PDA

View Full Version : Acutance developer or fine grain developer


mark d
28th August 2010, 07:31 PM
If I use a high acutance developer on 120 pan F film I should get very sharp negs against courser grain. If I use a fine grain developer I should get minimum grain but against less sharp negs, because I am using 120, would I be better going for a high acutance developer as I am not enlarging them to much. I plan to print 12"x12" but may go to 16"x16". I want to get the best quality negs to print from.

Mike O'Pray
28th August 2010, 08:30 PM
All speculation on my part but if high accutance is what you'd like to see then Pan F in 120 at only 12x12 might still be relatively grainless with high accutance.

Short of looking at an actual 12x12 print of a 120 neg developed in a high accutance developer to see if it meets your needs, I think you can only give it a try. A low resolution scan of such a print would I think be next to useless for comparison purposes.

Do you have a specific fine grain and high accutance developer in mind?

Mike

mark d
29th August 2010, 08:31 AM
I was thinking of using Rodinol as a high octanes developer as I have used it in the past and had some good results or one of the fine grain developers from Ilford like microphen or perceptoll which I have never used. I have 7 rolls to developer and I want to get it right as I think I have some good pictures. I was wondering what others would do as they have much more experience than me.

Alan Clark
29th August 2010, 08:52 AM
Mark,
Look at the other recent threads on this subject. I do not believe it is a case of sharpness OR fine grain. With Pyrocat HD, Prescysol EF or Perceptol 1+3 you can have both. These developers are just as sharp as Rodinal, and can give very fine grain.
Perceptol at 1+3 works best in sunny conditions, as you may lose a bit of film speed with it. Pyrocat HD is a bit awkward as you have to make it yourself from raw chemicals-but it is very cheap. Presycol is available ready to use. You won't lose film speed with it, or with Pyrocat. I have never used Pan F but in a direct test with FP4+ these three developers led to prints that were indistinguishable from each othe in terms of grain, sharpness and tones.
Take your pick, but if the films you have already taken have some potentially good stuff on them I would be loth to risk them in a developer I had not tried before. I would be tempted to shoot a few rolls on nothing important, to experiment with.

Alan

Mark-NY
29th August 2010, 11:43 AM
Like Alan, I too do not believe it is a case of either one or the other: sharpness or grain. My usual developer is Xtol and have had absolutely no issues with grain in enlargements up to 14" -- the largest I have made.

In my limited experience, I have found grain the be mostly determined by the film used while developer choice is a secondary consideration. That being said, I have never used Rodinol ;). It would be interesting to hear others' thoughts here.

This chart (http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053) listing the characteristics of various Kodak developers might be helpful.

As a side note: "Grain whispers at you from 12 inches while tonality shouts at you from across the room." I can't remember where I read that but would have to agree.

In any event, I would doubt that grain would be an issue for most 120 films enlarged to the sizes you indicate. In that case you also might consider just using your normal developer for these important rolls rather than experimenting - it took me a large number of rolls just to get good developing times for my films and process.

ShaunH
29th August 2010, 07:32 PM
Ilford Pan F+ can be a pig of a film to use if you have any deep shadow areas in your shot. To get the best out of Pan F+ I would always use Ilford Perceptol at 1+3 and put up with a painfully long development time. The clarity of the final result will be astonishing and the action of the developer will give an excellent tonal range. Ilford Pan F+ is my favourite film on 120 roll but at the moment I am developing in Tetenal Neofin Blue.

Alan Clark
29th August 2010, 07:52 PM
Hi Shaun,
I know you also like Adox 25. What are the differences between this and Pan F?

Alan

ShaunH
31st August 2010, 12:40 PM
Hi Shaun,
I know you also like Adox 25. What are the differences between this and Pan F?

Alan

Alan, a very good day to you. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I hope the darkroom work is doing well.

I do like Adox CHS25 yes but of the two films I honestly think that Ilford Pan F+ is a more refined film to use and to get results from. The Adox has issues when it is wet straight from the tank in that the emulsion is just so delicate and Ilford Pan F+ has issues regarding how it handles deep shadows but out of convenience, I think Pan F+ wins by a tiny margin.

One thing to bear in mind is that I have only used the Adox film on 35mm whereas I have used Pan F+ in all formats. I think that Pan F+ is sharper, just and I think that Pan F+ has a better rendition of very fine detail. CHS25 is a very fine film but obviously there is a one stop penalty when using it and I have found that this film is better on 'diffuse' days when the lighting is near perfect. It is crucial that this film is not overexposed as it does not handle highlights well. It produces a gorgeous range of midtones on skin especially with a hint of TTL flash in daylight.

Because these films are quite unique, I find myself using both of them but out of convenience I would chose Pan F+.

Alan Clark
31st August 2010, 01:14 PM
Thanks Shaun,

I have used Adox 25 in 35mm, and got bad tram-lines with it, but liked the look it gave. Maybe I should give Pan F a go.

Alan

ShaunH
1st September 2010, 07:54 AM
Thanks Shaun,

I have used Adox 25 in 35mm, and got bad tram-lines with it, but liked the look it gave. Maybe I should give Pan F a go.

Alan

The most likely cause of tramlines would be the use of a film squeegee or the use of fingers to squeegee the film. This simply cannot be done with this film as it definitely will result in damage. Utmost care has to be followed taking this film out of the spiral and no further contact should be made, the film being simply hung up to dry.

I would recommend you give it another go. It really is a fabulous film especially when developed in Neofin Blue or Rodinal. The advantage with Ilford Pan F+ though is that you can use Perceptol at 1+3. That just has to be good.

Trevor Crone
1st September 2010, 09:22 AM
For acutance and fine grain I would certainly recommend investigating PMK pyro with any film.

I mix my own but it is available ready mixed from Linhof Studios.

Alan Clark
1st September 2010, 05:06 PM
Thanks Shaun,
I NEVER use a squeegee or my fingers with any film, and knowing how soft Adox emulsions are I even took the film out of its cassette before loading it on the spiral - to minimise the number of times the film went through the lips of the cassette.
All I can say is that I don't get them with Ilford films.

Alan

Jack Lusted
6th September 2010, 09:41 AM
Not wishing to hi-jack this thread or on the other hand unnecessarily starting a new one...
I've just been giving pyrocat-hd a go. Have used it on Rollei 80s and Foma 100 - both very nice, but on foma 400 things were very grainy indeed - much more so than Foma 400 in x-tol (my usual brew).
Am I missing something here?

Jack

Alan Clark
6th September 2010, 05:23 PM
Jack,
What dilution of Pyrocat did you use? I have found that at 1+1+100 it gives fine grain but at 2+2 +100 it gives as much grain as Rodinal.

Alan

Jack Lusted
6th September 2010, 07:34 PM
Alan,
The recommended 1+1+100.
I was wondering if pyrocat works less well with faster films?

Jack

Alan Clark
6th September 2010, 10:07 PM
Jack, can't really help I'm afraid. I have used Pyrocat HD a lot with HP5+, TRI X and Foma 400, but nearly always at the 2+2+100 dilution because I wanted grain. On the odd occasion I used it at the 1+1+100 dilution with HP5+ it gave fine grain, ie fine for hp5+.
At this dilution with FP4+ it gave grain as fine as Perceptol 1+3 when I tested it carefully, certainly as fine as XTOL.

Alan

ShaunH
7th September 2010, 08:12 AM
Thanks Shaun,
I NEVER use a squeegee or my fingers with any film, and knowing how soft Adox emulsions are I even took the film out of its cassette before loading it on the spiral - to minimise the number of times the film went through the lips of the cassette.
All I can say is that I don't get them with Ilford films.

Alan

I love Ilford films as they are just so convenient to use. I also get on quite well with Kodak T-Max 100 as well. Adox simply require far to much care and attention but the CHS25 ART does produce some really good results. Whether it is worth the extra hassle I guess is up to the individual concerned. For the time being I am using Pan F+ in ID-11 at 1+3 on 120 roll and it is producing some truly breathtaking negatives but the proof of the pudding will come in the darkroom. That is for a bit later in the year.

ShaunH
7th September 2010, 08:15 AM
However getting back to the original thread...

I use Pan F+ in ID-11 at 1+3 as it produces the most amazing sharpness in the negative with an ultra fine grain. OK, development time is fifteen minutes but there's always a price to pay. For this kind of resolution it just has to be worth it.

Neil Smith
7th September 2010, 08:50 AM
However getting back to the original thread...

I use Pan F+ in ID-11 at 1+3 as it produces the most amazing sharpness in the negative with an ultra fine grain. OK, development time is fifteen minutes but there's always a price to pay. For this kind of resolution it just has to be worth it.

Interesting, I have just ordered Pan F in 120 from AG, after not using it for more than a decade in favour of FP4 and HP5. I intend to try it developed in Prescysol.


Neil