Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,908   Posts: 1,584,621   Online: 853
      
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 26789101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118
  1. #111
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    For me the key things that I want from a developer are:
    • Relatively low levels of grain (given that I am using 6 x 7 film printed onto 16" x 12' paper)
    • Good level of apparent sharpness
    • Reasonable levels of acutance (impossible to define/explain but I know what I want)
    • Good tonal structure (again impossible to define/explain but I know what I want)
    • Being sure that I can place the dark shadows (where I want to retain detail) exactly where I want them secure in the knowledge that the developer will control the highlights (i.e. will not cause me to have very dense highlights that are hard to print or are virtually impossible to print).
    • That the developer can cope with the variety of scenes and subject brightness ranges that exist on a single roll of film.

    Bests,

    David
    www.dsallen.de

    Same here. I shoot mostly street and documentary and there isn't always time to nail the exposure correctly. BT2B is idiot proof in operation, highly consistent and produces a beautiful, printable negative 90% of the time, even if your exposure varies a little across a roll. It's ability to hold on to highlight detail in high contrast situations is of the utmost value to me. This last point is the main reason why I still shoot film and have not switched over to digital. Two bath developers can give me an endless, smooth rolloff in to white that I just don't see in digital.

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,549
    Quote Originally Posted by el wacho View Post
    I've tested the difference that 1.5g of metol makes. i'm not speculating nor am I saying it necessarily does. I am saying it does because I've tested it. if I remember correctly, PE suggested that 'reformulating' ( what I would call adding a little more metol to) the developer according to the gelatin's absorbing capacity was a better approach. I intuitively arrived at that conclusion and was pleased to see PE say something in a similar vein.
    Nothing personal Michael but I haven't seen any of your data contradict my testing, in particular to the issue of metol levels in bath A and its irrelevancy to contrast. i'll most definitely be continuing with the evidence I have produced in my darkroom. I invite any one to mix two A baths (a stoeckler and a thornton) and two 12g sod metaborate B bath and see for themselves.

    "it says nothing about whether developer X is more or less contrasty than developer Y"
    never asserted it and it has never been my concern. I made a basic assertion - more metol more contrast, all things being equal.

    perhaps MrBrowning just unknowingly placed the highlights too high on the film and beyond the reach of any developer to retain tonal separation.
    Michael is right for attempting to disperse any myths regarding two bath development but the op's original question was the real matter at hand.
    Dave answered the OPs question about n-1...
    Michael provided H&Ds
    You are doing bold text instead of H&Ds... please publish your H&D.

  3. #113

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    central anatolia, Turkey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    425
    Images
    16
    Yawn...

  4. #114

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,549
    I understand why Dave relies on a successful test shot for a film, sceane, developer combination.

    And why some people take test rolls to dial in a new film developer combinations.

    But with a H&D like Michael's or similar information that Forma publish for their films I can spot the time temperature and EI for the shadow detail I want.

    Alas the Forma information still leaves the highlights at risk (unknowns) and I need to use D25 or other low contrast soup with Forma films cause I burn highlights too readily.

    I don't mind burnt highlights.

    A post borax bath is an option which I now have more information for but Im going to need a step wedge...

    A request for H&D was lazy me...

  5. #115
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,595
    Do you meant Foma instead of Forma?
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  6. #116

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,549
    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    Do you meant Foma instead of Forma?
    http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-foma...ion-detail-272

    data sheet is PDF to down load

    details are on 2nd page

    sorry about dyslexia

  7. #117
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,595
    I will use those curves for the reference. Personal testing may result in something different from what the manufacturer can offer.

    Personally love Fomapan 400 for its grain esp., in Rodinal.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  8. #118

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,549
    Yes the grain is nice in Rodinal.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 26789101112


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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