Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Chemistry > Chemical formulae

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 20th May 2016, 12:07 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Svend, to get the finest grain from Rodinal is very simple. expose as normal, just develop at 18 instead of 20 and increase the dev time foe instance 12 at 20 would be 14.45 at 18, but if you are using 120 film just develop as normal as grain will not be an issue with the larger film, The only Crawly developer that is available is FS39 from Adox
As Marty above said, the best way forward is to stick to a film/developer combo that you know and trust, searching for a magic bullet is useless, they don't exist
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 20th May 2016, 07:09 PM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Gould View Post
Svend, to get the finest grain from Rodinal is very simple. expose as normal, just develop at 18 instead of 20 and increase the dev time foe instance 12 at 20 would be 14.45 at 18, but if you are using 120 film just develop as normal as grain will not be an issue with the larger film, The only Crawly developer that is available is FS39 from Adox
As Marty above said, the best way forward is to stick to a film/developer combo that you know and trust, searching for a magic bullet is useless, they don't exist
Richard
Development temperature doesn't affect the grain size provided times are adjusted, that's a myth. Improcess at 20ºC here in the UK and 27ºC when in Turkey the grain is the same size, that's the same

However what ever the temperature chose that should be maintained to within +/- 1ºC throughout the process cycle including washing.

The problem with modern Rodinal is it contains free hydroxide which softens less well hardened films particularly Acros and you can get what Kodak call surface artifacts, also know as incipient or micro reticulation of the films gelatin supercoat with sudden temperature changes.

The effect is increased graininess in prints or scans, the actual silver image grain hasn't changed but your printing through the damaged supercoating, adding the surface artifact pattern to the normal grain pattern.

It's been known about since the mid 1920's and one way to overcome the surface issue is wet mounting for enlarging, first suggested around 1925/6, I put the article online a few years ago.

Most films are very robust but EFKE, Foma, Acros and the original Tmax 400 are more susceptible to problems in this area. It can happen with many developers.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 20th May 2016, 09:11 PM
GoodOldNorm's Avatar
GoodOldNorm GoodOldNorm is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lincolnshire UK
Posts: 1,227
Default

I think Sandy king has the right approach with his post here http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-in-Flat-Light
Horses for courses
__________________
"Tea is surely the king of all drinks. It helps against the cold, it helps against the heat,against discomfort and sickness, against weariness and weakness". Heinrich Harrer.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 20th May 2016, 11:27 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Norm, interesting comments by King re. two-bath being not well suited to normal or low contrast scenes. I've been using Perceptol at 1+3 for broad tonal range scenes with good success, and for normal contrast scenes also when the mood suits. FP4 in it for a full sun winter scene is wonderful -- the snow has real sparkle and texture. Less pleased with that dilution in flat light, however -- D76 or ID-11 at 1+1 works much better for me there. If two-bath is that limited in application, then perhaps it's not the thing for me.

Ian, Richard -- thanks for the input on Rodinal. I plan to try a few rolls of Acros soon, so will keep in mind not to pair it with Rodinal.

I am tempted to try Rodinal for FP4 and HP5/Tri-X though. If it gives me a look that I like, it would complement my other two standard developers nicely and give me another tool in the quiver to work with when I am after a certain look.

Which leads me to a general comment here - several of you have recommended sticking with only one developer and getting to know it well. That is a fair recommendation, but I should point out that I have used ID-11, D-76 and Perceptol for literally thousands of images, so have a pretty good grasp of what it can do. Granted, I have not strayed beyond standard EI ratings and development times, and I intend to start doing so to try to pull some better image quality from them (esp. D-76). But I see nothing wrong with exploring one or two other developers to see how they work out. If they give me a different look, one that works well with certain subject matter, I become familiar with them and learn to use them well, I see that as just an expansion of the available tools at my disposal. Given the wide range of subject matter that I find myself shooting, this makes sense to me.

Perhaps I should have been more clear from the start -- I don't intend to stop using ID-11, D-76 and Perceptol. But rather want to complement them with something different and unique in its own way. Ideally it would be a general purpose developer versatile enough for roll film use, but I am beginning to think that that may not be worth the trouble for what may only be marginal gain, if any. In other words, if spending a year trying Xtol or FX-15 which may not get me much in improved image quality, then why bother? From some of the excellent feedback here, I am coming around to the idea of getting to know a third developer like Rodinal or Pyro for discrete rolls shot of a single subject, when that kind of particular look would work well.

Argentum -- I like your suggestion of posting images here for others to critique. Where would be the best section to put them up? I see from the forum rules that film scans are not allowed. So how can this work? I have a handful of images scanned and ready for easy upload. Can I post them within this thread without sanction?

BTW, today I took the day off work and went with my daughter into downtown Toronto to see this: http://www.ago.net/outsiders
Just an outstanding exhibit. Some of the images were difficult to look at and stirred some uncomfortable emotions, but such is the power of photography. The work of Diane Arbus and Gordon Parks, in particular, was incredible. I could hardly pull myself away from Parks' the 1960's essay for Life Magazine on the Harlem family. Very, very moving images. What talent. For those not familiar, Parks was the first black photographer on staff at Life.

Wishing you all a good weekend. It's Victoria Day holiday on Monday here in Canada, celebrating the old girl's birthday. Always a fun time, with lots of fireworks to celebrate the spring season and end of winter.

Best,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 21st May 2016, 10:39 AM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,426
Default

Svend, you suggest that you may be able to change the "look" of your prints by changing developer. I honestly don't think that this will happen to any degree with 120 film, which I believe you use. It would happen with 35mm, of course, where the degree of enlaregment is bigger. Some differences would be small. 35mm Hp5 in dilute Perceptol gives me prints that are very nice, but with slightly mushy grain. In dilute ID11 the grain looks crisper, sharper, tighter. But the grain in both is fine and hard to spot. And some differences would be big. In Rodinal, for example, I get noticably more grain.
But with 120 Hp5 grain is hard to spot even when it is developed in Rodinal, because I don't do big prints.
If you can get hold of Barry Thornton's book, Elements, you will see what I mean. The book shows prints made from a wide range of 120 film types, developed in an even wider range of developers. This is the theme of the book. His search for the perfect combination seems a bit pointless when you look closely at his prints. They all look the same! The reproduction process may have levelled things out, but I went to a Barry Thornton lecture once, and was able to see his original prints at close quarters. And there didn't seem to be much difference between them in terms of print quality, or "tonality" (whatever that is ) or sharpness. They were all very nice.

But some things do make a difference. You have said that some of your prints lack sparkle, or glow. Where does this come from?
Every Tuesday I go onto the North York Moors with my friend Tony Miller, to take photographs. One Tuesday I took two photographs of a tree. I was using a Bronica SQ, loaded with 120 trix, which I later developed in D76 diluted 1+2. I made some prints, and ended up with a really pleasing photograph which was full of sparkle, glow and positively oozed light.
The question is, what produced these desirable print qualities?
Was it because I took the picture on a Tuesday? I don't think so. Was it because it was taken in the presence of Tony Miller? Probably not (but you never know....)

Or did the camera lens have something to do with it? Or the film/ developer combination?
Actually it was none of these. I can be quite certain about this because I took two pictures of that tree, The first, discussed above , was taken in full sunlight, and the second, a moment later, in flat light when the sun went behind a cloud. This second negative produced a much inferior print. Same camera, same lens, same film, same developer, same printing paper, so what was the difference? The quality of light shining on the subject when the picture was taken. This is something we all know, but are sometimes inclined to forget, or overlook.

Finally, I can't resist saying this; the photograph of which I was so pleased was taken in exactly the conditions that Argentum tells us to avoid, i.e. noon, in bright sunlight....And it wasn't difficult to print. It went on Ilford warmtone with a grade 3 filter, and could have been a straight print had I not preferred to burn in a small area to make the print more tonally balanced.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 21st May 2016, 04:48 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvendN View Post
Argentum -- I like your suggestion of posting images here for others to critique. Where would be the best section to put them up? I see from the forum rules that film scans are not allowed. So how can this work? I have a handful of images scanned and ready for easy upload. Can I post them within this thread without sanction?
I think that just for illustration purposes no one is going to complain if they are neg scans but generally its not allowed.

I would just post them in situ in this topic "for illustration purposes".

But moderators may complain, I'm not sure.

if you have a flatbed scanner they work very well for scanning prints of portions of prints.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21st May 2016, 07:11 PM
TonyMiller TonyMiller is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 890
Default

I think I was probably having my first sandwiches and tea of the day in the car so nowt to do with me........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Clark View Post
Was it because it was taken in the presence of Tony Miller? Probably not (but you never know....)
__________________
regards,

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 21st May 2016, 11:03 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentum View Post
I think that just for illustration purposes no one is going to complain if they are neg scans but generally its not allowed.

I would just post them in situ in this topic "for illustration purposes".

But moderators may complain, I'm not sure.

if you have a flatbed scanner they work very well for scanning prints of portions of prints.
Perhaps best not to ruffle the feathers of the Mods. I'm new here so don't want to get the steely stare so early on.

If you or anyone else wants to volunteer to do this via email, all in the spirit of constructive feedback, then shoot me a PM and we can connect behind the scenes. I assure you I'm not a spammer or whacko of any other sort.

Tony - so there was no luminous glow radiating from the car's interior, shining on Alan's tree? Shame. He may find that useful on occasion....

Alan - perhaps these are more subtle changes that I'm after here, than a radical shift of image quality. A fine tuning, if you will. Apologies that I didn't say so earlier. Personally, I can see the differences in negatives done in Perceptol vs. D76/ID11. They are not night and day different, but it's there. Blacks seem deeper, mid tones more punchy, crisper in D76. Perceptol has a mellower look, which works great for certain scenes. Subtle differences, for sure, but I have a critical eye and I notice it. Point being, that to my eye developers DO make a difference to the look of an image. Call me overly self-critical of my pictures, but what I find is acceptable vs what is outstanding may be different from others.

Hence the root of my question - what might I expect from FX15/FX37, or Xtol? From the comments here, perhaps not enough to warrant months of trials. Time would be better spent dialing in D76, and even tweaking the formula as Rob and Ian have suggested. And then, in the meantime, to see if I actually can get a significantly different look from another developer, try a few rolls in Rodinal (perhaps stand developed?), or one of the pyro formulas.

On the topic of pyro, much of my preconceived notion of it comes from Anchell/Troop and Thornton, who say one of its downsides is unreliability and unpredictable results. These books were published about 2 decades ago. Have there been any advances in these formulas since then? I read about Pyrocat HD as being a more recent development - how does this formula work out for users in everyday practice? Much frustration and blown gaskets? Or easy-peasy, nuthin' to it? Curious to hear about this...

Cheers,
Svend

PS - Alan, I agree that midday full sun shots sometimes show great quality of light. Eg. Most of my recent shots in downtown Detroit were in such light, and it really worked to convey the starkness of some of the ruined architecture there.

Last edited by Svend; 21st May 2016 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 22nd May 2016, 09:47 AM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,426
Default

Sven, Tony is being too modest. The tree was in an abandoned overgrown garden at the head of Bransdale. I'd never even heard of the place until Tony discovered it when out walking, and suggested we pay it a visit. And when I took the picture he was further down the muddy path photographing another tree, having left the best one for me. And as for eating his lunch at noon...We have usually eaten the lot by half past eleven!

Regarding Pyrocat HD; there is a lot of good information about this on the web, especially on Sandy King's website. I used to use it a lot and found it very reliable, even though I was mixing it myself using very basic weighing scales. In a direct comparison, using the simple test I mentioned in an earlier post, I found that prints made from FP4 developed in Pyrocat HD at a dilution of 1+1+100 looked very like prints of the same subject taken with FP4 developed in Perceptol diluted 1+3. As good as you would want, really. Lovely bright upper mid-tones and no mid-tone compression. And as Pyrocat HD is much cheaper than Perceptol when self-mixed, it would seem a good alternative to dilute Perceptol. But the thing that put me off Pyrocat HD in the end was that I often found the negatives rather fiddly to print. Counter-intuitive somehow, unlike negatives developed in dilute Perceptol, which usually print very easily. I am not blaming Pyrocat for this. I am sure it was my fault as the tanning of the highlights, which is a feature of Pyrocat, is supposed to keep negative contrast in check and make printing easier.
In conclusion, I never found Pyrocat HD unreliable or unpredictable, so I wouldn't worry about using it.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22nd May 2016, 12:06 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Hi Alan,
That's exactly the kind of honest, unbiased insight I'm looking for. Thank you. Very helpful indeed. Much of what is posted out there on the wider web on ths topic, and many others (pick one - films, lenses, cameras...) has somewhat of a soapbox preacher tone to it. It's rare to hear from someone who's actually gone through objective thorough evaluation and speaks from there (emphasis on the word objective).

Interesting to hear about Perceptol vs Pyrocat regarding image quality. I would not have expected that. Perceptol really is great stuff. Seems underappreciated, actually. I plan to use it more often than I have been, in order to dial in the dilution vs. minimum stock volume vs. development time (per my other thread re. Perceptol). And because boxed Perceptol is so expensive here and one gets so few rolls out of a litre, I plan to mix my own.

BTW, further to the point above re. the wider web, I now understand why the rules here prohibit neg scans in the Gallery. With all the digital manipulation that's done, it's impossble to judge an image anymore for such variables as film-developer combos. Given 1000 examples each of two different combos, and you'll find 200 that have almost exactly the same image quality. If you haven't tried it, go on Flickr and type in "FP4 D76", browse the images; then do the same with " TriX Rodinal", or any other combo you like, and you'll see what I mean.

On that note, I think I may withdraw my suggestion of having others here evaluate my images. All I have available is extensively modified digital files from scans, which wouldn't tell anyone much of anything about the film and developer used. Unless they would find an untweaked raw conversion helpful...? Let me know...

Best,
Svend
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Borax availability and alternatives Rob Archer Chemical formulae 5 25th January 2016 02:08 PM
Dressing for the part cliveh Art and aesthetics 6 17th February 2011 10:25 AM
Alternatives to trays for paper development Puggie Darkroom 13 7th February 2011 07:41 PM
Suzuki's D76 alternatives RobertD Chemical formulae 3 29th August 2009 06:32 PM
PMK - Part B very milky Argentum Chemical formulae 7 12th January 2009 08:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.