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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Don't bother with Ilford paper & Canon i9950 | BenOne© | Digital Photography | 13 | December 1st 04 05:33 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 |