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

"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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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...

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 :-)