Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,709   Online: 1220
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    207
    p.s. The curve for Pan F+ and Diafine looks very smooth and long. Every image I have seen with this combo has been excellent. Pan F is a very picky film, but I could tell it had potential. I can't wait to get some diafine, but I have to wait until next month because I have blown through all of my darkroom budget.

    Thanks,
    Chris

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I agree with this assessment. In fact I'd add I now generally prefer FP4 in Perceptol 1+3 to Delta 100 in DDX, D76 or Perceptol. For a long time Delta 100 was my primary film but I'm now switching back to FP4, although I also use alot of Acros in Perceptol as well for its outstanding reciprocity characteristics for night/high contrast work.
    Well, I guess it's not just me! I was always told/under the impression that it(Perceptol) wouldn't give me the acutance/sharpness I was after. I always stayed away from Perceptol or Microdol-X because I thought I would suffer severe speed loss and get softer negatives than I wanted. I have heard that by going 1:3 in dilution one could shoot near box speed, but I like it at about half box speed. JohnW

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,876
    I agree. In all my testing with Perceptol at various dilutions with various films I always found the best results were to test for film speed at 1+0, and then use that same speed when determining my various times and agitation methods at higher dilutions. I like the results much better this way. First, it ensures your shadows are on the straight line part of the curve at 1+3, so that I can get excellent highlight control without muddy low values. Second, it ensures you are not pushing speed at all - very important in my opinion because even minor expansions in Perceptol quickly reduce its fine grain characteristics.

    I would say even at 1+3 Perceptol is still not a really sharp developer (better than 1+0 though), although with reduced agitation you can get subtle edge effects that help increase apparent sharpness in enlargements from small negatives.

  4. #14
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,754
    Images
    337
    I've got nothing but praise for Rodinal with Pan-F+.

    I shoot it 120 but some of the best negs I have to print are with this combination. I use 1:50 with standard Ilford agitation (10sec./min.) -- very occasionally I'll have highlights a tad hot but nothing a small burn won't take care of.

    Grain is excellent, but this is just my experience. I think it's worth testing a roll with, and see for yourself...Rodinal is very economical and the results are consistently terrific.
    "Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

    MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
    YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
    INSTAGRAM: colincorneau

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    207
    Have any of you guys tried APX-25? I am thinking about souping it in Diafine. I have one roll only given to me by the film photography podcast for free. I want to make sure it comes out well because I would like to post the images in this podcast's flickr group. There is also some very high res films that seem to do well in Diafine like Rollei ATP V1.

    Thanks,
    Chris

  6. #16
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,754
    Images
    337
    I have used it - also souped in Rodinal, as I've never tried Diafine. The tones and grain are like nothing else.
    "Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

    MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
    YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
    INSTAGRAM: colincorneau

  7. #17
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,384
    Images
    299
    APX25 was a brilliant film. Incredible in Rodinal. I have seen some extreme enlargements made from 35mm that blew me away.
    Imagine a studio portrait of a woman in profile, dimly lit with highlights on her face. Her whole figure was in the portrait, sitting on a stool. The photographer took this 35mm negative, enlarged it by raising the enlarger head as high as it would go and then put the easel on the floor. In the print, which ended up almost life size, a crop of her head revealed her details to the degree that I could count her eye lashes.

    It's an extreme film.

    Diafine is a good developer in that it's a two part soup. It will help you boost exposures on the thin side, and at the same time, even on the same roll of film, help you with taming crazy contrast.
    It is, to me, not the optimal developer, because you can't really alter you results with it much. I like more control. But Diafine does very little wrong, and is a really good all purpose developer.

    Pan-F+ isn't really difficult to get right in any developer. You just have to pay attention to what you're doing, develop a good process that is flexible with regard to lighting conditions, and make the most of it.
    If you ask here on APUG about specific combinations you will get as many replies as there are people responding. You still have to go out and try it for yourself, at the end of the day.

    One thing that you will want to consider when you make large prints is sharpness and resolution. Grain will always be there. It's film after all. Pan-F+ is a very fine grained film, but I know nothing about it resolution wise. You may find that a film like TMax 100 or Acros has higher resolution, while exhibiting the same amount of grain.
    If the print isn't sharp, then even the finest grained emulsion isn't going to look good. This is where Rodinal is so good. It gives a super sharp negative. Instead of considering Rodinal 1+25 with normal agitation or 1+100 standing development, why not consider something in between that capitalizes on the best of both worlds? Try 1+100 and agitate every three minutes. Make tests to determine how long you develop for. See how you like them apples. Rodinal doesn't have to be super grainy.

    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Corneau View Post
    I've got nothing but praise for Rodinal with Pan-F+.

    I shoot it 120 but some of the best negs I have to print are with this combination. I use 1:50 with standard Ilford agitation (10sec./min.) -- very occasionally I'll have highlights a tad hot but nothing a small burn won't take care of.

    Grain is excellent, but this is just my experience. I think it's worth testing a roll with, and see for yourself...Rodinal is very economical and the results are consistently terrific.
    I am sure it would be fine for MF sized negs, but I am currently in search of a very high resolution combo for 35mm. Pan F+/Rodinal does not seem to be it. The grain on a 35mm is acceptable, with the Ilford agitation scheme, but it is not really as good as an ISO50 speed film should be. Stand developing might be an exception. I have not tried it yet.

    Another issue with Pan F+ in Rodinal and D-76. I am getting a VERY short straight section on the contrast curve, and I am just not a fan of this type short tonal scale. If it is over by a half stop, the all of the mids and the highs are in the shoulder of the curve. It is not forgiving at all. This has been my experience as well as others. However, you might have something else to report. I want to give Rodinal a fair shake with this film. It is REALLY good with Fomapan 100, but I am loosing faith for Pan F+ ;o)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    207
    @Thomas. Thanks, my next roll I will try 1+50 agitating ever other minute for 15 minutes, and see if it is more to my liking. If that does not work I can try less and less agitation w/ increased dev time to compensate. I am out of play money for the month anyhow so I will have to wait to test the film in Diafine. I do agree, I like the ability to push and pull if I need to in the developing stage rather than compensating in the print or scanning stage. I do also understand that Diafine either works with a film or it does not. All the examples I have seen are really nice. It seems to lengthen the straight section of the HD curve significantly.

    I have been running out of stuff to shoot locally that make interesting test shots. I am about to go out in the back yard and take 36 shots of my dog or something. It takes so long to get through a 36 exposure roll. I don't want to buy a bulk roll yet, but it is WAY better to do tests with 12 frame strips rather than 36 exposure rolls. I guess I could just pull some off as I shoot it in a changing bag.

    Thanks,
    Chris

  10. #20
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,007
    Sorry for the "necro posting" but I just found this thread because I was about to try PanF+ in Diafine. "Shell out for it" is a misnomer when it comes to Diafine. Though it's about $20+ a quart many places and $30 a gallon from Freestyle it lasts almost forever. I used to do upwards of 70 rolls in a quart. Just pour it back in the bottle and keep using it. As long as you keep part B out of part A (easy in practice - carryover the other way happens normally and causes no problems) it just keeps working. Eventually it starts to fade but it's actually a very, very economical developer on a per roll basis.

    So Chris, did you ever try out the combo with Pan F+?
    Tri-X in Diafine is one of my all time favorites for EI 1250 or so.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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