Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,555   Posts: 1,545,020   Online: 831
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Davis, CA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Hi everyone,

    Iím not going to have access to my regular darkroom this summer, and so Iíd like to do my B&W developing (but not printing) at home as easily, cleanly, safely, and with as little odor as possible.

    Iíd also like to spend this time focusing on one developer and film combination. Iíve been a bit all over the place in my one year of experience in B&W printing and processing Ė Iíve tried a lot of film offerings from the major brands, and have also tried a couple of developers. Beyond the obvious difference between the amount of grain in fast and slow films, my B&W eye isnít keen enough to appreciate the differences in grain structure, acutance, etc. that get bandied about so freely in forums. I believe that theyíre there Ė I just canít see Ďem. Maybe itís my imprecise processing.

    After surfing through the message archives, I think that I need to focus on precision with one chemical/film combination. This is my magic bullet Ė time and practice.

    Now on to specifics Ö

    Hereís my background:

    I do a lot of outdoor portraiture for friends and family with my Minolta Autocord (6x6 TLR). I hate hand-holding my Autocord, so Iím fine using a slower film on my tripod. Economy is an issue. I have a brick of Arista.EDU 100 in my freezer right now, and at $1.29/roll its price is certainly appealing. I havenít printed any of my negs from the seven-or-so rolls of this that Iíve developed in Rodinal 1:25, but, like I said, pretty much everything 100 speed looks the same to me.

    I also shoot 35mm (currently a Yashica Electro 35 GSN 40mm f/1.7 $10 rangefinder), but will be moving to a modern SLR in a month or two. Iíve been shooting a lot of HP5+ in 35mm, and donít really have any strong opinions about it (other than that I get purple-tinted film base with HP5+ more than any of the other films Iíve shot).

    For my bathroom processing, Iíd like to use Diafine as a developer. Since itís not very time/temperature dependent, I figure that even I will be able to obtain some development precision. I want to use a water stop bath and an odorless fixer. TF-4 sounds appealing because itís odor-free, sounds like itíll work very fast, and because it doesnít require a hypo bath Ė Iíd like to be able to just wash, photoflo, and go after fixing.

    And now my actual question Ö

    Bearing in mind economy, bathroom-processing, and my desire to hone my process on one type of film and one type of developer per format, what film combinations should I use with Diafine as a developer and TF-4 as a fixer in 35mm and in 120?

    Iím thinking:
    120: Arista.EDU 100 rated at 200.
    35: Kodak Tri-X rated at 1250 or HP5+ rated at 800.

    Thanks for wading through my ramblings, and I appreciate in advance any suggestions!

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,289
    Images
    20
    TF-4 has something of an ammonia odor, so it's not "odor free," but I find it not as bad as traditional acid fixers. You could also try something like F-6, or look and see if one of the suppliers like Photographer's Formulary offers an odor free fixer.

    Any of the films you mention should be fine in Diafine. I like Tri-X, but others like HP-5.

    To get rid of the purple film base, fix about 6 minutes in TF-4 and wash for 20 minutes, or with an acid fixer use Permawash, and that removes the dye.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    I would go for TriX, IMO it's the most versitile film available, I've rated it from 200 ISO to 1600 ISO with the necessary adjustment to development and have been very happy with the results. Fotospeed, a UK company, do an odourless fixer and I know that you will get it in the US from Luminos or Adorama and I think I've seen it in B&H in New York.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    I would also suggest Tri-x. It looks beautiful in Diafine and has lots of speed. In my experience, 1250 is pushing it for good shadow detail. I prefer to rate it at 800. It will be quite grainy in enlargements from 35mm.

  5. #5
    Fintan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    2
    TriX is very forgiving, I know a guy that develops his in hotels while on his holidays. Its also a beautiful film and like Les says very versatile.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Davis, CA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Thanks for the feedback all!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,240
    Images
    9
    My 2 cents worth is delta 100 and ilfosol S. I do all of my processing in the bathroom and this combination is real easy to deal with.

    I do not like TriX because of the grain. I think it is ugly. I assume you are enlarging these when you get back to the darkroom. Delta 100 is very fine grained and I have had no trouble enlarging 35mm to 11x14 and the grain is barely noticeable.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  8. #8
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    If I were in your position I'd do the following.

    Arista Professional 400 for both formats
    Rodinal (takes up little space, makes pretty negs)
    water stop
    Arista odorless fix
    hi!

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,289
    Images
    20
    If you want to go guerilla style, there is something to be said for one film for all formats, since you could develop them all in one batch. Diafine is a reusable/replenishable developer, as well, so it's always ready. That is one of the things I like about Acufine.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Sounds like a good plan. I'd only offer two observations.

    XTOL is about the most benign film developer available. you might want to consider that for the bathroom.

    Make sure you make a few test prints with whatever film/developer combination you pick to be sure you're getting the results you want. Particularly with a new combination, the negs may look good but you won't know until you print.
    Tom

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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