Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,258   Online: 769
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    The two proven, reliable, and best: FX-1 & FX-2

    I'd go with FX-2

    The easiest way is TFX-2, from Photographer's Formulary.

    Don't tell ANYBODY, but it is all that Pyro is and more. The KING.

    Comes in a two bottle kit. Easy.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  2. #22
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    And then there is such a thing as too much accutance - like etching there is a point where the content of the image is distracted by the unusual look. I have used FX-2 and for moderate enlargements and greater - the accutance seemed harsh. I think there is a point of diminishing benefit. That point comes later for contact printing but I have found that for me; the accutance of p'cat in semi stand developing on MF through 4x5 with moderate enlarging is ideal. If I was going to make 16x20s from 6x6, I would stick to XTOL/MYTOL but for 11x14 - I get the smappy edges I am looking for from P'cat
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    In my experience the macro contrast is not related to tonality, instead tonality is something which "lives" between macro- and microcontrast. For lack of a better term I think of it as mesocontrast. Think of this as contrast over a range of up to a few mm - more than edge effects, yet too small to correct by burning & dodging.
    The use of the term "meso contrast" is new to me but I can understand how it might apply to prints from 35mm and medium format negatives when then net appearance of exagerrated adjacency effects are multiplied by magnification.

    Regardless, I have never seen any loss of tonal qualities of this type when contact printing with LF and ULF negatives. Granted, my own use of minimal and stand agitation has been with moderately diluted solutions of pictorial formulas such as FX-2, Pyrocat-HD and Rodinal, not with really extreme developers and dilutions. It is entirely possible that one might force the loss of tonal values with something akin to a 1:1:1000 dilution of Pyrocat-HD with stand development of 6-8 hours but I have never tested the premise.

    Sandy

  4. #24
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Nothing in photography seems to raise more controversy than the subject of adjacency effects as they relate to apparent sharpness. Part of the problem has surfaced here. There seems to be no combination of developer and procedure that gives optimum sharpness enhancement to all sizes and types of film. My experience with 35 mm film does no LF user much good. Their experiences do not help me a lot. But we load up and shoot at each other nonetheless.

    When I have found out as much as I can about sharpness in 35 mm format, I will post it as such. I will no longer ask anyone how the virtues of a specific developer can prevent the need for dodging and/or burning when printing a wide range scene. Perhaps when I have learned all there is to know about 35 mm, I will get someone to haul my 5X7 out to where I can do some good with it and start learning about it.
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #25
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Sandy, I believe the only prior use of the term "meso contrast" is mine - from a discussion here at apug quite a long time ago. I use it as a "tag" for what I see happening with tonality independent of overall contrast and adjacency effects.

    A 35mm negative doesn't really have much of it; it's all macro- or micro- since the adjacency effects will be enlarged along with everything else. But from MF up I find it a very useful way to think of the intermediate-scale effects of dilution and agitation.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by psvensson
    Hydroquinone solutions are not regarded as dangerous by contact. Millions of people have used skin creams with hydroquinone in concentrations around a few percent, comparable to very strong developer. They are regarded as safe by dermatologists for use up to three months.
    My choice of words was perhaps not the best. Most people don't react to dilute solutions of these chemicals (pyrogallol, catechol, hydroquinone, glycin, metol, etc.) via skin contact, but some do.

    Good chemical safety practice says wear gloves, preferably nitrile gloves when handling the wet chemistry.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  7. #27
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer
    Yes, but you'll play heck getting it to stain with that much sulfite. If you mix your own D-76, try sometime keeping all concentrations but sulfite by the book, but reduce sulfite to 10 grams or less per liter instead of 100. This will be an experiment, so don't use it on a once-in-a-lifetime shot on LF film.
    I followed my own advice. 2 g metol, 5 g hydroquinone, 2 g borax and 10 g sodium sulfite to make a liter. It is about as fast as D-76 1:1. The results reminded me of what I saw about 35 years ago when I first tried D-76 1:1. No stain.

    This is just a matter of interest. I figured the original poster didn't want the stain, wasn't thinking about toxicity. Substitute about 5 g soduim ascorbate for the hydroquinone and you won't have either stain or toxicity except that from the metol. Substitute 0.2 g phenidone, and you're there almost free. 25 or 50 cents a gallon.
    Gadget Gainer

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    FX39 is a very sharp developer indeed and with triX I can imagine the grain would be horrendous in an enlargement (pretty bad even with a tradtitional med speed film like FP4), but of course thats OK for contacts! Cheap and convenient so give it a go.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    248

    Thank You

    Thanks all for your replies.

    Bob

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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