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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:05:56 -0400, The Wogster
wrote: n Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen" wrote: Hi, I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? The Ilford chemistries are not cheap, but they do have liquid versions of most chemistries. Mixing up a batch from liquids and using it one shot sryle, isn't cheap, but it isn't raking chances with your negatives either, and offers good and consistant results. Home brew developers are often cheaper, but then you need all of the equipment, and to play chemist every time you want to soup a roll, you also need to be very careful mixing the ingredients, or you will lose consistancy. When I operated my fume room, from 1978 to 1983 I wanted consistant results on negatives, but I would fool around on prints, it worked, until I closed the fume room, because I moved, and didn't have room anymore. I have to disagree here. Using the teaspoon and film can method to make D-23 is easy and not prone to mixups. D-23 is so forgiving, that it's worth the slight effort. Otherwise, I agree with the advice given here. Personally, based on your shooting style, pick A film, then pick A developer, and stick with those, you will learn what that film is capable of, and what that combination will let you get away with, often it's quite a bit. W Robert Vervoordt, MFA |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Martin Jangowski
wrote: Phil Hobgen wrote: From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work as advertized. Some do. Diafine is one. In theory, the first bath saturates the film with active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients (usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath (because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath (it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a thickness of about 2/1000mm). It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact single bath developers with a second alkaline bath. Not Diafine, or ny I would use. I made my own, so I knew what lead to what. If you would drop the second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23 or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX. Yep, you used the wrong kind of "divided developer" The very point you made above applies to the formulae referenced in the preceding paragraph. Both will develop without alkali. Neither can serve as the A bath of true divided developer. As I pointed out in my reply to John Douglas' reply to this post, there must be no development in the A bath to gain the advantages of a two bath developer. Diafine is pretty close to an ideal. It uses Phenidone, which keeps it from developing in the A bath. It uses Carbonate in the B bath, which gives it sufficient energy to fully develop the shadows. It has one more characteristic that folks who have complained about divided developers not working have overlooked, Sulfite in the B bath. What this does is raise the salt content of the B bath, reducing shock to the gelatine and preventing uneveness in the results. Adding some sulfite also has a slight effect on Graininess and allows for the opening of development centers on the exposed Silver grains. If the formulation you tried didn't give good results, failure to attend to the factors cited above is likely the culprit, not divided development. .. So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more hassle with no rewards. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical style I like very much. He also made up some neat divided developers. Robert Vervoordt, MFA |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Martin Jangowski
wrote: Phil Hobgen wrote: From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work as advertized. Some do. Diafine is one. In theory, the first bath saturates the film with active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients (usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath (because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath (it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a thickness of about 2/1000mm). It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact single bath developers with a second alkaline bath. Not Diafine, or ny I would use. I made my own, so I knew what lead to what. If you would drop the second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23 or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX. Yep, you used the wrong kind of "divided developer" The very point you made above applies to the formulae referenced in the preceding paragraph. Both will develop without alkali. Neither can serve as the A bath of true divided developer. As I pointed out in my reply to John Douglas' reply to this post, there must be no development in the A bath to gain the advantages of a two bath developer. Diafine is pretty close to an ideal. It uses Phenidone, which keeps it from developing in the A bath. It uses Carbonate in the B bath, which gives it sufficient energy to fully develop the shadows. It has one more characteristic that folks who have complained about divided developers not working have overlooked, Sulfite in the B bath. What this does is raise the salt content of the B bath, reducing shock to the gelatine and preventing uneveness in the results. Adding some sulfite also has a slight effect on Graininess and allows for the opening of development centers on the exposed Silver grains. If the formulation you tried didn't give good results, failure to attend to the factors cited above is likely the culprit, not divided development. .. So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more hassle with no rewards. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical style I like very much. He also made up some neat divided developers. Robert Vervoordt, MFA |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:15:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote: : IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much : different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll : get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a : lot. I hope that you will agree that for someone just starting out using multiple films and developers can be confusing and frustrating. I've long suggested that when starting with B&W ( especially if they're learning the zone system at the time) to stick with one film and developer combination. With time as you say it's good to try different film/developer combinations. To an extent I concur. However I would say pick 2 films and 2 developers. Therefore my reference to Perceptol and Microphen to go with Pan-F+ and Delta 400 respectively. There are a lot of images you cannot make with Pan-F+ and likewise one really appreciates the qualities of a fine-grained film when contrasting it to something like D400 in Microphen. Note that most would probably not be shooting landscape, macros and similar subjects with a 400 speed film. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:29 -0500, "jjs"
wrote: IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a lot. That's not up to your usual wit. I suggest a vacation, warm beer. In Florida ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"John" wrote in message
... On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:29 -0500, "jjs" wrote: That's not up to your usual wit. I suggest a vacation, warm beer. In Florida ? Oh yeah, in Florida! (Tip of the hat to our Flouridians who may have suffered. Hope all is well or getting better!) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:35:28 -0500, John
wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:09 -0500, wrote: Somebody else mentioned it, but I'll echo the words again. Start off with one film and one developer. IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a lot. For someone getting started, it's much better to start with a film and a developer, then when they know what that film is capable of, and what it will let them get away with. Then try a different film or develoier, because that film or developer lets them expand their horizons. The original film and developer give them a baseline to compare results to, the best way to expand is to add another film in the same family, for example if your using FP4 then try HP5 or PanF same developer. When you change chemistries, keep notes, I used to print a contact sheet and then write the film type, developer, EI, and other information on the back of the contact sheet. Funny, but I went through that yesterday, and even though the information is from 1977 - 1983, it's still valid, I actually shot a lot of PanF, in those days....... At least once, I pulled it to 25ASA, results were fantastic, painful to shoot, but great results. W |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Hobgen" and many others wrote ...
snip Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their photography, and that they have taken time to form their own opinions, often with reference to all sorts of input. I guess that what I've realised, is that I really need to start with a simple and as controlled a solution as I can. So I am thinking that I will go with Pan F+/Perceptol and Delta 400/Microphen, as recommended by John Douglass (who has a great picture of his son on his homepage). Later on (maybe not in the too distant future) I am sure I will experiment with other combinations, and eventually find my own 'favorites' that suit my purposes. I'm sure I'll try two-bath/divided/split/ development. Perhaps when I understand the difference :-) The reason they seemed attractive to me, is that I'll be scanning negatives as I can't do wet printing for the moment. I don't want to be doing lots of photoshop work (I spend all day staring at a PC), so the thought of consistent negatives is tempting. However 'mixing my own', is probably one more step than I should introduce at this stage. Cheers ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Hobgen" and many others wrote ...
snip Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their photography, and that they have taken time to form their own opinions, often with reference to all sorts of input. I guess that what I've realised, is that I really need to start with a simple and as controlled a solution as I can. So I am thinking that I will go with Pan F+/Perceptol and Delta 400/Microphen, as recommended by John Douglass (who has a great picture of his son on his homepage). Later on (maybe not in the too distant future) I am sure I will experiment with other combinations, and eventually find my own 'favorites' that suit my purposes. I'm sure I'll try two-bath/divided/split/ development. Perhaps when I understand the difference :-) The reason they seemed attractive to me, is that I'll be scanning negatives as I can't do wet printing for the moment. I don't want to be doing lots of photoshop work (I spend all day staring at a PC), so the thought of consistent negatives is tempting. However 'mixing my own', is probably one more step than I should introduce at this stage. Cheers ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Hobgen" wrote
Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their photography Noo, noo, noo. When knowledge is lacking strong emotion rushes in to fill the vacuum. If a person really knows his subject, someone else with a different opinion will elicit no more than a shrug. "One must never ever doubt What nobody is sure about." -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems) | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 192 | September 14th 04 01:59 AM |
darkroom wannabe | EC | In The Darkroom | 59 | September 4th 04 01:45 AM |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |