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

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Filters

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 16th May 2020, 03:59 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat Polton View Post
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/9725-...veloper-500-ml

I have just found another advert of a dubious nature.
This time it is for "FOCUS-BOOSTING FILM DEVELOPER"
ROLLEI COMPARD RO9 FILM DEVELOPER.
Surely once a film is no longer behind the lens, and safely tucked away in the developing tank nothing can affect the focus of the actual image on the negative.
Or am I wrong?
Cheers.
This is Rodinal by a different name, I use the same developer, just under the Firstcall brand and cheaper, but made by Compard, probably the advert is refering to the ''Edge Effect'' which make a well focused negative appear to be sharper
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16th May 2020, 06:00 PM
Martin Aislabie's Avatar
Martin Aislabie Martin Aislabie is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Posts: 1,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Gould View Post
This is Rodinal by a different name, I use the same developer, just under the Firstcall brand and cheaper, but made by Compard, probably the advert is refering to the ''Edge Effect'' which make a well focused negative appear to be sharper
Richard
The edge effect actually called acutance - and is a well known affect when using very dilute developer.

If a developed area and an undeveloped area are located side by side the edge of the developed area gets extra density due to the increased developer activity along the edge - the theory being the developer in the undeveloped area helps replenish the spent developer working locally in the developed part.

You need to be careful at taking American adverts at face value - they don't have an advertising standard requiring adverts to be truthful - they can claim anything they like.

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16th May 2020, 06:29 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,126
Default

Same when I lived in America, many moons ago, You could never believe in what they the add, Even the American's never believed in the Adds, and For some reason I had a senior moment when replying and could not remember acutance, although I have used acutance developer's a lot over the last however many years, what I should have said is they were talking about Rodinal type developers, in which the edge effect, like any acutance developer gives the appearance that the negative is sharper than normal, although they do say you should mot use these with fast film and I always use fast film,
Keep safe
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16th May 2020, 07:27 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 2,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
The edge effect actually called acutance - and is a well known affect when using very dilute developer.

Due to the increased developer activity along the edge - the theory being the developer in the undeveloped area helps replenish the spent developer working locally in the developed part.
Martin
I wrote an article which was printed in the AP about 25 years or even more ago where I described the effect of Rodinal developing a film at
1-50. I do remember for payment I got £75 and a box full of Kodak colour film

The photographs in FP4 were quite grainy (also due to the edge effect) and the subject was electricity pylons and cables against a deep blue sky which emphasised the very fine, clear line between the dark and light tones - very similar to the effect that you get with the unsharp mask with Adobe

The edge effect is also the reason unless you adore grain it should not be used to develop films of 200 iso or greater. If you think that may be excessive I tried it once with Kodak High Speed infra red. It was like a pebbledash wall. It almost had physical texture.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16th May 2020, 08:02 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
I wrote an article which was printed in the AP about 25 years or even more ago where I described the effect of Rodinal developing a film at
1-50. I do remember for payment I got £75 and a box full of Kodak colour film

The photographs in FP4 were quite grainy (also due to the edge effect) and the subject was electricity pylons and cables against a deep blue sky which emphasised the very fine, clear line between the dark and light tones - very similar to the effect that you get with the unsharp mask with Adobe

The edge effect is also the reason unless you adore grain it should not be used to develop films of 200 iso or greater. If you think that may be excessive I tried it once with Kodak High Speed infra red. It was like a pebbledash wall. It almost had physical texture.
Hi John.
I remember the article, as a Rodinal user I found it interesting, but I didn't, after all theses years, realize you were the author,well done,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17th May 2020, 12:06 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England UK
Posts: 2,372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John King View Post
I wrote an article which was printed in the AP about 25 years or even more ago where I described the effect of Rodinal developing a film at 1-50. I do remember for payment I got £75 and a box full of Kodak colour film.

The edge effect is also the reason unless you adore grain it should not be used to develop films of 200 iso or greater. If you think that may be excessive I tried it once with Kodak High Speed infra red. It was like a pebbledash wall. It almost had physical texture.
£75?!?! That amount went down over the years. I vaguely remember submissions in the later years that I read photo mags, it went down to about £25 PER PAGE of whatever was used, text or print.

And I don't know if it was applied for text submissions, but I remember when AP magazine started giving ONE 35mm colour film for pictures submitted and then this became NOTHING and yet people still sent in work. The lure of wanting ones work to be seen in print was the force behind that I imagine. When I next visit a W H Smiths, I'll have a quick browse of the mags, but especially AP, and see what the ruling is now. I wouldn't be surprised if you had to PAY THEM when submitting stuff now! LOL

Terry S
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

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
digital(sorry) flash big paul Equipment miscellaneous 3 14th March 2017 06:12 PM
Digital Filters Dave miller Filters 20 26th February 2011 12:13 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.