Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,727   Posts: 1,515,165   Online: 1002
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 117
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    The point of posting this article was to show how the different films and developers stack up in comparisons. Rodinal is not horrible, but it comes in pretty close to dead last on a number of scores relevant to 35mm users...
    Strange I'm a 35mm user and they didn't ask me but there again I was only errrm 8(ish) when that data was valid. As I said it's not a "magic bullet" but from mine and many others perspective it's a beautiful developer and now I use it for everything from iso 25 to 3200 and love it.

    Waitress another round for my friends and myself if you please .....

  2. #62
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    The product is not 'best in class'.
    Sure it is; to the people who like it and use it. That is all that matters. You might as well ask which is better, Nikon or Cannon, Kodak or Fuji, or even Ford or Chevy. It's subjective.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sussex UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    The point of posting this article was to show how the different films and developers stack up in comparisons. Rodinal is not horrible, but it comes in pretty close to dead last on a number of scores relevant to 35mm users...
    I enjoyed the article. Reading data on films I remember was good fun. But the developers as well as the films are proprietary products, and as far as I can see, there is no reason why they should be the same today any more than the films they were tested on.

    D76 may appear to be an exception, but when I started in photography D76 and ID11 had exactly the same published formula. The latest ones I have seen are similar, but not identical. Anchell and Troop's book says that commercial formulae have indeed changed over time.

    The reason I quoted the part I did was because it specifically mentioned scores relevant to 35mm users. Criteria change with format size, as Hans has implicitly stated here. I have not developed a B&W 35mm film in years.

    Rodinal has certain objective features that I set against the more subjective ones:

    1 You can always make up your own from formulae if Agfa stops making it. This may not be the case with Acutol (although Geoffrey Crawley sportingly made the formula for Acutol-S public when Paterson discontinued it).

    2. You can vary the dilution to vary the effect in a way that seems to me difficult to match with any other developer.

    Final point. I did try Acutol back in the 1960s and found the prints I made amazingly sharp (Pan F in 35mm). I did not continue using it on a regular basis because the "look" of the negatives did not suit my own subjective preferences. Possibly others would look at my negatives (and/or prints) and think that they would have been improved by using Acutol. But I am the one doing the developing, so I get to make the choice.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    Sure it is; to the people who like it and use it. That is all that matters. You might as well ask which is better, Nikon or Cannon, Kodak or Fuji, or even Ford or Chevy. It's subjective.
    Well, not really. In the class of developers to which Rodinal belongs (non-solvent), it comes up pretty much dead last, as the LF article shows. For instance Neofin Blau gives a good deal more speed on KB14 and Pan-F (both still avaialble) Panatomic-X (discontinued), and better sharpness on Isopan IFF (a discontinued AGFA film). Rodinal gives lower than average sharpness on several films (some discontinued).

    If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed. Rodinal will not give you the very last bit of detail and speed, but it may give you enough detail and speed for many uses. It's just that Acutol blows Rodinal away. If you think Rodinal is good (and you may well) then you'll go nuts over Acutol.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Actually I have found Rodinal quite a remarkable developer for practicing the zone system, and depending on dilution enables both contraction and expansion simply through changing the dilution and development time. What is more I find this works admirably with 35 mm film.

    - Mike

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK
    Actually I have found Rodinal quite a remarkable developer for practicing the zone system, and depending on dilution enables both contraction and expansion simply through changing the dilution and development time. What is more I find this works admirably with 35 mm film.

    - Mike

    But of course one does not use the zoan sistern with 35mm....

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen
    I enjoyed the article. Reading data on films I remember was good fun. But the developers as well as the films are proprietary products, and as far as I can see, there is no reason why they should be the same today any more than the films they were tested on.

    D76 may appear to be an exception, but when I started in photography D76 and ID11 had exactly the same published formula. The latest ones I have seen are similar, but not identical. Anchell and Troop's book says that commercial formulae have indeed changed over time.

    The reason I quoted the part I did was because it specifically mentioned scores relevant to 35mm users. Criteria change with format size, as Hans has implicitly stated here. I have not developed a B&W 35mm film in years.

    Rodinal has certain objective features that I set against the more subjective ones:

    1 You can always make up your own from formulae if Agfa stops making it. This may not be the case with Acutol (although Geoffrey Crawley sportingly made the formula for Acutol-S public when Paterson discontinued it).

    2. You can vary the dilution to vary the effect in a way that seems to me difficult to match with any other developer.

    Final point. I did try Acutol back in the 1960s and found the prints I made amazingly sharp (Pan F in 35mm). I did not continue using it on a regular basis because the "look" of the negatives did not suit my own subjective preferences. Possibly others would look at my negatives (and/or prints) and think that they would have been improved by using Acutol. But I am the one doing the developing, so I get to make the choice.
    I doubt very much whether the developers we still have today have changed in any significant way. There's no reason to. When a new developer is introduced or an existing one is modified, it is the name is changed. Kodak Microdol became Microdol-X. Paterson Aculux became Aculux-2.

  8. #68
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Well, not really. In the class of developers to which Rodinal belongs (non-solvent), it comes up pretty much dead last, ...
    ....It's just that Acutol blows Rodinal away. If you think Rodinal is good (and you may well) then you'll go nuts over Acutol.
    It might be an idea to give this a rest. You *assume* that if no one here prefers Acutol, it NECESSARILY means they have not tried it ... a VERY LARGE assumption.

    I prefer Rodinal. That does NOT mean that I do not wish to learn, or that I simply refuse to learn, nor do I deliberately blind myself from some undeniable truth.

    I have as much RIGHT to prefer Rodinal as anyone else has to prefer anything else...

    We are not trying to silence you. We ARE reading what you write, but its very repetition is becoming tiresome. We understand what you are saying - repeating it over and over again will not add to its credibility.

    Vive' Rodinal - the elixer of the GODS!!
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    It might be an idea to give this a rest. You *assume* that if no one here prefers Acutol, it NECESSARILY means they have not tried it ... a VERY LARGE assumption.

    I prefer Rodinal. That does NOT mean that I do not wish to learn, or that I simply refuse to learn, nor do I deliberately blind myself from some undeniable truth.

    I have as much RIGHT to prefer Rodinal as anyone else has to prefer anything else...

    We are not trying to silence you. We ARE reading what you write, but its very repetition is becoming tiresome. We understand what you are saying - repeating it over and over again will not add to its credibility.

    Vive' Rodinal - the elixer of the GODS!!

    Of course you do. It's just that I hear so many people talking about Rodinal lately, and I have to point out that it's really not that great...that's all. Things go in cycles. Products are rediscovered every few years.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Of course you do. It's just that I hear so many people talking about Rodinal lately, and I have to point out that it's really not that great...that's all. Things go in cycles. Products are rediscovered every few years.
    Please see:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3289

    and

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...1&cat=2&page=1

    The developer is only as good as the person using it. If you dont think is not that good, that is your opinion, just dont try to force your opinion on us. You probably just did not know how to use Rodinal. That is much more likely than saying is not good in face of evidence to the contrary.

    as you were told before, give it a rest......



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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