Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,479   Posts: 1,597,638   Online: 1241
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,493
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by lgrabun View Post
    What is a big tank then? :-)
    A Deep tank almost always used with full strength developer which is replenished.

    Ian

  2. #12
    msdemanche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Princess Anne, Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    227
    Images
    58
    You have made a big jump with this switch. I find for more contrast i use the 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off method of agitation. This does give more contrast, but more than likely not what you are used to. I am curious, why the switch, other than availability?
    michel

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by msdemanche View Post
    I am curious, why the switch, other than availability?
    Grain. On 135 R09 1+40 gives some visible grain, particularly on greater enlargements (18x24). Not that shun the grain (That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.), just sometimes I like the things more smooth :-)
    Lukasz Grabun
    My webpage: grabun.com
    My latest photos: click here

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by lgrabun View Post
    What is a big tank then? :-)
    What Ian wrote. I've generally seen large or deep tanks referred to as being 1/2 gallon (2L) or greater.
    Frank Schifano

  5. #15
    Herzeleid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Ankara/Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by lgrabun View Post
    So the old abage "better is the enemy of good enough" holds once again.

    I've changed my old trusted Rodinal in which I used to develop HP5+ for D-76. Being a bit worried about excessive contrast, I diluted it one to one and develop the film - which, as far as I recall, exposed at 320, if it matters - for 11 minutes. The time was taken from the film box.

    I haven't made the prints yet but it looks to my unexperienced eye as the negative was lacking contrast, a bit underdeveloped.
    I use ID-11 1+1 for HP5+, I rate at 250 ISO and develop for 11 min. 30 sec agitation first then three inversions per minute. I start the timer when I fill the tank with developer and I finish the timer when I fill the tank with stop bath. I find the results very satisfactory in terms of shadow detail, sharpness and grain appearance. I am willing to try 10 min., I like the idea to expose for shadows and develop for highlights. Your negatives might not look contrasty but you might get perfect prints in terms of highlight and shadow details.

    IMO, I wouldn't judge a negative buy it is appearance, but rather the print or the scan. The contrast might depend on the scene, a snowscape might seem very contrasty from the negative.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,084
    Using diluted ID11 for me meant that I had to give a little more agitation - a sort of double inversion rather than single, each half a minute. That made quite a difference and got back the contrast I was expecting.

    At work (a few years ago now) we had deep tanks with five litres of chemicals in each, all in a big sink/water-bath. It is that sort of system which is a "big tank". The development is done in darkness and the film is lifted out of the chemical for agitation purposes - a manual dip-and-dunk. I still think that is the best way to develop sheet film too.

  7. #17
    Rolleijoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    I live at home.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    510
    Images
    4
    When I shot HP5+, I always used D-76 straight (no dilution) for 6.5-7min, with constant agitation 1st minute, then 10sec every 30sec. Never had a problem until got a bad batch of film, and then dropped Ilford altogether.
    If the lens doesn't read "ZEISS", then it just isn't.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Herzeleid View Post
    IMO, I wouldn't judge a negative buy it is appearance, but rather the print or the scan. The contrast might depend on the scene, a snowscape might seem very contrasty from the negative.
    True, true. I set up the darkroom yesterday and it turned out that negatives prints beautifuly on normal graded paper. All the prints are a tad contrasty in fact and I am willing to try a paper with a special gradation. Anyway, D-76 diluted one to one and HP5+ exposed at 320 developed for 11 minutes gives pleasant results. I am posting a scan of a negative, hope you don't mind.



    The details aren't as wonderfully rendered on a print though highlights are preserved. I will try a softer paper next time anyway.
    Lukasz Grabun
    My webpage: grabun.com
    My latest photos: click here

  9. #19
    tac
    tac is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Appalachia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    246
    I think your agitation was proper, I assume you're at 68F. You might try 75F.

    But Anscojohn is right; the proof is in the print; try printing the negatives before you mess with the film development.

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