Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,200   Posts: 1,531,486   Online: 933
      
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    jrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    125
    Images
    1
    I'm looking for a good developer to use with Fuji Neopan 400 exposed at ISO 400..... I've got 3 developers in my cupboard right now: Rodinal, HC110 and DDX. I've heard that Rodinal is best avoided for higher speed films in general because of grain..... I've done Acros before in HC110 and the results have been pretty ho-hum. Any thoughts?

    Jin

  2. #2
    Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brighton, England
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    224
    Images
    15
    I've always used Rodinal with neopan 400 and never had any complaints. I'd be interested to see what other people think of that combination.

  3. #3
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by jrong
    I'm looking for a good developer to use with Fuji Neopan 400 exposed at ISO 400..... I've got 3 developers in my cupboard right now: Rodinal, HC110 and DDX. I've heard that Rodinal is best avoided for higher speed films in general because of grain..... I've done Acros before in HC110 and the results have been pretty ho-hum. Any thoughts?
    Jin
    There is a great deal of "aesthetic evaluation" involved in the consideration of "grain".

    I, *personally* (your mileage may vary) do not NOW consider the appearance of "grain" to be patently "wrong" and automatically undesirable.
    To me (again, see "your mileage,..." etc,) grain STRUCTURE is even more important. There are a number of so-called "fine grain" developers that can be used, but, in my opinion they all reduce that appearance of grain at the expense of acutance.

    I use Rodinal regularly with AgfaPan 400 - I can control the appearance of grain, if I so desire, by diffusion in the enlarger (at the expense of acutance - no way to avoid that) with a "softening" filter or two ... leaving another "after the fact option" OPEN.

    I would suggest that you try Neopan (one *very* good choice for available light due to extraordinary anti-halation characteristics) in Rodinal, and "see" for yourself.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #4
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    I used 35mm Neopan 400 rated 400 for a project that I did in Belfast a few years ago and used HC110 diluted 1 to 31 for 6 minutes at 20c for every roll that I shot even though the lighting conditions did vary over the two years that I worked there. The negatives are all very printable and the final show consisted of mainly 14 x 11 prints with some at 12 x 16 with minimal eveidence of intusive grain and I'm very happy with them. I am also a big fan of Rodinal and I do use it whenever I wish to enhance the grain and do endorse Ed's view of that developer.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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