Developer 911 in 714

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , Geoffrey S.
Mendelson wrote:

If your only choices are HC-110 with some creative dilution, a C-41
(chromogenic) film, or digital photographs converted to black and white
in photoshop, your appreciation might change.

I went digital a few years back, so my darkroom days are over. I spent
enough time in there (former professional). But if you like golf ball
sized grain, HC-110 will do the trick.

If I wanted golf-ball grain (and I do not, but I have a friend who does),
Rodinal is probably the way to go. Or shoot very small negatives and enlarge
a lot.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:40:01 up 32 days, 22:05, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.16, 4.12

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
If I wanted golf-ball grain (and I do not, but I have a friend who does),
Rodinal is probably the way to go. Or shoot very small negatives and enlarge
a lot.

Rodinal was on it's way out HERE long before Agfa went out of business.


I doubt there is any of the new stuff in the country. The last bottle
of HC-110 was sold with an implication that it was the last that store
would carry and they are the largest in the country.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
newsubMh.17270$O_5.2796@trnddc03...

If I wanted golf-ball grain (and I do not, but I have a friend who does),
Rodinal is probably the way to go. Or shoot very small negatives and
enlarge
a lot.
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:40:01 up 32 days, 22:05, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.16, 4.12
What I don't understand is why so many people get big grain. Does everybody
push everything or just leave it in too long. My usual is HP-5 in Rodinal,
but I've had good results w/ Tri-X and HC-110, and I don't get much grain at
all; as a matter of fact, I like the 20-30 old Tri-X grain much better.
Actually, I don't care for any of the "fine grain" developers I've tried.
Looks mushy or soft somehow.
Bob Hickey

"bob hickey" wrote:

What I don't understand is why so many people get big grain. Does
everybody
push everything or just leave it in too long.

Nah. I think it's the definition of the terms. Here, anything grainier than
TMX100 in 6x7 is "golf ball" territory.

I've see page after page of disgustingly grainy at 5x7 35mm work in the (now
defunct?) Japanese B&W magazine (Natural Glow; it used to be fun when they
had fewer Leica shots) and grainy 600 x 800 images on the web.

Those guys seem to think that every surface having exactly the same texture
is interesting. In real life, the textures are different...

David J. Littleboy
Who doesn't "get" 35mm. At all.
Tokyo, Japan

"bob hickey" wrote
What I don't understand is why so many people get
big grain ... w/ Tri-X and HC-110 ... I don't get
much grain at all

We once had a shouting match on this subject when a member
of the LF group "obviously assumed 4x5" and the one from
r.p.e.35mm "obviously assumed 35mm". Needles to say each
was soon convinced the other had lost touch with reality.

It is a good idea to mention the film size [and sometimes
print size] when debating grain.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

David J. Littleboy wrote:
Nah. I think it's the definition of the terms. Here, anything grainier than
TMX100 in 6x7 is "golf ball" territory.

It's also the concept of grain. Electronic media don't have it. There
was a big problem in the TV industry when they went to video tape (1960s
in the U.S. and the U.K.) because it did not look like film.

Even today the debate continues in the movie industry.

Grain is necessary to some people becuase it proves the original was film.
Someday a bright programer will write a photoshop filter to create
grain, and it will be impossible to tell. Imagine the conufsion. :-)

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"bob hickey" wrote
What I don't understand is why so many people get
big grain ... w/ Tri-X and HC-110 ... I don't get
much grain at all

We once had a shouting match on this subject when a member
of the LF group "obviously assumed 4x5" and the one from
r.p.e.35mm "obviously assumed 35mm". Needles to say each
was soon convinced the other had lost touch with reality.

It is a good idea to mention the film size [and sometimes
print size] when debating grain.

Well, yes. But this is the rec.photo.equipment.large-format board, and it
would not make sense to assume people would bother to get an adapter to use
35mm film in a large format camera. I have a roll film holder for my 4x5
cameras, but I never use it.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:55:01 up 33 days, 21:20, 3 users, load average: 4.52, 4.27, 4.27

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote
Nicholas Lindan wrote:
We once had a shouting match on this subject when a member
of the LF group "obviously assumed 4x5" and the one from
r.p.e.35mm "obviously assumed 35mm". Needles to say each
was soon convinced the other had lost touch with reality.
Well, yes. But this is the rec.photo.equipment.large-format board,
and it would not make sense to assume people would bother to get
an adapter to use 35mm film in a large format camera.

Do I sense some disingenuity?

The newsgroup line of the above post has suddenly collapsed
from the original's

rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

to simply rec.photo.equipment.large-format.

I have restored it to it's former glory - that is the whole point
of it.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:41:24 GMT, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

If I wanted golf-ball grain (and I do not, but I have a friend who does),
Rodinal is probably the way to go. Or shoot very small negatives and enlarge
a lot.

Want something grainier than Rodinal ? Dektol !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

It is a good idea to mention the film size [and sometimes
print size] when debating grain.

Well, yes. But this is the rec.photo.equipment.large-format board, and it
would not make sense to assume people would bother to get an adapter to use
35mm film in a large format camera. I have a roll film holder for my 4x5
cameras, but I never use it.


Except that the OP cross posted it to r.p.darkroom, r.p.e.35mm,
r.p.e.large-format and r.p.e.medium-format.