Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,649   Posts: 1,481,286   Online: 739
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    206

    Pan F+ w Rodinal vs. Diafine

    I have been looking at images shot w/ Pan F+ and Diafine. Amazing combo. It seems to give very consistent results w/ Diafine. Good tone -- sharp, smooth grain. I have been trying to work out Rodinal w/ Pan F+. It has been a bit of a challenge to try to nail down a good procedure to get good results with Rodinal and Pan F+. I would like to match the Diafine quality with this film using Rodinal for economic and practical reasons.

    I would like to try 1 hour stand developing with 1+100 Rodinal. The results look seem similar to that of Diafine, but I have read mixed opinions.

    I would also try a batch at 15 minutes with VERY minimal agitation (2 inversions every two minutes) @ 1+50.

    My research seems to consistently indicate that increased agitation increases grain w/ Rodinal.

    Someone also indicated that it is better to control contrast w/ solution strength instead of developing time (with Rodinal). I am of the opinion these two developing parameters form a reciprocal relationship whence either one could be adjust with consideration of the other without any difference in developing quality. Any one have an opinion here?

    If I can't get close to Diafine, I guess I will have to shell out for it. However, I was wondering if anyone has wondered down this path before and could spare me the test rolls and chemistry.

    Thanks,
    Chris Maness

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    476
    Chris, This is just my opinion, but I think every darkroom should have a container each of A and B Diafine. I tried it many years ago with Kodak TRI-X and found I could rate TRI-X at ASA1000 and it worked as good or better than anything I had used when rating TRI-X at asa400(320). I have also used it with Fuji Acros rated at asa160 and it is great with that. The stuff lasts forever and has almost no negative points to it. I also use it as a "go to" when testing a lens/camera combo to make sure everything is "cool" either before I sell one or before buy one. I have also used Rodinal 1:100 and 1:200 with Across and Foma 100 with very good results, but, like I said, it's just my opinion. JohnW

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,244
    Are you shooting 4x5 or small format? Unless you are making extremely large prints even medium format PanF won't look materially different in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50, particularly since PanF is inherently a fine-grained film. Rodinal is not a solvent developer, so with the right amount of extended time and increased agitation, 1+50 can look pretty much the same as 1+25, if that is your goal. If you wish to decrease macro contrast, or introduce a shoulder to control highlights, the more dilute the formulation, the easier it will be to accomplish. So if you are looking for the results of reduced agitation, 1+50 makes more sense than 1+25.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    206
    Thanks John. I have been restocking my darkroom, and I was one of those guys that always used D-76 and stuck to the same film. I was using HP5 w/ D-76, and I picked a winner from the first combo I ever used, and I did not change. I was shooting mostly 6x6cm w/ my Roleiflex, and not too worried about grain. I have some tonally beautiful negs w/ that combo.

    Now I am going on motorcycle trips, and I am going to pack minimal gear, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality. I am looking at Delta 100 in D-76 vs. Pan F+ in Diafine or Rodinal (if I can get it to behave). It looks like Pan F+ wins in Diafine. It has VERY nice tonality and has an edge in sharpness/clarity. However, I am not sure if I can say the same for Rodinal/Pan F+.

    Since I have the Rodinal, I looked for some films on flickr that played well with it. I think Fomapan 100 has BEAUTIFUL tonality in Rodinal, probably the best combo I have seen period. However, I think it is better suited for MF because grain is evident in small 35mm enlargements. However, it is not an unpleasant grain. I bought two 120 rolls to play with. I skipped the hardener in my current batch of fixer, so I am going to wait till I kill that bottle before I shoot it. I have some FP4 too, and it has a similar look to the Foma.

    Thanks,
    Chris Maness

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Are you shooting 4x5 or small format? Unless you are making extremely large prints even medium format PanF won't look materially different in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50, particularly since PanF is inherently a fine-grained film. Rodinal is not a solvent developer, so with the right amount of extended time and increased agitation, 1+50 can look pretty much the same as 1+25, if that is your goal. If you wish to decrease macro contrast, or introduce a shoulder to control highlights, the more dilute the formulation, the easier it will be to accomplish. So if you are looking for the results of reduced agitation, 1+50 makes more sense than 1+25.
    Sorry, I should update my profile to include what I am shooting currently. I was only shooting digital and VERY occasionally shooting 4x5. However, I completely quit shooting digital except for weddings and portrait shoots. All of my personal work is now on film.

    I do like VERY large prints. I would print as large as the negative would allow. My first 35mm test w/ Pan F+ gave ugly tonality. The grain had a look to it that I am not used to. It has a very hard edge to the grain, it looked like salt in pepper at close inspection. I believe that might have been what contributed to a very unsmooth tonality in the macro scale. However, after looking at other people negs souped by stand development, I can see that stand development gives better tone and grain. However, I would also like to have a second option that affords me more control than stand developement (for low contrast scenes that need N+1). That is why I tossed in the every other minute agitation for you guys/gals to comment on as well.

    After reading the second post on this thread, I might just have to spring for the diafine. Especially since looking at what it can do for tri-x/arista premium, at VERY high speeds. I would not be enlarging these beyond 8x10", but @ei1600 it looks pretty good. W/ Pan F+ /w Diafine is beautiful and VERY high res. Just expensive. Oh well.

    Chris

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by kq6up View Post
    Thanks John. I have been restocking my darkroom, and I was one of those guys that always used D-76 and stuck to the same film. I was using HP5 w/ D-76, and I picked a winner from the first combo I ever used, and I did not change. I was shooting mostly 6x6cm w/ my Roleiflex, and not too worried about grain. I have some tonally beautiful negs w/ that combo.

    Now I am going on motorcycle trips, and I am going to pack minimal gear, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality. I am looking at Delta 100 in D-76 vs. Pan F+ in Diafine or Rodinal (if I can get it to behave). It looks like Pan F+ wins in Diafine. It has VERY nice tonality and has an edge in sharpness/clarity. However, I am not sure if I can say the same for Rodinal/Pan F+.




    Since I have the Rodinal, I looked for some films on flickr that played well with it. I think Fomapan 100 has BEAUTIFUL tonality in Rodinal, probably the best combo I have seen period. However, I think it is better suited for MF because grain is evident in small 35mm enlargements. However, it is not an unpleasant grain. I bought two 120 rolls to play with. I skipped the hardener in my current batch of fixer, so I am going to wait till I kill that bottle before I shoot it. I have some FP4 too, and it has a similar look to the Foma.



    Thanks,
    Chris Maness
    I must confess that I'm not a big fan of PanF, but that's probably because I don't shoot much, if any, 35mm. 6x6 is about as small as I go and I actually like Acros 100, Delta 100 for most everything on the slower side. This might sound strange, but I liked FP4+ in Perceptol 1:3 rated at ISO 50 much better than PanF rated at ISO 50 in D76, DD-X or Rodinal. Of course, that's just me, but it gave me some of the best, cleanest negatives.
    JohnW

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,244
    I have not used Diafine myself but I would say if you like how it looks go with it even if it costs a little more.

    By the way regarding N+1 for 35mm, I suggest trying N development and then toning the negative in Selenium. With most films it effectively gives you an N+1 expansion without the increase in grain associated with N+1 development. It works very well in my experience.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    206
    Thanks John. I guess Pan F+ is just a no go w/ Rodinal save maybe stand development. I don't really care for it D-76 either. I gave the test roll to my son to shoot, and I would say that maybe two or three really came out nice. Albeit, a couple of frames were a little over exposed, but not by much. The strait part of the curve is very short, and rounds off to a very flat image if over exposed by one stop in D-76. Resolution was outstanding in D-76 though. Much better than Rodinal for this film so far. I could see the lug nuts on a car that was far away w/ a 50mm lens.

    After reading a little more about diafine on Flickr, it looks like I can just keep using the stuff over and over for a year. Pretty cool, I guess it is economical after all.

    Thanks,
    Chris Maness

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I have not used Diafine myself but I would say if you like how it looks go with it even if it costs a little more.
    I just found out you can just use the stock over and over again for a year even if it grows mold. Just filter the mold out, and keep rockin'

    [QUOTE=By the way regarding N+1 for 35mm, I suggest trying N development and then toning the negative in Selenium. With most films it effectively gives you an N+1 expansion without the increase in grain associated with N+1 development. It works very well in my experience.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks, I think I have some ancient Selenium. Does the stuff go bad?

    Thanks,
    Chris Maness

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,244
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wiegerink View Post
    This might sound strange, but I liked FP4+ in Perceptol 1:3 rated at ISO 50 much better than PanF rated at ISO 50 in D76, DD-X or Rodinal. Of course, that's just me, but it gave me some of the best, cleanest negatives.
    JohnW
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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