Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,152   Online: 880
      
Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 450
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    steelneck - do you have to extend the development times for each time the dev is reused?
    Not a clue, so far i have only developed one roll.

    Today when i looked a bit closer in different light on the small prints i made and compare them to the earlier ones i have made from P160C, there seem to be a very slight blue/magenta cast when using the same filtration. Well, further testing is needed to be able to say anything definite.

  2. #32
    kompressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    do you have to extend the development times for each time the dev is reused?
    Nope, you dont. Thats one of the fine thing with it. I have done 3:15 for almost 35 120 films on one litre work solution now. 38,5 degree.

  3. #33
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,972
    Images
    1
    kompressor,

    so have you not noticed ANY changes, whatsoever?

    density, highlight compression, shadow density build-up, loss of contrast, NO underdevelopment?

    -Dan

  4. #34
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,601
    Quote Originally Posted by kompressor View Post
    I have done 3:15 for almost 35 120 films on one litre work solution now. 38,5 degree.
    That is about 3-times(!) of utilisation of what you get with the Tetenal kit, and even that needs processing time extention with the number of re-runs on the working solution.

  5. #35
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    I don't believe in magic. They seem to promise everything that is known impossible or to give non-professional, degraded results. They promise completely dustless negs and still I've seen examples here of the most terrible goo ever. They promise processing at almost any temperature, but I want to see it proved. Color contrast balance is dependent on diffusion rate and while it maybe can be controlled by modifying chemistry, it's hard to see how any chemistry could work for all temperatures without modification.

    And, I don't also believe that this chemistry would sustain overusage (compared to other chemistry) without affecting density at all. It's probably just that they have lower quality standards. If you are happy with some nice color images with minor speed and color shifts and crossover and don't need perfect densitometry, you can probably abuse Kodak, Fuji and Tetenal chemicals as well and get identical results. They just don't promise anything.

    Don't forget that we are dealing with some kind of con artist company here, with rhetoric over product reality. This product may be good but I wouldn't buy it, and it would be the last thing to believe their product is superior, new technology.

  6. #36
    kompressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    196
    The last post reminds me of one thing. Many of the famous writers in history, who wrote about murder, have never tried to kill somebody them self. Since they wrote fiction, its good enough. But please try the chemistry before stating its no good.

  7. #37
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    I've not stated the chemistry is no good. On the opposite, I've stated it may be good. But I don't believe in miracles. I've heard only two experiences; the first one is yours; the cleanest negs ever. The other one was here at APUG. They were worst ever and had terrible goo. This is probably an user error, though, at least partially.

    We have to be a bit skeptical on products that promise miracles and that are sold by arguing that they are better than others. Kodak and Fuji don't do this as they need to care a bit more about their image. They can't live on the niche market.

    What I say is that I don't believe all of the promises. I find official C-41 chemistries very, very good. I also remember Maco-Rollei's marketing goofs quite well.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    173
    I have now processed my second roll in this soup, it came out OK too. But this time i really cannot compare it against anything since it was a Superia 1600, a film that i have never tried before. The same filtration that i use for Reala was very close, but i had to open up 1 stop, probably because of a clearly visible darker film base in this 1600 film. I used the same 8min 30 degree centigrade processing temp as in my last report in this thread. This time i did not experience any slight blue/magenta cast, it could be that i was a bit sloppy in my manual processing the first time (i did also use a tank that i have never used before - i know, a bad thing to change two things..).

    I will be pushing this new chemistry a bit regarding shelf life, i have made 350ml working solution and i am storing it in 500ml bottles at room temp.. Lets see when it starts to "behave" in some way..

    I have to say that i was impressed with the S-1600 film, i had expected much more grain. A 10x15cm copy at normal viewing distance in a photo album do not have any disturbing grain, i would say that it performs better than my old EOS 300D at this ISO. But i find this film quite contrasty and i do not think that could be blamed on the chemistry since the P160C came out quite as expected and that the filtration was in the ballpark. So far the chemistry seem to do what it should, nothing more nothing less.

  9. #39
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Every chemistry should work in a very, very similar way. If it does not, then it fails miserably and shouldn't be sold at all. If you get good results, that just means that the chemistry is at least usable. That's all. If you want to compare, you have to do very careful side-by-side comparisons with the exactly same images on the same film and with very careful processing. Then, there is probably very little difference in any chemistries.

    It would be interesting, though, to see a proper comparison about the promised possibility to process in different temperatures than 37.8C, to see if Fuji/Kodak chemicals work as well with the same temps/times or not.

    Superia 1600 is very fine-grained. 30x20 cm optical prints show very manageable grain. I don't find it especially contrasty, either.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    It would be interesting, though, to see a proper comparison about the promised possibility to process in different temperatures than 37.8C, to see if Fuji/Kodak chemicals work as well with the same temps/times or not.
    Yes, that would be interesting, done by someone who can manage the temperatures carefully. I have found 30C to be the practical limit with the things i have around.

    For me the issue of shelf-life, both concentrates and working solutions are also very important. That is the reason i bought a small kit of the Rollei chemistry to test in the first place. Picture-quality-wise i am OK with Tetenal, but it goes bad on the shelf.

    I am just a hobbyist and do not have all the experience as many of you have, can someone tell how big filtration differences that is normal between different films on the same paper? (assuming no corrections for shooting conditions)

Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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