A miller Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share #21 Posted October 26, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) many thanks. I think I will try both stand dev w/ Adonol and reg dev with DDX and see what happens. Perhaps my contrasty and grainy results were due to both my developer, which was Ilfosol (which I have subsequently learned is really better for lower grain film) and too aggressive agitations (think Lenny in "Of Mice and Men"). I shall report back..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Hi A miller, Take a look here Pushing film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted October 26, 2014 Share #22 Posted October 26, 2014 Very interesting responses. Steve - points well taken, thanks. Can DDX be used for stand development? No you wouldn't use DD-X for stand development. Apart from the 'cult of Rodinal' believing it can do everything stand development is really applicable to compensating developers of the Pyro and Catechol families where 'semi-stand' or 'stand' would typically amount to not more than 15 minutes for them to work, hence the control you get, especially of temperature, and lack of streaking. I'm not saying Rodinal can't work, and I do use it myself conventionally and with stand development. But when it goes wrong it really goes wrong and my concerns are with reliability and consistency, so I usually use Rodinal in stand mode with 'play films', not something I've busted a gut over shooting. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted October 26, 2014 very interesting, Steve. I am definitely going to put this theory to practice and see for myself what my own amateur abilities can accomplish with both methods given my operating and time constraints. I would note, though, that I once heard Garry Winogrand remark that he used Rodinal to develop his negs. I am pretty sure he said he used stand dev, which would make sense given that he shot so many exposures, most of which were spontaneous "snaps" on the street that required a very high shutter speed (1/1000) and an aperture of typically f8 or smaller. I suppose that lighting conditions varied and, given the volume of snaps he took, he didn't always have the chance to adjust the f-stop for perfectly correct exposure. So it would make sense that he would use stand dev. And I would also think that many of his photos that are in museums today were developed using stand dev b/c they are from negatives that hadn't been developed at Garry's untimely death! Same for Vivian Meier. I would think that stand dev is the only way to develop negs posthumous given the fact that it wasn't known what ASA rating the film was exposed for. Make sense? Now Garry was an extremely intelligent person and knew development and gear inside and out. So I'm sure that he had more than comfortably bonded with the science of it all to get the very most out of the process. I'm am the opposite, and so I clearly am not expecting to be able to be like him. But I thought it was interesting to think about nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 26, 2014 Share #24 Posted October 26, 2014 he didn't always have the chance to adjust the f-stop for perfectly correct exposure. So it would make sense that he would use stand dev. There might be a misunderstanding. Some think that stand development gives a film multi-ISO capabilities. It does not. The misunderstanding arises from the fact that different ISO films can be developed at the same dilution and time, combined in multi-reel tanks. They can be so developed because stand development is a completion process: films process until the developer is exhausted. Any film in (for example) Rodinal 1:100 will finish in 40 minutes. Anything longer than 40 minutes is a waste of time. Stand development can help in that it usually keeps the highlights from blocking, however micro-contrast is diminished. Oh, and some claim to achieve 'edge effects' similar to unsharp masking. Never have I found that to be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted October 26, 2014 Share #25 Posted October 26, 2014 Get ready to yawn. When I push TMax 400 (I'm a fan...) to 1600 or 2000, I use and discard D76, 1 to 1, for 18 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees F. After the tank is filled I invert 25 times for the first 30 seconds, and then at the top of each minute, I invert 8 times in ten seconds. I use and reuse Kodak stop bath at it's recommended dilution with the same 25 inverts in 30 seconds. I use and reuse Ilford Rapid Fixer, mixed 1 to 4, for 9 minutes, using the same agitation pattern as the film. Into the Zone VI Archival Film Washer (good luck finding one...snap it up if you do, it's ingenious, google "ZN7014 zone VI" and click images) for 15 minutes. The reels go into a tank with a LFN Edwal wetting agent solution, and into a dryer, and then hang from a clip vertically with a used film canister taped to the bottom of the film, in a plastic film drying closet to flatten. I do exactly the same thing, every time. I use the same technique (D76 1 to 1 at 68 degrees, with different developing times, and always the same agitation patterns) for TMax 100 or Acros. If TMax 400 is in the camera, 9 times out of 10, it's going to pushed the 2 stops, otherwise I'd opt for the fine grain of 100 speed film. Boring yes. Repeatable, and meditative, also yes. you can wake up now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted October 26, 2014 Share #26 Posted October 26, 2014 It was mentioned at the beginning but bears repeating - Diafine perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted October 26, 2014 Share #27 Posted October 26, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use XTOL 1:1 all the time for my standard film dev and for pushing. I tend to follow the suggested times, as per the Kodak data sheet. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf I mostly use HP5 and Neopan 400, when I shoot gigs at ASA 800/1600. Here are a couple of shots at ASA 1600 in XTOL Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin ASA 1600 Neopan 400 Wilko Johnson HP5 ASA 1600 Charlie 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/235960-pushing-film/?do=findComment&comment=2695597'>More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 26, 2014 Share #28 Posted October 26, 2014 Superb examples, hats off to you Charlie Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted October 26, 2014 Share #29 Posted October 26, 2014 I forgot to say - developing in small tanks (Paterson) 4-5 inversions per minute. No pre-wash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted October 26, 2014 Share #30 Posted October 26, 2014 Adam, For goodness sake, don't give your B&W film to a lab. It is so easy to do this at home in your kitchen or anywhere - even push processing (which is just leaving the developer in for a bit longer). All you need is developing daylight tank (Paterson, Hewes etc) with reel(s) changing bag scissors can opener (to open the film canister) measuring graduates thermometer chemistry (developer, stop solution, fixer) bulldog clips or similar to hang the wet film from your shower curtain filing sheets for your film Empty bottles to hold your chemistry (even old mineral water bottles will do if kept in the dark). That's it - I bet you could get going for less than USD100. With XTOL, it's about 50c a roll to process. Once you've had a go, you will never send B&W film to a lab, unless you're a pro shooting 10s of rolls a day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted October 27, 2014 Share #31 Posted October 27, 2014 I have pushed Tri-X to ISO 1600 with pretty much no ill effects. The only difference I noticed was an almost imperceptible lessening of contrast. No darkroom voodoo is necessary - just normal N+2 processing. While I have yet to try HP5+ at ISO 1600, I would expect this film to perform much the same way as Tri-X. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 27, 2014 Share #32 Posted October 27, 2014 I use XTOL 1:1 all the time for my standard film dev and for pushing. I tend to follow the suggested times, as per the Kodak data sheet. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf I mostly use HP5 and Neopan 400, when I shoot gigs at ASA 800/1600. Here are a couple of shots at ASA 1600 in XTOL Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin ASA 1600 Neopan 400 Wilko Johnson HP5 ASA 1600 Charlie Charlie very nice pictures Best Henry @Adam, I have this link (dev. chart pushing film) but in french easily understandable, selected 1- film and 2- developer (révélateur) Tables de développement du Pirate • Best Henry @Kad very nice pictures too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mijo Posted October 27, 2014 Share #33 Posted October 27, 2014 Must say that I appreciate this thread very much. I only recently started pushing / pulling film, however I haven't tried it with different developers (the community dark room I use only stocks D-76). In my limited experience with pushing / pulling film I've found that compensating for the trade offs (i.e. lower contrast) of either can be accomplished on the printing end (i.e. using a higher contrast filter on the enlarger). IMHO, pushing / pulling film isn't something I would use on every roll but if conditions warranted it and I could shoot the entire roll under said conditions, I would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 27, 2014 Share #34 Posted October 27, 2014 Kodak TX 400 pushing D76 1:1 14 mns 20°C 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! "Poppy in wheat field " Macro Photo (Uncropped) Leica M7 90 Macro Elmar Best Henry another picture here post 1908 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-96.html another pushing process (picture of Marc) post 1880 Nice lady http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-94.html Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! "Poppy in wheat field " Macro Photo (Uncropped) Leica M7 90 Macro Elmar Best Henry another picture here post 1908 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-96.html another pushing process (picture of Marc) post 1880 Nice lady http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-94.html ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/235960-pushing-film/?do=findComment&comment=2695976'>More sharing options...
H. James Wolf Posted October 31, 2014 Share #35 Posted October 31, 2014 If Tri-X is the film, I vote for Diafine. It's reusable, often for a year or more, and dirt simple. It's a divided developer, so 3.5 minutes or so in A, the same time in B, water instead of stop bath, fix, wash, and you're done. Temperature is not critical - anything between 70 and 85 degrees F. This works well for darkroom printing and is nearly ideal for scanning. Grain is low and contrast moderate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted October 31, 2014 Share #36 Posted October 31, 2014 If Tri-X is the film, I vote for Diafine. It's reusable, often for a year or more, and dirt simple. It's a divided developer, so 3.5 minutes or so in A, the same time in B, water instead of stop bath, fix, wash, and you're done. Temperature is not critical - anything between 70 and 85 degrees F. This works well for darkroom printing and is nearly ideal for scanning. Grain is low and contrast moderate. I'm a fan of Diafine, too. It keeps very well and is relatively foolproof. imho, it makes the best negatives for scanning. Here's some info about TX and Diafine: Film Testing Kodak 400TX and Diafine Developer | The Figital Revolution Diafine – A Black and White Film Developer | Analog Film Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.