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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?
Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he *liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with ugly grain is better than undeveloped film? -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat).' Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51... Michael Scarpitti wrote: It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he *liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with ugly grain is better than undeveloped film? The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat).' Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice. Even then, I doubt Rodinal is any worse than Dektol (which most assuredly has been used as a film developer, though perhaps before your time), and probably no worse than Caffenol (which last would also have the advantage of giving a true speed of about 1250 instead of 1000, with out pushing at all). But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain, your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you don't mind grain. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?
Donald Qualls wrote in message news:jmLFc.4794$JR4.3885@attbi_s54...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51... Michael Scarpitti wrote: It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he *liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with ugly grain is better than undeveloped film? The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat).' Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice. Even then, I doubt Rodinal is any worse than Dektol (which most assuredly has been used as a film developer, though perhaps before your time), and probably no worse than Caffenol (which last would also have the advantage of giving a true speed of about 1250 instead of 1000, with out pushing at all). But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain, your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you don't mind grain. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. Rodinal is a poor choice for Neopan 1600 for the following reasons: 1. Rodinal does not achieve full emulsion speed. Presumably the Neopan 1600 is being used because of the need for a very fast films. Using Rodinal would run counter to that because of its lack of speed-enhancing properties. 2. The poster explicitly wants to keep graininess to a minimum. On both counts, Acutol does an outstanding job. Acutol enhances speed and does not exaggerate graininess. Rodinal loses speed and exaggerates graininess. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 04:05:35 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote: But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain, your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you don't mind grain. It's all about taste. Some like texture some don't. I have a shot around where I should some Kodak Gold 1600 about 12 years ago. I used a Soligor (!!) 70~210 f/3.5 zoom and 2 of the cheapest doublers you've ever seen. It worked quite well to make "atmospheric" shots. A lot like the P3200 used in http://www.darkroompro.com/images/photos/3_despair.jpg Shot with a Minolta X700 at 1/60th and f/5.6 in a dark alley. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Best developer for Fuji Neopan 1600 ?
On 7/2/04 12:20 PM, in article , "wkg"
typed: Użytkownik "Hywel Davies" napisał w wiadomo¶ci ... Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at 24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be fairly grainy anyway. Thanks Ros Hallo ! In my opinion the best is XTOL 1+3 for Neopan 1600@800 ... I use it for Neopan 1600@1600 also. Times from www.digitaltruth.com Regards wkg http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=56107 Neopan 1600 is my most used favorite film and I do the same. In XTOL 1+3 it looks like normally developed medium speed film. Way better than tri x in D76 1:1. Sharper and less grain. I hate to overstate it but it's a dream come true for someone who's been doing this since 1965. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:13:21 +0100, Hywel Davies wrote:
Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at 24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be fairly grainy anyway. Thanks Ros clayton f76 works really well actually. the neopan 1600 works best if you expose it perfectly. a little under or a little over and you'll see a lot of grain. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|