If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
I am looking for a good review on the difference between commonly used
developer (HC110/Rodinol/Ultrafin...) when used with Kodak 400TX and HP5 (including when pushing the development process). Thanks, -- Emmanuel |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
"E Colar" wrote in message ... I am looking for a good review on the difference between commonly used developer (HC110/Rodinol/Ultrafin...) when used with Kodak 400TX and HP5 (including when pushing the development process). I know no specific reviews for this film, but the Film Development Cookbook by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop would give you an excellent primer on how different developers work. Jim |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:52:06 -0600, "Jim MacKenzie"
wrote: "E Colar" wrote in message ... I am looking for a good review on the difference between commonly used developer (HC110/Rodinol/Ultrafin...) when used with Kodak 400TX and HP5 (including when pushing the development process). I know no specific reviews for this film, but the Film Development Cookbook by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop would give you an excellent primer on how different developers work. Jim |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
Be careful about following Jim's advice, because reading a subversive book
like Anchell's and Troop's will forever change the way you see claims of "this developer gives you 4 stops of speed gain, and grain so fine you can't see it with a microscope"... Your reply to that will be, "ehhh, now exactly what is the active developing agent and how good is the pH buffering during development, and how much sulfite is in it?" Actually, developers fall into a few groups with only small differences between them... denny "Jim MacKenzie" wrote in message ... "E Colar" wrote in message ... I am looking for a good review on the difference between commonly used developer (HC110/Rodinol/Ultrafin...) when used with Kodak 400TX and HP5 (including when pushing the development process). I know no specific reviews for this film, but the Film Development Cookbook by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop would give you an excellent primer on how different developers work. Jim |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... Actually, developers fall into a few groups with only small differences between them... Practically I agree. One of the biggest factors as to how a developer will work is how much sulfite is in it. The big differences between various developers are the actual sharpness of the image, the apparent sharpness (or acutance) of the image, the tonality and gradation, and contrast. I like to exploit the best features of every film so I use three different film developers: D-76/ID-11, XTOL, and PMK. The differences between D-76 and XTOL are subtle but the quality is a little better with XTOL, and yet with traditional emulsions I like the gradation better with D-76. PMK is another kettle of fish; there are few developers quite like it because of its staining action. The negatives I get from it are clearly distinguishable from my other negatives. I am about to experiment with Diafine. Jim |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:08:44 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote: Actually, developers fall into a few groups with only small differences between them... denny I concur but then "Viva le difference !". Those small differences might allow someone to make a grainless 8X10 from a 35mm TMY negative or produce an image that could only have been captured using an exposure index of 6400. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
They "might", but I have my doubts... The actual results of different
developers is vastly more similar than different... I find exposure and development gamma to be the determinent issues, not the developer... I just went through months of a 5 film / 5 developer, thrash, and if I line the twenty five, 8x10 prints up on a wall and give you the list of developers, I will absolutely defy you to sort the developers out by looking - - with the exception of Rodinal, where the grain is a dead give away even at 8X10... After all this agony, I have settled upon Gainer's home brewed, vitamin C developer as my standard... Next after that would be Xtol (the most like my home brew and finer grained because of the sulfite)... But right next to it, neck and neck, is guess D76 1:1 !!! believe it or not... A mouldy, oldie, but still able to strut it's stuff... There was not one film that looked bad in D76... I gotta tell ya I had a bunch of assumptions pounded up my assumption chamber after doing actual side by side testing of the identical scene / fixed strobe position... You get pretty bored after looking at over a hundred prints of the same shot... Other things I learned while cooking up developers, is that TMX is one fine film, if you are good enough to use it... The other, is that I was impressed with Acros 100 first time I used it and when I finally burn through the blocks of film in the freezer cause I thought I knew 'everything' when I ordered the film before actually doing the tests I'm going to go through a few blocks of it and see if I'm still impressed... denny |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:34:42 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote: They "might", but I have my doubts... The actual results of different developers is vastly more similar than different... I find exposure and development gamma to be the determinent issues, not the developer... I would add format to that list. Want fine grain ? Get a bigger camera. Need a bigger lens ? get a telescope ;)) I just went through months of a 5 film / 5 developer, thrash, and if I line the twenty five, 8x10 prints up on a wall and give you the list of developers, I will absolutely defy you to sort the developers out by looking - - with the exception of Rodinal, where the grain is a dead give away even at 8X10... It would be a challenge . So you're saying that you took 5 developers and optimized your processing of TMX for each developer and then printed the same subject photographed under the same lighting and printed on the same enlarger using the same paper and developer ? Wow ! That would be boring ! After all this agony, I have settled upon Gainer's home brewed, vitamin C developer as my standard... Next after that would be Xtol (the most like my home brew and finer grained because of the sulfite)... But right next to it, neck and neck, is guess D76 1:1 !!! believe it or not... A mouldy, oldie, but still able to strut it's stuff... There was not one film that looked bad in D76... It's about as good as it gets. And I would still select it over the ascorbate-based developers any day of the week. I gotta tell ya I had a bunch of assumptions pounded up my assumption chamber after doing actual side by side testing of the identical scene / fixed strobe position... You get pretty bored after looking at over a hundred prints of the same shot... Other things I learned while cooking up developers, is that TMX is one fine film, if you are good enough to use it. I completely concur. TMX reminds me of Panatomic-X but with finer grain. Developed in D-23 to a low enough CI to print onto a #3, the grain is nearly invisible. The other, is that I was impressed with Acros 100 first time I used it and when I finally burn through the blocks of film in the freezer cause I thought I knew 'everything' when I ordered the film before actually doing the tests I'm going to go through a few blocks of it and see if I'm still impressed... denny I also like the Ilford Delta films. Unfortunately they're not made in 5X7 exactly. The only way to get that format is to order the 13X18cm version from the UK. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
"John" wrote in message It would be a challenge .. So you're saying that you took 5 developers and optimized your processing of TMX for each developer and *** well, without necessarily succeeding. I 'tried' to optimize it - and it did improve my ability to see small differences in supposedly identical prints - do I get one attaboy for that?*** then printed the same subject photographed under the same lighting and printed on the same enlarger using the same paper and developer ? Wow ! That would be boring ! 'Boring', is not exactly the word my therapist uses - how ever, he says there will be hope for me, after a hundred, or so, shock treatments... denny pssst: burn this message after reading so that no one else sees it... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
good review on B&W developers (for 400TX et HP5)?
E Colar wrote: Emmanuel,-- Was HC 110 ever in the running for your test. If not could you tell us your subjective reasoning for this. Is it too much the same? -- otzi So far, my experience is limited to TMAX and HC110. I am mostly using Ilford HP5 and Kodak 400TX, sometime pushing up to 1600 ASA (because of poor light conditions). Obviously, HP5 has much more grain than 400TX, but this is a kind of grain which I love for some situations. On the other hand, I love 400TX wide grey scale. Both have a nice exposure tolerance. My feeling is that developing both films with TMAX was much too contrasted to my taste, while 400TX offers a much finer picture. I am not sure so far about accutance (may be someone could comment?). I am using HC110 at 1+19 (i.e. twice less concentrated than the 1+9 recommended dilution), adapting the time accordingly (i.e. 2x). I try to use lower temperature (i.e. 17-18 C) and I like the results. Meanwile, I have read many comments on Rodinal, stating is gives a superior image quality especially when the picture has to be significantly enlarged. So I am trying to find out whether it would be worth trying Rodinal (which I should perhaps do instead of asking for advices?!). Any comment much welcome, especially from those having used HC110 and Rodinal with these films. Rodinal is an excellent developer to use with finer grained films for high acutance but can acentuate grain (I use it with TMX100, not 400.) If you like grain, with HP5 you should get more :-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|