wollwn Posted March 29, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Six months ago, I found my negative files from the 60s and 70s, shot on Plus X at 320 ASA and developed in Accufine. A few days scanning and fiddling with various digital papers and I had prints somewhat comparable to the wet prints I still had from a few of the old negatives. Perhaps its nostalgia for the content, nostalgia for my lost youth, or the simple love of Plus X, but those pictures on film have something I don't get using digital. A few weeks ago, I shot a roll of Plus X at 320 in an M6 TTL. My friendly local camera store (FLCS) said their outside lab would have no problem with Plus X at 320. The results were poor, very thin, with little contrast or tonality, and completely blown highlights. I bought some Accufine and shot a roll at ASA 250, as now specified by Accufine. The results were better than those from the FLCS outside lab, the highlights were OK, but there was not as much contrast or range of tone as the old negatives. So something has changed, film or developer. Since I can't recall shooting black and white on anything but Plus X in Accufine, I need suggestions for a developer, or developer and film, that will give the results of my 30 year old negatives. I'd like to stay with Plus X. I have nothing against Tri X, but I always thought Plus X was beautiful and the Accufine gave (at 320) a useful speed boost. Suggestions, please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Hi wollwn, Take a look here Everything changed, film and developer, what now?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
too old to care Posted March 29, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 29, 2011 I shoot Plus X most of the time and use D76. Outside of some curl, I get good negatives. They look pretty much like the negatives I developed decades ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 29, 2011 Share #3 Posted March 29, 2011 My experience (a long time back) was that developers like Acufine, Diafine that promise more speed, do not deliver negatives with a full tone range and acceptable shadow detail. I was never able to make a really good print. Films have an inherent speed that is - in my experience - not much influenced by developers. And by the standards of what I want in my negatives, I don't think Plus-X is 320. I suggest trying Rodinal (relatively coarse grain, but sharp), HC110 (great all round smooth negatives) or D76 (foolproof). Test for film speed, then test for development time. Don't accept the data sheets as gospel - test for yourself. Otherwise, you just don't know for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 29, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2011 I'm sure Plus-X has evolved over the decades, and it definitely changed about 4 years ago when Kodak consolidated their B&W production lines in a new plant. Read more here: http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.pdf The current film is 125PX, and Kodak changed their own processing recommendations at the time, so I'm sure there are some differences that would affect Acufine as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen in Montreal Posted March 29, 2011 Share #5 Posted March 29, 2011 ... So something has changed...... Everything has changed! Tri-x is not the same, Plus-x as you and I once knew it is gone, TXP in roll film is gone, there is no more cadmium in the finest papers and on and on. I have not tested the new (post 2007) Plus-x, have not shot it since the make over and have struggled to re-master the new Tri-x once my supply of the old film ran out in 2009. It just is not the same time and place for the great films and papers sadly. I must have 15 or 20 cans of Acufine left over and stashed with the intention to give it another try one of these days. I would really love to hear back as you tweak it and see how it turns out with PX. Michael, " I don't think Plus-X is 320" PX at 320, or TX at 800 in Acufine had a look all its own. You loved it or hated it. It was a "specialty use" thing that would never replace or even compete with something like T-100 in a fine grain developer. But when called for, it was magic. I don't know how it would scan, but it sure printed beautifully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 29, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 29, 2011 By the way - the link in my post above to a certain photographic material company in the first line is NOT my content. It has been added by an advertising program here on the forum. The second link to a pdf for a specific film IS my content. You'll notice I am now - ahem - choosing my words carefully to avoid brands and other advertisers. If the forum wants to make money off what I write - they can darn well send me a royalty check.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted March 29, 2011 Share #7 Posted March 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Test for film speed, then test for development time. Don't accept the data sheets as gospel - test for yourself. Otherwise, you just don't know for sure. Sound advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 29, 2011 Share #8 Posted March 29, 2011 Hi If you want nice prints you have to start again. Correct ISO, soup yourself, light table for exposure ok, try again if not perfect. Wet print yourself, same step- by step technique. People spent years getting everything correct, if film was too contrasty using a softer developer etc. Film was difficult, just the same today, digital is easy, that is why people go to it, it is not better. Nostalgia wont help. Does up velcro on flack jacket. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caterman Posted March 29, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 29, 2011 I find Tr-X @1600 in Diafine great for scanning not so good at 1250. But Ilford HP5+ @ 800 in Diafine way too grainy. It's a case of finding what you like, but you do have to try a few rolls:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 29, 2011 Share #10 Posted March 29, 2011 Ilford Leica Doesn't work for them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 29, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 29, 2011 Six months ago, I found my negative files from the 60s and 70s, shot on Plus X at 320 ASA and developed in Accufine. A few days scanning and fiddling with various digital papers and I had prints somewhat comparable to the wet prints I still had from a few of the old negatives. Perhaps its nostalgia for the content, nostalgia for my lost youth, or the simple love of Plus X, but those pictures on film have something I don't get using digital. When you scanned, you introduced digital into the output. Then you printed and compounded the digital effect. The only way to know the negatives is to wet-print them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wollwn Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted March 30, 2011 I agree that I need to start over. That's why I asked for suggestions: I'm looking for some combination of film and developer as a starting point. For me to do my best work, I need to stay with a film, or two, and a developer and work to understand them. I don't expect to summarily adopt a given suggestion as definitive. I'm just looking for starting places. It took me years of working in a particular way before I began to have something worthwhile. It all changed and I understand I'm starting over. Its a little daunting this late in the day to begin at the beginning again, but I know how to do that. I can also read the descriptions of various films and developers on Freestyle. I was looking more for responses from people who have been down the road with certain developers and films: what they found valuable, what they didn't like. Apparently, my reference to Plus X and Accufine wasn't helpful in asking the question. Digital scanning certainly adds a layer of ambiguity, but I don't think its a layer of uncertainty. I do "know" my 30 year old negatives. It took me years to get them the way they are. I have wet printed from them, and I still have some of the wet prints. When I scan and digitally print from those negatives, I know what I'm looking for. Of course the digital prints are not the same as wet prints, but that does not mean that the digital prints are without value, or somehow ignorant. Film called me back, but a film camera and developing reels are as far as it is possible for me to go. Although there's no darkroom in my future, that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop making pictures. I also agree that it would be hard to reach beyond the esthetic heights of projected transparencies. When the light comes through the picture, you "know" the picture, and you "know" the light. There's also the attraction of the ephemerality of slides. You have to be there when its happening, and it isn't going on all the time. But I like to have pictures around me all the time. In this house, we shoot pictures and we print the shots we like, and put them up where we can all see them. There is no "gallery", no "picture wall". There's just prints propped or hanging anywhere they don't disturb another print. I'd like to have a darkroom again, but that is not going to happen. I'm not, however, going to deprive myself of making pictures, and having pictures around me, just because I can't wet print anymore. I'm trying to get back to as much of film as I can. Only, things have changed, my familiar references are antique. I need to begin again. As I said, suggestions, please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 30, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 30, 2011 Me again. As a suggestion - try the C41 B&W films. Ilford XP2 and Kodak 400CN. I believe there is a Fuji version. They are both excellent. Sharp, fine grained, smooth and creamy. I get my rolls processed at the local Wal-Mart, and then I scan. My experience is that they scan really well, unless they are seriously over exposed. And while you won't care, they print beautifully in my darkroom. If you want to see examples, look at my photo posts. Most of them are done on XP2. You might not like the pictures, but they are technically quite acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted March 30, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 30, 2011 Pushing does not hold quality, never did never will. Only sufficient exposure gets you shadow detail. Go back to basics. I mix D76 a liter at a time. Always fresh, always available, good 6 months in small bottles I use one shot. Developers deliver speed, fine grain, heck I forget the third, quality maybe, anyway pick one and only one. Nothing gives all three. D76 is a good middle of the road developer, even distribution of all three. Kodak and Ilford make top products. TMax 100 & 400 are my current favorites in D76 1:1 Delta 100 is great. delta 400 is superb only in Xtol or DDX. Terrible in anything else unlike previous version D400 or 400 delta which were way better in my opinion. Tri X @ EI 200 in D76 at 6.5 min less 20% will give outstanding negs. 80% of 9.5 min also works. This will shock you when you see it. Try six exposures. Plus X is beautiful at 125 in D76 1:1 for 7.5. It will not scan which is why I do not use it. Print are outstanding. Stick with basics and test them out and they will work fine. Push developers, speed developers, developers that promise everything under the sun do not. Senior moment passed, it`s speed, sharpness, or fine grain. Pick one, only one, that is all you get. There is no free lunch or magic combination. Two part developers and the rest of the stuff I used to use will no longer work like it did. Too much silver has been removed from film and the emission is too thin and it no longer works like it did. Try some old Efke or other east european film if you want old school. They are still made the old way. Results will be junk compared to Kodak or Ilford treated correctly. Times are for condenser Focomat 1C. Add 10% for diffusion, cold light or color head. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 30, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 30, 2011 Tri X @ EI 200 in D76 at 6.5 min less 20% will give outstanding negs. . Is that 5.2 mins = 5 mins 12 secs or am i missing something? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 30, 2011 Share #16 Posted March 30, 2011 Hi Toby is correct times have changed. Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400 or XP2 are modern emulsions. But there are those who use Double-x (Eastmann Kodak cine 5222) cine stock, in bulk loaders and IXMOO casettes. Delta 100 is comparable with 50 ISO film from past in grain, but not as contrasty The dye image XP2 has a wide dynamic range, but needs C41 processing, if you can tolerate mini labs, this is convenient, but they tend to scratch and leave debris. The home processing is more expensive, but nearly as easy. Rodinal (or a clone) is simple and lasts for ever, for conventional film, grainy compared to D76, less hassle with powder. Scanning is ok for web pages but is not the same as wet printing. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 30, 2011 Share #17 Posted March 30, 2011 Pushing does not hold quality, never did never will. Only sufficient exposure gets you shadow detail. Tobey is exactly right. This is a universal and immutable truth. The correct ASA/ISO for your film is the exposure that produces about 0.1 density on your negative for deep shadows (Zone I). For good quality negatives, that's all there is to it. You have to make the simple test - otherwise you won't know for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wollwn Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted April 1, 2011 Following the thoughtful and experienced responses to my request for suggestions, I ordered some Tri X and TMax, with some Plus X still on hand. More than one developer would confuse the careful starting over I need to do, so I chose the one described as "foolproof", D 76. At Michael's invitation, I looked at his posted photos, and was compelled to order some XP2 as well. Except for Tri X, which has probably changed since I last used it, I've never seen any of these films, so testing will require all the rigor I can muster. I did not mean to appear to disdain wet printing, or to cause Michael to think that I wouldn't care whether his negatives would wet print. I would certainly like to be able to wet print again, but I can't and I don't think I could afford, or find satisfaction in, somebody else printing for me. In the circumstances, digital printing from real negatives beats the alternative of not making pictures at all. (Slides are beautiful, and perhaps if I look, I'll happen on a projector and screen, but I also want pictures that are stuck to the walls.) Allow me to observe in conclusion that I appreciate and admire the responses to my request for help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 1, 2011 Share #19 Posted April 1, 2011 Originally Posted by tobey bilek "Pushing does not hold quality, never did never will. Only sufficient exposure gets you shadow detail." "Tobey is exactly right. This is a universal and immutable truth." OTOH, if you are sent to a high school gym where the lighting calls for f/1.4 and ISO 6400 to get the 1/250th sec. needed to stop basketball action, your editor will fire your butt if you come back without pictures and give him/her lip about "pushing does not hold quality." c.f. dilettante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 1, 2011 Share #20 Posted April 1, 2011 Originally Posted by tobey bilek "Pushing does not hold quality, never did never will. Only sufficient exposure gets you shadow detail." "Tobey is exactly right. This is a universal and immutable truth." OTOH, if you are sent to a high school gym where the lighting calls for f/1.4 and ISO 6400 to get the 1/250th sec. needed to stop basketball action, your editor will fire your butt if you come back without pictures and give him/her lip about "pushing does not hold quality." c.f. dilettante I used to carry a large flash gun, small flash guns, and fold up space blankets. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.