Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,840   Posts: 1,582,604   Online: 1057
      
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 117
  1. #81
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed.
    I personally have never been able to see the quality of my negatives improve based on the speed the developer provides. Knowing the speed I will get with a given combination of film and developer allows me to meter accordingly. That improves the quality of my negatives.
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    I personally have never been able to see the quality of my negatives improve based on the speed the developer provides. Knowing the speed I will get with a given combination of film and developer allows me to meter accordingly. That improves the quality of my negatives.
    Well, when you're using 1/250 instead of 1/125, or 1/500 instead of 1/250 it matters a lot! Do you do sports work? Long lens work?

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    What picture?
    Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....
    I'm new here. Do you mean this?

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1

    Well, it looks horribly grainy to me. Sorry, that hardly looks like something I'd want to get from my film and developer. I'll try to add one to this thread.

    This image was made a couple of weeks ago. I used HP5 Plus and devloped it in Acutol. Taken with the 560mm f/6,8 Leitz Telyt. High school football match.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HS Football small.jpg  

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    I'm new here. Do you mean this?

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1

    Well, it looks horribly grainy to me. Sorry, that hardly looks like something I'd want to get from my film and developer. I'll try to add one to this thread.

    This image was made a couple of weeks ago. I used HP5 Plus and devloped it in Acutol. Taken with the 560mm f/6,8 Leitz Telyt. High school football match.
    LOL....you would say that...I know you are new here, sadly you found this site to make yourself as obnoxious as you do in the Ilford and other forums you visit. The difference is that here we have this little feature called the ignore list, once you are in it, as the name implies, it just ignores your posts. I get the feeling that you are making into a lot of lists.....for sure you are now in mine...later bubba, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

  6. #86
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    Well, when you're using 1/250 instead of 1/125, or 1/500 instead of 1/250 it matters a lot! Do you do sports work? Long lens work?
    I have done both in the past, yes. And when I've done those, I chose my film and developer appropriately. I take it that your claim of Acutol being better because it's faster is now modified to Acutol being better if you're shooting sports or using a long lens because it's faster...no?

    When I shoot 35mm or 120 landscapes from a tripod, or when I shoot on the streets, I use Rodinal because I love the way it looks. (If I'm shooting large format for contact printing, Pyrocat-HD is my favored developer.) Before you chide me for my unwillingness to see how much better Acutol is...know that I tried Acutol, Rodinal, and a host of other developers...and I chose Rodinal. I chose Rodinal because it gets me the results that I want. I won't claim that Rodinal is "the best", because no developer is the best. But what I will claim is that Rodinal gets me what I want better than any other developer I've tried. Acutol didn't give me results I was looking for.

    These things are matters of taste and opinion, not fact. No amount of argument, no amount of data, and no amount of repetition of claims of superiority will make me believe that I will be happier with Acutol than I am with Rodinal. I've tried them both, and for my personal vision, Rodinal gives me what I want. Maybe the grain's more evident...maybe the resolution is lower...maybe I have to shoot at lower shutter speeds...maybe a demon in hell sings my praises every time I unscrew the cap on a bottle of Rodinal...but I don't care. I like the way my 35mm and 120 shots look with Rodinal more than with the other developers I've tried, Acutol included.
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    I have done both in the past, yes. And when I've done those, I chose my film and developer appropriately. I take it that your claim of Acutol being better because it's faster is now modified to Acutol being better if you're shooting sports or using a long lens because it's faster...no?

    When I shoot 35mm or 120 landscapes from a tripod, or when I shoot on the streets, I use Rodinal because I love the way it looks. (If I'm shooting large format for contact printing, Pyrocat-HD is my favored developer.) Before you chide me for my unwillingness to see how much better Acutol is...know that I tried Acutol, Rodinal, and a host of other developers...and I chose Rodinal. I chose Rodinal because it gets me the results that I want. I won't claim that Rodinal is "the best", because no developer is the best. But what I will claim is that Rodinal gets me what I want better than any other developer I've tried. Acutol didn't give me results I was looking for.

    These things are matters of taste and opinion, not fact. No amount of argument, no amount of data, and no amount of repetition of claims of superiority will make me believe that I will be happier with Acutol than I am with Rodinal. I've tried them both, and for my personal vision, Rodinal gives me what I want. Maybe the grain's more evident...maybe the resolution is lower...maybe I have to shoot at lower shutter speeds...maybe a demon in hell sings my praises every time I unscrew the cap on a bottle of Rodinal...but I don't care. I like the way my 35mm and 120 shots look with Rodinal more than with the other developers I've tried, Acutol included.

    Of course, developers change their characteristics with dilution. What you may have found is that with the dilution you used, you prefer Rodinal. And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer to a greater degree than Rodinal: better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion. It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol, but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed. It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there.

  8. #88
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by hansbeckert
    And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer to a greater degree than Rodinal: better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion. It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol, but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed. It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there.
    I get the feeling that you've either never studied debate, or that you are intentionally throwing up false arguments. In either case, I will have the last word as far as I'm concerned, as I'm going to write this reply and then I am going to immediately place you on my Ignore list. Congratulations...you'll be the very first. (And I'll probably be the last person on APUG to put you on my ignore list.)

    "And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer " Note: it offers all of the things that YOU want.

    "better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion." Note: these are things that YOU want. Measure them all you want...call them indisputable...I don't care. I tried Acutol in lots of dilutions with lots of films, and I found it characterless.

    "It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol" Note: In my experience, it's not only reasonable, but common. Not that that matters much...I'm just rubbing your face in the fact that lots of people use Rodinal and for some strange reason you can't accept that fact.

    "but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed." Note: and now we come to the crux of the problem. You've found some things that are measurable, and you can measure that they are "better", so you infer that the developer is therefore better. As my previous post stated, and you so inconveniently ignored, I DON'T CARE. I choose Rodinal because I like how it looks, numbers be damned.

    "It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there." Note: YOU are the one who used sports work and long lenses as reasons why speed makes Acutol "better", not me. If you're arguing that this point is moot, then you're arguing with yourself.

    And now, welcome to my Ignore list. <click>
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    141
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    I DON'T CARE. I choose Rodinal because I like how it looks, numbers be damned.
    Obviously, the information in this article would be useful to those who DO care. Many, many do care. I'm sorry for you. I really am.

  10. #90
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    much better now on the ignore list. what a wonderful thing it is.

    lee\c

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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