Originally Posted by Donald Miller
I've taken a quick look at Sandy's article again (having read it in some detail months ago) and don't interpret the results in quite the same way. It would appear that FP4+ achieves a higher CI quicker than HP5+ in the pyrocat developer (for example reaching a CI of .95 instead of .85 at 20 minutes development time at same dilution) but my take on the data is that the HP5+ curve remains steeper at the extended times while the FP4+ curves are beginning to flatten several minutes before that final 20 minute data point. This suggests to me that if the development times were extended, the CI of HP5+ would catch up and perhaps even exceed that of FP4+ in the same developer. At a quick glance, the charts seem to indicate a difference in the initial rate of development rather than the absolute density range/CI achievable using these films and pyro developers. (I'll have to put the data on a single CI chart to see any trend more clearly.)
Perhaps Sandy could comment on this if he happens by.
I'll also check my notes and see if I can figure out the CI of my film test for VDB using HP5+ and HC110.
Thanks for the pointer to Sandy's data. Looks like I'll have to pick up some FP4+ and try it.
OK, here are my thoughts.
Originally Posted by smieglitz
My original tests of HP5+, as seen in the article at unblinkingeye.com, were based on the *old* HP5+. I have done a lot of more recent testing with the newer HP5+, but have not as yet updated the article.
My most recent tests show that a CI of 0.95 is possible with the new HP5+ and Pyrocat 2:2:100 with about 22 minutes of development, rotary at 72║F. However, the CI chart at that point shows the CI to still be on a straight line, i.e. climbing. That is, more time *might* result in a higher CI. But I only tested to 22 minutes, so can not say for sure. But I do allow the possibility at least that the film is capable of a higher CI than .95.
FP4+ is another bird. With the Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 dilution a CI of about 1.15 is achieved with about 20-22 minutes of development. However, the CI appears to be leveling off at that point, so I don' t believe you can get much more contrast out of the film. But again, I don't know for *sure* because I did not test FP4+ in Pyrocat 2:2:100 for more than 22 minutes.
I don't like to punt on questions, but punting is better than providing inaccurate information. Or so I believe.
I was hesitant to try the new Tri-x when it came out but since I didn't have any more of the old stuff I bought it anyway. It seems every bit as good as the old emulsion.
Originally Posted by rhphoto
I believe that George Provost switched from Tri-x to Efke 25. This also he develops in Sandy's Pyrocat-HD.
I have several beautiful 8x10 Azo contact prints made by George Provost. A few of his negs were shot on Efke 25 and developed in Pyrocat-HD. Most of his negs were shot on Efke 100 and developed in Pyrocat-HD.
For my own 8x10 Azo contact work, I shoot about 80% - 90% with Efke 100 and develop in Pyrocat-HD. The rest are either J&C Classic 400 plus or Efke 25 processed in Pyrocat-HD.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
Thanks again for all the replies. So now I think I'm just going to put all the suggested films in a hat and pick one. Or throw the I Ching.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I use FP4 and HP5 5x7 from Ilford, great films that give good contrast control in development. I tried Bergger/Forte, with PMK, which is now collecting dust. Forte is too soft from itself for decent Palladium prints and is very insensitive for overdevelopment, making it useless for zone-system/SBR processing.
Now Ilford is delivering well again I see no reason to mess with the very toxic pyro developpers.
Which low toxicity Ilford developer are you using?
Everything is analog - even digital :D
ehr mainly D76 and also Tmax
At least they less toxic then pyro..
They're both Kodak developers, so they shouldn't be affected by Ilford's problems
Originally Posted by reinierv
Besides, that bit about toxicity is debatable, too
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
If you're going to print on Azo, avoid 100TMax at all costs. There's a UV blocker in it that makes for nothing but disastrous results on Azo. I recently tried to print one and gave up after about 1/2 hour of producing nothing but pure mud. It really is hopeless. I find this ironic since my absolute favorite film is 400TMax. I like it so much that if I were going to make 5 x 7 contact prints I'd buy 8 x 10 film and cut it.
I recently saw some new work by Joe Freeman, Jr., one of the finest photographers working today. He's making absolutely breathtaking prints on Efke PL100 developed in ABC pyro. He told me he couldn't hit a lick with 400TMax. To each his own.
I've made some beautiful prints on Bergger BPF 200, and also on JandC Classic 200, which seems very similar to me. Also HP5+ and Tri-X. They're all pretty good. You just have to find the one that allows you to produce the best prints possible.