Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,959   Online: 1088
      
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 711121314151617
Results 161 to 164 of 164

Thread: Ansco 130

  1. #161
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    There's another thread all about this that I created recently, but I can tell you for sure that you're absolutely incorrect. The time it takes to exhaust the dev in a given area by sitting for one minute vs constantly being replenished having no exhaustion gives completely different edge details, highlight details, shadow details, and grain structure changes.

    Anyway I don't want to argue about it, just wanted to clarify something for myself and have now done so. If you disagree with my above statement, that's fine, but we will have to agree to disagree. Please continue discussing Ansco130 without me
    Stone, I did not mean to argue or cause any offence to you, and I sincerely apologise if you have felt offended by my statements. Nonetheless, I do not feel that "for sure
    I am completely incorrect". Let me stress, that as long as we are *not* talking about stand development, but about normal inversion agitation processing, as recommended by manufacturers, that is a few good inversions every 30 sec, to no less than every 1 minute, then the effect you would get would be quite equivalent to that of rotary development, once you have shortened the duration of the development. As a plus, as I have pointed out, rotary would give you more consistency and less scope for error. By the way, I have discussed the matter of this difference between rotary vs inversion processing with John Sexton, a while ago, and he seemed to think along the same lines.

    I would like to know what evidence you have to state that the results would be significantly different when we consider these two approaches. Have you, actually, done a side-by-side comparison?
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  2. #162
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,997
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafal Lukawiecki View Post
    Stone, I did not mean to argue or cause any offence to you, and I sincerely apologise if you have felt offended by my statements. Nonetheless, I do not feel that "for sure
    I am completely incorrect". Let me stress, that as long as we are *not* talking about stand development, but about normal inversion agitation processing, as recommended by manufacturers, that is a few good inversions every 30 sec, to no less than every 1 minute, then the effect you would get would be quite equivalent to that of rotary development, once you have shortened the duration of the development. As a plus, as I have pointed out, rotary would give you more consistency and less scope for error. By the way, I have discussed the matter of this difference between rotary vs inversion processing with John Sexton, a while ago, and he seemed to think along the same lines.

    I would like to know what evidence you have to state that the results would be significantly different when we consider these two approaches. Have you, actually, done a side-by-side comparison?
    No offense, just don't feel like re-hashing or repeating and thread jacking.

    My hand technique does not follow normal agitation recommendations, depends on each film but often the pattern is 1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1 where it's one minute between agitations, and then 2 minutes and also my "agitation" is not 3-4 inversions in 10 seconds it is one inversion only, very gently, over a 10 second period.

    So it is closer to stand I would suppose, but adding a finer grained result than stand, which is sharp but grainy, mine is fine-ish but sharp edges, with what I can only describe as contrast in highlights unlike normal "blow out" or normal tonality, I don't have the word for the look I strive for, except it changes drastically even adjusting times with my current use of Rodinal. So I'm switching.

    Nuff said, no offense taken or given, I will move forward regardless, I am now determined. "I am the decider and I have decided!" As a movie quote says.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #163
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    No offense, just don't feel like re-hashing or repeating and thread jacking.

    My hand technique does not follow normal agitation recommendations, depends on each film but often the pattern is 1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1:2:1:1 where it's one minute between agitations, and then 2 minutes and also my "agitation" is not 3-4 inversions in 10 seconds it is one inversion only, very gently, over a 10 second period.
    Thanks for clarifying, and I also apologise if I made you "thread jack". I was merely hoping to address the point you made in post #154, which I read to say that you felt that Ansco 130 would not work in rotary processing, since I believe it would. Regarding your unorthodox agitation regime, I would definitely agree that it would not give you results that manufacturer-recommended agitation does, which tends to be much more vigorous, and more similar, in my experience, to rotary processing results. However, I fully respect your technique choice, and I expect great results from you.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  4. #164
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,997
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafal Lukawiecki View Post
    Thanks for clarifying, and I also apologise if I made you "thread jack". I was merely hoping to address the point you made in post #154, which I read to say that you felt that Ansco 130 would not work in rotary processing, since I believe it would. Regarding your unorthodox agitation regime, I would definitely agree that it would not give you results that manufacturer-recommended agitation does, which tends to be much more vigorous, and more similar, in my experience, to rotary processing results. However, I fully respect your technique choice, and I expect great results from you.


    Maybe I'll use Ansco130 as my choice of print dev someday
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 711121314151617


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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