Michael Hiles Posted April 1, 2011 Share #21 Posted April 1, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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."dilettante Absolutely. No argument. Complete agreement. When you need an image - that's reality. But to get the BEST out of the photo process, there are some basic facts of physics and chemistry that cannot be ignored. I suspect that most of us (but probably not all) here are not trying to satisfy an editor. My goal is a print on the wall that I can look at and say is long-scaled, holds shadow and highlight detail where I decided to do so, and is using the best characteristics of the paper as well as possible. These days, if I had to satisfy an Editor (Gawd help us), I would likely use a D-lux 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Hi Michael Hiles, Take a look here Everything changed, film and developer, what now?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Knomad Posted April 1, 2011 Share #22 Posted April 1, 2011 Plus-X (and other films) have clearly changed over time. Kodak even changed the recommended times a few years back, although many claim (and my own experience agrees) that the new times are in error. I've recently tried Plus-X again and was not happy with it, even though I used to shoot the stuff by the hundred foot roll in the 1970s. Tri-X still works well for me, but I have serious concerns about the stability of Kodak, which makes decisions these days on the basis of how institutional investors will react, and not on what's best for photographers. Thus I've moved to Ilford films recently (FP4 and HP5) and so far am very happy with them. For the moment I'm using HC-110 at the unofficial dilution H (1:62), and Ilford makes their own knock-off of HC-110 so once my existing stock of HC-110 is gone I'll probably try that. My goal for normal subject matter is to maintain a full tonal range with detail in the shadows and the highlights. The old maxim holds, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights... and in general I find that film speeds are over-rated. Working with a model with jet-black hair over the weekend, in window light, I had to expose HP5 at EI 250 instead of the 400 on the box to hold detail in the hair. If you happen to like the contrastier look of pushing film, or if you're shooting subject matter where you really need the extra speed, then of course go ahead and do it. Just be aware that there won't be a lot of detail in the shadows no matter what developer claims about film speed are made, because that developer will act mostly on the highlights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 1, 2011 Share #23 Posted April 1, 2011 BTW - I'm in agreement that underexposure, with or without pushed development, does not "hold quality." Just pointing out that sometimes there are worse things than less-than-optimum quality. What does Ansel say? (I paraphrase): "I'm more interested by a excellent concept executed with weak technique than a weak concept excuted with excellent technique." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 1, 2011 Share #24 Posted April 1, 2011 You have received good advice. D-76 or ID-11, and Rodinal are my favorites, but for difficult contrasty situations, permit me to suggest one more developer here. It is available in the UK, and from Photographers Formulary in the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted April 1, 2011 Share #25 Posted April 1, 2011 You have received good advice. D-76 or ID-11, and Rodinal are my favorites, but for difficult contrasty situations, permit me to suggest one more developer here. It is available in the UK, and from Photographers Formulary in the USA. Interesting. I wonder if this is actually (or similar to) the old Beers two bath formula. I never used it, but it had a reputation as a compensating developer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen in Montreal Posted August 20, 2011 Share #26 Posted August 20, 2011 ..... Plus X at 320 ASA and developed in Accufine. ....... Wollwn and Adan, Thank you for lighting a little fire under my rear end. I rifled through the freezer and pulled out a box of old school Plus-x film that I was saving for something "special". It turns out the last box of Plus-x saved, in the corner of my freezer, expired when my youngest daughter was born. So my 18 year since expired Plus-x will be used to shoot a series of pictures of my little sweetie leading up to her 18th birthday. The first session was shot at 320 asa and processed in Acufine. Processed by hand with hangers since I don't think Acufine and Jobo agitation would be a loving match. The negs look great. The film has held up! 18 years in the freezer, waiting for something special to come along, and the film looks great! Kodak was such a great company back in the day, God I miss the old Kodak films, nothing could touch them. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/147521-everything-changed-film-and-developer-what-now/?do=findComment&comment=1770422'>More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 20, 2011 Share #27 Posted August 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you for reminding me about DiXactol Pico, I feel inspired to get some. Its an interesting thread. Certainly I can't use the same films and developers I did when using a wet darkroom that I now need for scanning. As Adams makes very clear in the Zone System, the whole process of exposure to print is an interconnected chain of events, and for me what worked with an enlarger doesn't necessarily work with a scanner. So when asking questions of what others use also ask what the final use is, it can make a difference. So I have no luck with Rodinal anymore, nor Kodak films, and I'm aiming for lower contrast negatives than I would ideally need for wet printing. Its now FP4 or HP5, ID11 or Ilford DD-X. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 20, 2011 Share #28 Posted August 20, 2011 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. [...] Speaking only of your original prints - can you scan, or have them scanned? I did a lot of scanning for a pro for one of his books - right from his prints. It was not as straightforward as I thought it should be for a couple of prints because the fiber base had some brightener in it that lightened blacks, but overall the outcome was excellent (with huge files). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 20, 2011 Share #29 Posted August 20, 2011 Plus X was changed 2 or 3 years ago along with tri x. It is similar, but not the same as before. For 320 you need accufine as it was a unique product and a photojournalists favorite with tri x. Accufine can best advise of current speed, but it was 320 decades ago. I must agree, enhanced speeds from some developers are just contrast increases with no more shadow detail. You will need to run a test. An yes, scanning and printing are different. Some films are the same times, some different. I bracketed developing times Plus x & D76 and never could find a time that worked for scanning. Worst scanning film I ever used, but enlarger prints were beautiful. I changed to TMax and scanning issues went away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 20, 2011 Share #30 Posted August 20, 2011 I rifled through the freezer and pulled out a box of old school Plus-x film that I was saving for something "special". It turns out the last box of Plus-x saved, in the corner of my freezer, expired when my youngest daughter was born. So my 18 year since expired Plus-x will be used to shoot a series of pictures of my little sweetie leading up to her 18th birthday. The first session was shot at 320 asa and processed in Acufine. Processed by hand with hangers since I don't think Acufine and Jobo agitation would be a loving match. The negs look great. The film has held up! 18 years in the freezer, waiting for something special to come along, and the film looks great! Kodak was such a great company back in the day, God I miss the old Kodak films, nothing could touch them. It's hard to imagine an equivalent digital experience. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted August 21, 2011 Share #31 Posted August 21, 2011 Have a look at APUG forum where there was a sticky post all on the topic of films vs speed vs developers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanCderidder Posted August 21, 2011 Share #32 Posted August 21, 2011 Isn't the outcome all a matter of personal taste? Personally I like Rodinal, which I currently use for everything, and mostly with Tri-x and Agfa APX 100 and (generally) love the outcome, especially when printed large. I could get a lot smoother results using different components, but this doesn't tickle my fancy so to speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen in Montreal Posted August 21, 2011 Share #33 Posted August 21, 2011 Plus X was changed 2 or 3 years ago along with tri x...........Worst scanning film I ever used, but enlarger prints were beautiful. I changed to TMax and scanning issues went away. Yes, Kodak played with the line in 2007. Tmax advances aside, it was a terrible day. I have used Acufine since the early 80s, so it was a non issue nailing the time, I processed one sheet as a test and adjusted for the rest and they look great. I have not scanned any shot at 125asa yet, but the 320 negs are scanned and are fine and give the slightly grainy gritty look I like. I made an 11x16 test print on my Epson. I happy with it. But as you say, this was intended for, shot, exposed and processed for silver printing, so the final judgement comes when I make a real print in the darkroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen in Montreal Posted August 21, 2011 Share #34 Posted August 21, 2011 Isn't the outcome all a matter of personal taste? Personally I like Rodinal, which I currently use for everything, and mostly with Tri-x and Agfa APX 100 and (generally) love the outcome, especially when printed large. I could get a lot smoother results using different components, but this doesn't tickle my fancy so to speak. Indeed, The look and feel that Wollwn sought is a very personal taste. It is not about being as clean as Ansel, but, it is a grit that is unique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucklik Posted August 21, 2011 Share #35 Posted August 21, 2011 Isn't the outcome all a matter of personal taste? Personally I like Rodinal, which I currently use for everything, and mostly with Tri-x and Agfa APX 100 and (generally) love the outcome, especially when printed large. I could get a lot smoother results using different components, but this doesn't tickle my fancy so to speak. I tried semi-stand developing in Rodinal 1/100 5 min in water 1 hour in the developer Agitation at the start and a little at 20 min and at 40 min. I exposed 3 films now. 2 @ ISO 400 and 1 @ ISO 1600. Developing = the same. @ 1600 the grey's are not great, I'm gonna try ISO 800 The negatives are easy to scan. I haven't tried to enlarge them in the wet room yet. I used 3,5ml Rodinal in 350ml water. I read that you need 3,5 ml of working solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.