Pan-F with Rodinal (1:100)

UC napisał(a):

There are better non-solvent developers. Pick one - ANY one - and it
will be better than Rodinal.

De gustibus non disputandum est. I've picked rodinal and I'm happy with
the grain and tonality it gives (1+50 or 1+75)

(as well as with xtol and acutol BTW



cheers
--
alkos at tlen pl
http://onephoto.net/portfolio.php3?id_autora=17765

UC napisał(a):

There are better non-solvent developers. Pick one - ANY one - and it
will be better than Rodinal.

De gustibus non disputandum est. I've picked rodinal and I'm happy with
the grain and tonality it gives (1+50 or 1+75)

(as well as with xtol and acutol BTW



cheers
--
alkos at tlen pl
http://onephoto.net/portfolio.php3?id_autora=17765

alkos wrote:

: Maybe a poor man's developer, but not "poor". At all. It gives much more
: defined and visually sharper image than D-76 (stock), with bigger but
: nice grain (it isn't a big issue with pan-f 50, is it?) and - thats true
: - lower speed. Not -1EV, maybe 0,5; so not EI 25 - go 32.

Please ignore the troll.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Matt McGrattan napisał(a):

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in future.

I like this dilution. For me it's "normal" one - while 1+25 is contrasty
and 1+100 soft. When you'll finish developing, don't use stop bath -
just pour clean water into tank and leave it there, no stirring, for
5-10 minutes. It will give you some more shadow detail (so-called
non-bromide developing)

If anyone has any experience of trying it at 1:100 I'd like to hear
how long they developed it for.

It will give you a rather flat negative. If the subject you've
photographed was very contrasty, try it.

Rodinal - it's what I have. I am open to suggestions for something
else in the future.

Rodinal is ok... I think some would be surprised looking at i.e. HP5+
exposed at 1600 and developed in 1+100 @ 75 minutes

Anyway, try X-tol. It gives full film speed, small grain if used
undiluted, nice tonality (although I prefer Rodinal here), and pushes
films very good if diluted from 1+1 to 1+3.



cheers
--
alkos at tlen pl
http://onephoto.net/portfolio.php3?id_autora=17765

Matt McGrattan napisał(a):

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in future.

I like this dilution. For me it's "normal" one - while 1+25 is contrasty
and 1+100 soft. When you'll finish developing, don't use stop bath -
just pour clean water into tank and leave it there, no stirring, for
5-10 minutes. It will give you some more shadow detail (so-called
non-bromide developing)

If anyone has any experience of trying it at 1:100 I'd like to hear
how long they developed it for.

It will give you a rather flat negative. If the subject you've
photographed was very contrasty, try it.

Rodinal - it's what I have. I am open to suggestions for something
else in the future.

Rodinal is ok... I think some would be surprised looking at i.e. HP5+
exposed at 1600 and developed in 1+100 @ 75 minutes

Anyway, try X-tol. It gives full film speed, small grain if used
undiluted, nice tonality (although I prefer Rodinal here), and pushes
films very good if diluted from 1+1 to 1+3.



cheers
--
alkos at tlen pl
http://onephoto.net/portfolio.php3?id_autora=17765

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
Paterson FX-39 absolutely trounces Rodinal. I use it all the time.

Try 1+17 dilution for 6,5 minutes at 20C/68F.


DO NOT use Paterson's dilutions and times.

Please explain why the developing times and dilutions that Paterson suggest,
should not be used as a starting point.




Matt McGrattan wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:37:05 +0100, alkos
wrote:

UC napisa?(a):
Why Rodinal? It's a poor developer. It does not give as much film
speed
as D-76. In the case of Pan-F, use EI 25.

Maybe a poor man's developer, but not "poor". At all. It gives much
more
defined and visually sharper image than D-76 (stock), with bigger
but
nice grain (it isn't a big issue with pan-f 50, is it?) and - thats
true
- lower speed. Not -1EV, maybe 0,5; so not EI 25 - go 32.

cheers

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in
future.

If anyone has any experience of trying it at 1:100 I'd like to hear
how long they developed it for.

Rodinal - it's what I have. I am open to suggestions for
something
else in the future.

What about Paterson FX-39?

Matt

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
Paterson FX-39 absolutely trounces Rodinal. I use it all the time.

Try 1+17 dilution for 6,5 minutes at 20C/68F.


DO NOT use Paterson's dilutions and times.

Please explain why the developing times and dilutions that Paterson suggest,
should not be used as a starting point.




Matt McGrattan wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:37:05 +0100, alkos
wrote:

UC napisa?(a):
Why Rodinal? It's a poor developer. It does not give as much film
speed
as D-76. In the case of Pan-F, use EI 25.

Maybe a poor man's developer, but not "poor". At all. It gives much
more
defined and visually sharper image than D-76 (stock), with bigger
but
nice grain (it isn't a big issue with pan-f 50, is it?) and - thats
true
- lower speed. Not -1EV, maybe 0,5; so not EI 25 - go 32.

cheers

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in
future.

If anyone has any experience of trying it at 1:100 I'd like to hear
how long they developed it for.

Rodinal - it's what I have. I am open to suggestions for
something
else in the future.

What about Paterson FX-39?

Matt

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:47:29 +0100, alkos
wrote:

Matt McGrattan napisa?(a):

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in future.

I like this dilution. For me it's "normal" one - while 1+25 is contrasty
and 1+100 soft. When you'll finish developing, don't use stop bath -
just pour clean water into tank and leave it there, no stirring, for
5-10 minutes. It will give you some more shadow detail (so-called
non-bromide developing)

I had a go this morning at 1:100.

The negatives look OK. Maybe a bit flat and perhaps a little dark --
I'll need to scan them before I can get a good look. However, peering
through a loupe they look much better than previous attempts -- which
were incredibly grainy and contrasty.

Matt

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:47:29 +0100, alkos
wrote:

Matt McGrattan napisa?(a):

I have a couple of rolls of film already exposed at iso 50 so I have
to develop those at the marked EV.

I'll maybe give it a go at 1:50 and then experiment with 32 in future.

I like this dilution. For me it's "normal" one - while 1+25 is contrasty
and 1+100 soft. When you'll finish developing, don't use stop bath -
just pour clean water into tank and leave it there, no stirring, for
5-10 minutes. It will give you some more shadow detail (so-called
non-bromide developing)

I had a go this morning at 1:100.

The negatives look OK. Maybe a bit flat and perhaps a little dark --
I'll need to scan them before I can get a good look. However, peering
through a loupe they look much better than previous attempts -- which
were incredibly grainy and contrasty.

Matt

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:47:29 +0100, alkos
wrote:

Anyway, try X-tol. It gives full film speed, small grain if used
undiluted, nice tonality (although I prefer Rodinal here), and pushes
films very good if diluted from 1+1 to 1+3.

As long as it works.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email