and developer certainly have an effect on the end result but I think the differences within materials from the same group are very slight. Any decent 400 ISO film souped in any fine grain developer will be largely indistinguishable from the other possible combinations. Similarly, most 100 ISO films in any accutance developer with tend to look the same. Not exactly the same but with subtleties that probably won't make any difference at the end of the day. However, there is obviously a big difference between a 100 ISO film in a fine grain dev and a 400 ISO film in an accutance dev.
    The Online Darkroom
    www.theonlinedarkroom.com

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,050
    ID11 to ID11+ which was enhanced, did not work, and Ilford went back to original formula ID11.

  6. #16
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    1
    Nice. You simply have D-76 dialed in to what you want and how you expose and develop Tri-X. The other developers are just as capable but your initial experiences were by chance not the results you were after There's no doubt with time and effort you can get them well dialed in and might like them as much or even better for some nuanced reason. I used to dislike HC-110 and wonder how the heck those like Adams used it so successfully. Well in time and with a lot of tweaking, luck, and work I've got it dialed in nicely with a few emulsions and it's now my favorite developer. Second is Rodinal for me, then D-76. I like them all but not for all emulsions or all situations or environments in which I shoot.
    -----------------------

    "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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Thanks, folks. Now I know not only that ID-11 Plus was discontinued, but why.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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