A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ilford Rapid fix Q



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 3rd 06, 07:38 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ilford Rapid fix Q


"Rob Novak" wrote in message
...
On 2 Mar 2006 06:01:38 -0800, "Dave the Guy"
wrote:

How is 135 acros compared to 120?


In what aspect?

They're both excellent performers. Acros in 35mm is
vastly superior
to Delta100 or TMX in resolution, grain, and tonality, at
least how I
process them (Acros in Perceptol, Delta and TMX in DD-X).
I love the
stuff. It and PanF+ in Ilfosol-S 1+14 are becoming my
go-to
combinations for tight grain and tonal response.
--
Rob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise
http://rob.rnovak.net


You are comparing apples with oranges. It is the
difference in the developer you are seeing, not differences
in the film. Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X (virtually
identical) are extra-fine-grain developers. When used on a
film like those above the grain will be nearly as fine as
the late, lamented, Technical Pan in Technidol but with
considerably greater speed (EI 25 to 50) and much less
trouble with getting proper contrast.
Both T-Max and DDX are excellent for obtaining the
highest speed from a film but are grainier than D-76.
Perceptol and Microdol-X lose a little speed (less than a
stop) but deliver much finer grain.
In general, developers have little effect on film
resolution. Of course fine grain tends to allow higher
resolution, but the main factor is image spread caused by
"irradiation" or the diffusion of light in the emulsion.
Thin emulsion films, such as the Tabular grain ones, tend to
diffuse the image forming light less than older thick
emulsion or multiple coated films, so their resolution is
higher. Because the covering power of tabular grains is
greater than cubic grains the range of density of such film
is greater than the old thin emulsion films using
conventional grain types. So, one can have good tonal
rendition along with high resolution without short exposure
latitude or fussy development.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #12  
Old March 3rd 06, 08:49 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ilford Rapid fix Q

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:38:39 GMT, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

You are comparing apples with oranges. It is the
difference in the developer you are seeing, not differences
in the film. Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X (virtually
identical) are extra-fine-grain developers. When used on a


I realize that. However, I've also done rolls of Acros and Delta 100
in the same chemistry (Kodak TMax in that case - it wasn't my setup) -
the Acros grain was still tighter, with greater detail.

I prefer DD-X to D-76/ID-11 for HP5+ - I've got consistently better
results. I don't normally shoot much Delta 100, but I push Delta 400
in DD-X to 800 and 1600 because I actually like the resultant grain,
and because DD-X is more convenient for me to deal with.

For Acros, I process in Perceptol because I feel that Acros' already
fine grain benefits from an extra-fine grain developer. And, I like
the results. PanF+ in DD-X tends to get hard to control the density,
and I've found that Ilfosol at 1+14 still gives good grain and
tonality while avoiding the tendency to block in the highlights.
--
Rob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise
http://rob.rnovak.net
  #13  
Old March 4th 06, 01:36 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ilford Rapid fix Q


"Rob Novak" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:38:39 GMT, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

You are comparing apples with oranges. It is the
difference in the developer you are seeing, not
differences
in the film. Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X (virtually
identical) are extra-fine-grain developers. When used on a


I realize that. However, I've also done rolls of Acros
and Delta 100
in the same chemistry (Kodak TMax in that case - it wasn't
my setup) -
the Acros grain was still tighter, with greater detail.

I prefer DD-X to D-76/ID-11 for HP5+ - I've got
consistently better
results. I don't normally shoot much Delta 100, but I
push Delta 400
in DD-X to 800 and 1600 because I actually like the
resultant grain,
and because DD-X is more convenient for me to deal with.

For Acros, I process in Perceptol because I feel that
Acros' already
fine grain benefits from an extra-fine grain developer.
And, I like
the results. PanF+ in DD-X tends to get hard to control
the density,
and I've found that Ilfosol at 1+14 still gives good grain
and
tonality while avoiding the tendency to block in the
highlights.
--
Rob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise
http://rob.rnovak.net


If you are pushing DDX, T-Max or Microphen will definitely
be better than D-76.
I haven't tried Acros yet but its specs look very good and
it seems to have a good reputation.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't bother with Ilford paper & Canon i9950 BenOne© Digital Photography 13 December 1st 04 06:33 AM
Press Release from Ilford Largformat Large Format Photography Equipment 10 August 27th 04 05:54 AM
ilford pan 100 = ilford HP5 plus? sreenath In The Darkroom 8 July 5th 04 11:15 AM
ilford rapid fixer Beppe Alborč In The Darkroom 25 June 24th 04 10:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.