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
  #11  
Old 19th May 2016, 07:41 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

tonality? That is such a subjective term that no one can answer it in relation to exactly what you mean.

Perhaps posting a few images so we can see what your prints look like currently in terms of "tonality" and acutance and people could suggest what effect such and such a developer would have had on each image.

If you want standard off the shelf developers then I would consider xtol, Tetenal Ultrafin, Tetenal Ultrafin T plus, Ilford DDX and possibly HC110.
They all give sharp grain. The tetenal and Ilford ones are specifically designed for t-grain films and give a short toe which means good shadow separation and they also give good speed. Xtol is acclaimed as a great general purpose developer but I don't know enough about it. HC110 gives a slightly upswept curve so really good highlight separation but not so good shadow separation. i.e. a different look than the others but with sharpness.
The finest grain one is the Tetenal ultrafin t plus but sharp with it.

So there's another 4 to consider which wasn't what you asked but you got them anyway
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 19th May 2016, 08:18 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Norm -- I can get Adox at Argentix.ca here in Canada. They have a remarkably broad selection of ready-made developers (Rollei too) and bulk chemicals. So if I want to delve into rolling my own FX-37, I can try a bottle of FX-39 (almost the same, apparently) before buying all the necessary powders. I hear so many positives about pyro developers, I really need to research their reliability and usability. Mixed comments out there on their downsides, but no one seems to be specific as to what the issues are. They just seem like a lot of hassle and fuss, with unpredictable outcomes. Maybe I'm off-base on that, but it would be nice to be able to visualize and anticipate how a film will turn out, and work within those parameters. Not sure if Pyro can give me that (?).

In short, I would love to try PMK or Pyrocat HD or similar, but it's their unpredictability and unreliability that keep me from going down that road. Maybe my impressions are all wrong, but they seem like they would be frustrating animal to try to master.

Argentum -- tonality?...yeah, that's a loaded question. How does one describe that? Without writing an essay. If I could try to sum it up, I would say that my prints are lacking a sense of light emanating from them; luminosity; smoothness of tone; a glow, if you will. It's not that they are dull and flat, compressed -- not at all. There is just a sameness to them, and that is the reason for wanting something new. On the plus side, I have no issues with achieving sharp images (I have decent lenses in all my cameras, and know how to use 'em); am careful to use developers that give a balance of fine grain and sharpness (ie. dilute D76/ID-11, Perceptol); get plenty of contrast; and rarely get blown highlights or dropped shadows. I may take your suggestion of posting a few images here. I would be comfortable throwing something up and getting some constructive feedback. As an aside, the reason I really like this forum is how helpful, supportive and positive everyone here is. Civility rules here, and that is rare to find in public fora these days (even some photography sites). Hats off to the Mods and all the regulars for keeping it on track. Well done!

Best,
Svend

Last edited by Svend; 19th May 2016 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 19th May 2016, 09:38 PM
Rob Archer's Avatar
Rob Archer Rob Archer is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kings Lynn, Norfolk - flatlands and big skies.
Posts: 1,243
Default

This is a home-brewed version of ID11/D76 that I really like. I think it might meet some of your requirements on sharpness and tonality although it does give more visible grain than standard ID11.

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...tra+sharp+ID11
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 19th May 2016, 10:16 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

I find Richard's comments about Acutol and old FP4 very interesting. I used that combination when I started developing my own films. I had frequent disappointments with very thin negatives. I didn't have enough knowledge, or experience to alter the recommended development time, or the film speed. I became more competent when I went to a course at the local Art School. Until now, I've never understood what I was doing wrong in those early days. I'm glad you mentioned this, Richard, as I think you have finally cleared up that mystery.
As far as the original question is concerned, I would stick with ID11. Although I use other developers, I always come back to ID11 as the reliable standard for quality negatives. It also keeps well, which is a bonus.
Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 19th May 2016, 10:45 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

I think a lot of what people refer to as smooth tonality comes from several factors. Fine grain, not too much contrast in the final print. Adding printing contrast makes things look sharper but reduces print resolution and smoothness of tonality. This is why developing neg to fit the paper is important.
But most important of all is actually the subject lighting. Any subject with even a modicum of hard contrast edges just won't have smooth tonality in the print. A subject of around 5 stops range is good. Then develop that to fit the paper directly when printed at grade 2 to 3.
That will make a massive difference to the look of your prints.

But I hear you say, my subjects are landscapes with 7, 8, 9, 10 or more stops of subject contrast range. Well hear me say, that is why your prints don't have smooth tonality or are lifeless. If you compress neg development to fit the paper you kill the natural contrast in the original scene. 10 into 7 just doesn't fit and then you need to increase print contrast in local areas to get something back. But that kills smoothness of tonality and resolution in those areas of the print.

If you were in a studio you would adjust lighting levels and contrast ratios to make things perfectly fit the neg and hence paper. When out in the filed you can't do that, especially with landscapes. But what you can do is get real picky about going out to capture images when the light is right. That might mean you can't get out nearly as much and will mean that going out in the middle of the day when lighting is usually at its worst is a big no no, but hey, you want optimum print quality so you must pay your dues and take it on the chin. You can't just go out and think becasue its black and white I can adjust development to make 12 stop subject fit the paper and somehow that will magically give me beautiful tonality. It won't becasue of what you will need to do when printing it.

Picking a 5 stop subject range and expanding film dev to make it just fit the paper will increase its contrast but when done on film that actually increases resolution and smoothness of transition. Its the opposite when increasing print contrast on paper. Then when you print to paper which has a 7 stop range it fits perfectly. Then when you hang it on your wall in good lighting and measure a black and a white with a spot meter you will find that you get an approx 5 stop range. i.e. you get what was in the subject in the first place. Not expanded and not compressed. You lose some contrast in print viewing conditions unless you put extreme strong lighting on the print.

So there you have it, the optimum solution is to be real picky about what and when you photograph anything having in mind how well that will translate into a print.

Then with a fine grain film developed with a developer which gives fine grain but with good grain clump edge contrast(sharpness), you will have your smooth tonality print with the right amount of sharpness and resolution. Piece of cake, go do it
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks

Last edited by Argentum; 19th May 2016 at 11:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20th May 2016, 12:15 AM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

And one point I would make is that I see many many many prints which are over printed so that what would otherwise have been micro highlights, are killed off. Its so easy to see this just by checking the white border of the print against your micro highlights and if the micro highlights are printed down then you've over printed and killed the potential effect of your print. But so many people do it. I guess to get the overall contrast of their print as they want it but methinks they should really be continuing to fine adjust contrast and print time so it doesn't happen.

Show us some prints and we'll wreak havoc.
__________________
An old dog learning new tricks
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20th May 2016, 03:15 AM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Some very interesting comments here.

Rob -- your D-76 mod looks like it might work well, esp. for 120. For 135 I would probably prefer finer grain for most of what I shoot, except perhaps the T-grain films where a bit of extra grain is no big deal, and some more structure wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Still, it's a unique take on D-76, with half the sulphite and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate instead of borax. I have all the raw ingredients as I've been mixing D-76 from scratch for a while. Do you find the tonality different (better?) than standard D-76? If so, in what way?

Argentum -- your comments are very well taken, and thank you for your insight. To be clear, I rarely shoot at high noon, unless it's a scene where the subject at hand is more important than the tonal range, or the light quality adds to the image (I've shot some ghost towns in the US southwest and the Chilean desert in that kind of light, and it just works). But mostly it's early morning (I wake up with the birds, even on weekends ), or late afternoon, evening. I love lightly overcast days -- such wonderful diffuse light. Open shade does it for me too, even at midday in full sun. And you're right, in those conditions it's hard to screw up the tonality of an image. Most valuable, however, were your comments on trying to compress a wide tonal range into a narrow band for printing. Ditto your notes on local contrast. I had never thought of things in those terms before. Must pour a stiff drink or two and absorb that (being late evening here it's still prime time for a nice drop of rye ).

Alex -- after all my testing (which I will try to limit to a manageable amount to maintain my sanity), I may well end up back with ID-11/D-76 as my go-to general purpose brew. As I mentioned, it works so well with so many films, formats, subjects and light conditions. Incredibly versatile. We'll see what I find in my quest.... But I've got to go through the exercise, if not just for the sake of something different. If it flops, then at least I will have learned something along the way.

Richard -- thanks for the insight into Acutol. Good info to know, and knocks that option down the pole a bit. How do you get the finest grain from Rodinal? Overexpose and under-develop, as per usual practice? Being a non-solvent developer, I assume dilution ratios have little effect?

Finally, I notice that no-one has mentioned two-bath development. Has anyone experimented with this? Divided D-76 sounds like an interesting thing to try. In theory, the energy of an MQ formula, but mellower. Kind of like James Brown playing Miles Davis . Perhaps a bit more punch than D-23 two-bath, but tamer than straight-up D-76? Any insight?

Best,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 20th May 2016, 07:36 AM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvendN View Post
Ian -- I quickly looked up the formula for this. Seems an awful lot like D-76, but with a touch less Sulphite. Is that what improves the sharpness? Did you use it one-shot like D-76? I'm thinking not, given the commercial application?

Svend
75-80g/l Sodium Sulphite is closer to the optimum level used full strength, at 100g you get a degree of physical development the Sulphite acting as a weak solvent.

Agfa Ansco 17 and Agfa/Orwo 44 (same formula) are very similar toA dox Borax MQ and give similar results.

I always used developers like this replenished, this gives the best results.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 20th May 2016, 08:47 AM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Hi Svend, I would like to start with a quote from John Blakemore's "Black and White photography workshop". It's on Page 61 for those interested.

"Teaching workshops has shown me that it is the relationship between the exposure and development of the negative and subject brightness range that is generally least understood by even relatively experienced users of black and white materials. Yet such an understanding is essential to the deliberate use and control of tonality in the print."


So changing film/developer combinations is unfortunately not going to be the solution to the tonality conundrum. The key is however, the deep exploration and understanding of a/any specific film/developer combination.

So, as fun as it is to tryout new combinations and as boring as it is to stick to just one - more will be learned and more will be had by sticking to just ONE Combination.

There are such a multitude of variables on the overall look and feel of a print including tonality, NONE of which disappear by changing the film/dev combo.

Take developer dilution, what happens to your print when your film is processed @ stock, 1+1, 1+3, 1+15....?
Take agitation, what affect does stand, semi-stand, intermittent or continuous development have on your prints look and feel?
Take dev time, dev temp.
Take exposure index, SBR and your metering technique.

So simply by changing combo's you're not going to learn anything. You'll be in exactly the same position and with exactly the same problem and feeling.

So it's not really important what my or anyone else's combinations are because ultimately this is, and can only be, your journey. A journey of discovery. And no amount of swapping and changing of materials (or equipment for that matter) will teach you the insights that will be gained by playing around with and by pushing the boundaries of just one combo.

But don't take my word for it but that of John Blakemore's and I can't recommend Blakemore's book enough. And by the way, this comes from the heart of a fellow traveller...
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20th May 2016, 12:01 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
Hi Svend, I would like to start with a quote from John Blakemore's "Black and White photography workshop". It's on Page 61 for those interested.

"Teaching workshops has shown me that it is the relationship between the exposure and development of the negative and subject brightness range that is generally least understood by even relatively experienced users of black and white materials. Yet such an understanding is essential to the deliberate use and control of tonality in the print."

So changing film/developer combinations is unfortunately not going to be the solution to the tonality conundrum. The key is however, the deep exploration and understanding of a/any specific film/developer combination.

So, as fun as it is to tryout new combinations and as boring as it is to stick to just one - more will be learned and more will be had by sticking to just ONE Combination.

There are such a multitude of variables on the overall look and feel of a print including tonality, NONE of which disappear by changing the film/dev combo.

Take developer dilution, what happens to your print when your film is processed @ stock, 1+1, 1+3, 1+15....?
Take agitation, what affect does stand, semi-stand, intermittent or continuous development have on your prints look and feel?
Take dev time, dev temp.
Take exposure index, SBR and your metering technique.

So simply by changing combo's you're not going to learn anything. You'll be in exactly the same position and with exactly the same problem and feeling.
Marty -- all very fair comments. Not sure how you got the sense that I haven't played around much with many of these variables, but you are pretty accurate on (almost) all counts. To be honest, I have only been using posted times and temps, standard agitation, etc., for all my film developing. Pretty much "by the book", as it were, with little variation to assess the effect of a change. The only thing I have changed is developer dilution, and have a pretty good handle on that aspect. Other than that, not even an alternate speed rating for the films do I use -- just box speed. So, I humbly state it's quite true that I do not fully understand how all the other factors like agitation, stand/semi-stand will affect the outcome. But hey, it's all part of the learning process. Never stop learning....

That said, I see nothing wrong with expanding one's palette of materials in order to achieve a different outcome. That will take experimentation, but in the end I will have another tool in the box and (hopefully) know how to use it. Along the way I can work on some of the fundamental things that could use some tuning up (see above).

Thanks for the suggestion of Blakemore's book. I will look into that.


Quote:
So it's not really important what my or anyone else's combinations are because ultimately this is, and can only be, your journey. A journey of discovery. And no amount of swapping and changing of materials (or equipment for that matter) will teach you the insights that will be gained by playing around with and by pushing the boundaries of just one combo.
Good comment, but to be fair, my original post was rather focused on two particular developers. But as these things are wont to go, the topic grew from there. Which is not a bad thing -- on the contrary, some very informative posts have been made and it would be not nearly as interesting a discussion if people didn't expound on their knowledge and beliefs. That's what can make these boards so great, is the sharing of knowledge and ideas. Bring it on -- I'll take it all and use what I sense will be a good fit for me.

Regards,
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 10:31 AM.


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