Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,545,001   Online: 708
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    According to Michael Briggs, Here is the formula for Edwal-20
    1 liter distilled water
    Gradol 5 grams derivative of para aminophenol
    Sodium Sulfite 90 grams anhydrous [sodium sulfite]
    Diamine-P 10 grams paraphenylenediamine
    Monazol 5 grams photographic glycin

    Source: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0065dl

    For the Gradol you probably could substitute Rodinal (or 5 grams of p-aminophenol base)

    The only differance between Edwal 12 an 20 is that in Edwal 20 P-aminophenol replaces methol. I tired replaceing the methol for 5 grams of P aminophenol but my attempt did not seem to match the film speed of Edwal 20 which is about 70% of box rated. My attempt seemed to be about 40% of box speed.

    It appears that Edwal-20 is very heavily loaded with sulfite. D-23 should give a similar look to your negs.

    Edwal 12 and 20 are much differnt, sharper, it is the parphenylondeiamine. Edwal 12 is high contrast, Edwal 20 is more compensating, at least from I recall when it was still on the market. I have been using Edwal 12 for several years, works well for low contast sitiutations such as shooting in the Desert, although bright the desert is often very low contrast due to all of the reflected light.

    I suggest using Crawley’s FX-2 instead
    I will try Crawley FX-2 and Edwal FG 7 as well, or I may just get more 777.

  2. #32
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Indeed - I only use pcat on LF format and reserve roll film to XTOL type developers - The accutance works real well on LF negs but on MF and smaller, it limits how much you can enlarge a negative.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    Gadget Gainer makes a very important point, namely, the magnification factor for negative to print is very important! What looks good at one size may look less desirable at a different one. So when Mary says, I love Super Y film in Realitol Developer, there is a lot if info left out! Mary may be making 5x7 enlargements from 35mm, whereas Phil might be interested in making 11x14's from 35mm, and so even if he matches Mary's negative densities and development method, he can get significantly different looking prints. In my experience, high adjacency effects images are more sensitive to magnification changes than low adjacency negatives.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  3. #33
    CBG
    CBG is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Don't worry so much about the grain and acutance. Just get out there and explore lighting, composition, rain, fog, texture, color. Those aspects are so much more important.
    I agree. It's too easy to get caught up in thinking there's some magic bullet that will turn me into the photographer I wish to be. The only magic is in photographing more and improving one's awareness of the photographic possibilities.

    Years ago I took my first step to quality when I standardised upon one developer and one film based on the realization that the weak link was me. I suspect that at some point, given enough improvement in my abilities, it would make sense to seek films and developers to attain the last 2% of quality. My strategy is that I need to have that other 98% in place first.

    C

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    812
    Most of the conversation concerning acutance concerns the use of 35mm and smaller formats. It is true that acutance developers have enjoyed new popularity because of fine grain films like TMX, Delta 100 and ACROS. If you use these films in the 35mm format and make large prints you will see some of the edge effect. The problem for me is that the acutance developers also increase grain. Some of the acutance developers which have become popular or popular again are Paterson FX-39 (available again), Neofin Blau, Rodinal/R09/F09 etc., dilute FG-7 and ethol TEC (if that is still available). When I use ACROS in 35mm size I prefer to use the opposite strategy. I use Fuji Microfine. This gives grain which is equal to or better than what I can get with TMX. The edge effect is different because rather than getting a sharp looking edge with more grain I get an edge with no visible grain but which still has excellent sharpness. I do not like the look of TMX or ACROS in Rodinal or Rodinal-like developers. This doesn't mean you can't do nice work with those combinations. I just don't see the advantage of using a fine grain film with a developer which makes the grain more pronounced.

    In the early days of 35mm b&w photography many techniques were employed to help the smaller format more competitive with the larger formats for certain applications. One of my favorite film and developer combinations years ago was Panatomic-X at 64 with Edwal FG-7 at 1:15 with plain water. Grain, sharpness and tonality were all very good. I did not find TMX a good replacement for Panatomic-X and I still don't. Panatomic-X was easier to use and gave consistently good results. The speed of 32 did not bother me. Many people who use TMX don't rate the film much higher than 32 anyway. Today we still have Ilford Pan F+. It isn't exactly like Panatomic-X but it has very fine grain. It as even finer grain than Delta 100. Other indices of perceived sharpness cause some people to think that Delta 100 is a sharper film but its grain still isn't as fine as that of Pan F+.

    There is another way to get fine grain and sharpness without new technology flms or exotic developers. Just use a larger format. If I put FP4+ or Plus-X into my Bronica GS-1 and use D-76 I will get an 11X14 print which will be very hard to match by using TMX or ACROS or Delta 100 in 35mm size with an acutance developer. The prints from 35mm film can be quite good but they will not be as good ss the print from the 6X7 negative.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    WRONG!!!

    No photograph is literal. All photographs are interpretations and its upto you how you interpret the subject and render it.
    You can spend all year talking about grain and acutance if you want, but you won't understand them until you have learnt to control them. And the only way you will do that is by going out and doing some photography and printing it and thereby discovering it for yourself.
    I think for his needs, his understanding is correct. It's functional.

  6. #36
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
    This doesn't mean you can't do nice work with those combinations. I just don't see the advantage of using a fine grain film with a developer which makes the grain more pronounced.
    And here I am, the exact opposite. I don't see a point in using fine-grain films and then using sharpness-robbing fine grain developers to make the grain even finer when the grain is already plenty fine enough.

    If you make the image sharp, you make the grain sharp. Grain is, after all, detail on the negative (albeit not image detail). You can't tell developers to soften the grain but leave the image sharp. They go together, whichever direction you decide to go.

    Besides, my experience has been that an image with bitingly sharp grain and an image that is just as sharp looks sharper than an image where the grain is fuzzy. Sharp grain adds to a lot of photographs' moods.

    If I really want to avoid graininess and I still want excellent sharpness, I step up in format. Using a larger negative is the best way to avoid graininess, and then I can use developers that accentuate sharpness without getting any deleterious effects of grain (if one deems them such, and in some images, such as those with a lot of sky, it can be distracting, to be sure).

    I can use a sharpness-enhancing developer like PMK on films as fast as ISO 125 (FP-4 Plus) and get prints up to 11x14" with very fine grain with a 35mm negative, so I don't think I am losing much by embracing the grain.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dedham, Ma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
    .....The prints from 35mm film can be quite good but they will not be as good ss the print from the 6X7 negative.
    Now that's a revelation!
    "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." Stephen J. Gould

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    Today's 35mm films...

    ....are essentially grain free up to 8x10 with native ISO's of 400 or less.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,278
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by CBG View Post
    Years ago I took my first step to quality when I standardised upon one developer and one film based on the realization that the weak link was me. I suspect that at some point, given enough improvement in my abilities, it would make sense to seek films and developers to attain the last 2% of quality. My strategy is that I need to have that other 98% in place first.
    I agree (well, about my own photography---I don't know about yours. :-) Hardly anybody is so good at both the art and the craft of photography that their materials are the limiting factor, and I'm *very* sure I'm not!

    That said, I haven't standardised and have no particular plans to, but it's not because I think a different film or developer is going to make me a better photographer, it's because I'm an engineer and playing with every toy in sight makes me happy.

    -NT

  10. #40
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo View Post
    ....are essentially grain free up to 8x10 with native ISO's of 400 or less.
    Although, in defense of the larger formats, there is more to an image than grain and sharpness. The larger formats tend to have better gradation.

    Of course, schlepping around a 4x5 is not always practical.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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