Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,713   Posts: 1,514,713   Online: 848
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Matt, about the Moon shot. What lens?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    189
    Images
    22
    After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Grainy View Post
    After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.
    I understand what You mean.
    However, They say films like Rollei ATP, Adox CMS20, Agfa Copex etc etc were not designed to work with developers like Rodinal, D76 etc etc.
    imho, Rodinal is generally way too "slippery", while D76 is almost inadequate.
    Sure, You might tweak Rodinal to work with them and sometimes it might be the right combination - I have done it many times..
    btw:I find Rollei Pan 25 quite interesting with Tetenal Nefoin Blue.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    92
    Formulary TD-3 works very well with ATP. It's more economical than the dedicated ATP-DC developer, and can be used with a wide range of dilutions and EI's to vary the contrast.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,472
    I'd also suggest TD-3. It tends to produce a little more contrast in the low values than typical POTA-type developers (which most if not all these dedicated developers are), and you need every bit of low value separation you can get with document films since you have to place shadows very low on the scale in you want any kind of exposure range at all. You also get better speed, a longer scale, and it is far easier to get uniform development, which is a real problem with the POTA-type phenidone based developers typically dedicated to these films.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Matt, no increase in grain.
    In that case I think I'll push it to 10 minutes in the 1+13.5 dilution for the 2nd roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Matt, about the Moon shot. What lens?
    Telescope. 2000mm effective focal length, fixed at f/10. I've also been using a #12 yellow filter. That probably takes away 1/3 (?) stop. My early attempts were very low contrast, probably due to film choice, so I added the filter and got so used to it I forget it's there (despite seeing a yellow moon in my viewfinder). I didn't even think that it may be unnecessary with ATP until now. Is there any chance the filter in combination with ATP is a bigger problem than my development method in terms of reducing EI? It certainly didn't have more than the expected 1/3-1/2 stop impact on films I've used before (mostly Delta 100, FP4, Pan F).

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Grainy View Post
    After trying both Rollei Pan 25 and ATP 1.1 I must say I like Pan 25 better so far. My first try of ATP 1.1 in Rodinal showed okay results in low contrast scenes, but way to much contrast in contrasty scenes.
    Does Pan 25 have the same extremely fine grain as ATP? I'm looking for the best result enlarged to 16x20 or bigger from 35mm. So far after several rolls at various ISOs only a few frames have turned out with critical focus (mostly due to telescope operator error), but HP5 does not enlarge that well without showing huge grain.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    I've never tried TD-3. One more variable to consider but I'll add it to my list. It sounds promising if DC does not produce the results I want.

    Quote Originally Posted by surfotog View Post
    Formulary TD-3 works very well with ATP. It's more economical than the dedicated ATP-DC developer, and can be used with a wide range of dilutions and EI's to vary the contrast.
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I'd also suggest TD-3. It tends to produce a little more contrast in the low values than typical POTA-type developers (which most if not all these dedicated developers are), and you need every bit of low value separation you can get with document films since you have to place shadows very low on the scale in you want any kind of exposure range at all. You also get better speed, a longer scale, and it is far easier to get uniform development, which is a real problem with the POTA-type phenidone based developers typically dedicated to these films.

  9. #19
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,493
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by matt nalley View Post
    Athiril, I hadn't considered trying Rodinal (yet). One of the main reasons I decided to try ATP is that review article you mentioned, yet somehow I forgot about it once I shot my first roll. After reading through it again I'm tempted to use Rodinal 1+300, but I'm also reluctant to introduce too many variables in my first attempts with a new film. My subject is only available for a few days each month so I hate to "waste" too many rolls with lots of experimentation. It takes a lot of patience to wait for my next opportunity to shoot when I don't get any printable negatives.

    georg16nik, I might try the same method with 1+13.5 again but 8-10 minutes. Do you notice any increase in grain vs 6 minutes? I know it's extremely fine grain, and I want to maximize that benefit because the goal is a 16x20 or possibly larger print from 35mm.

    Here's a question for both of you. In the review (link) one point they make is that ATP might blow highlights more than TP. I'm shooting the moon. Overexposure is very easy, which is another reason I bracket over a wide range. Is there anything I can do in development to minimize blown highlights without sacrificing too much contrast, or worse risk underdevelopment of the whole roll? Generally the goal is always a balance, but (I think) very high contrast is welcome for this particular shot as long as its not at the cost of extremely fine grain/details that would limit enlargement.

    I didn't get blown highlights, but very dense highlights, you'd probably find a problem printing the whole range, but simply displaying the entire range linearly looks poor, reducing the highlights down, so that contrast can be expanded looks a lot better, but it's annoying to do so.

    If you plan on trying 1+300, agitate every minute, instead of every 2nd minute, I found a building with a dark roof against a cloudy overcast sky had very hard halo'ing at the transition, just like digital HDR done badly has.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    Thanks for the tips, Athiril. By halo I assume you mean an undesirable exaggeration of the sharp edge effect Rodinal can produce, particularly with stand development, which is why you advise more frequent agitation. Correct?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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