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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Film developers
Hi,
I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Hobgen wrote:
From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work as advertized. In theory, the first bath saturates the film with active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients (usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath (because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath (it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a thickness of about 2/1000mm). It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact single bath developers with a second alkaline bath. If you would drop the second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23 or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX. So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more hassle with no rewards. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical style I like very much. Martin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Hobgen wrote:
From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work as advertized. In theory, the first bath saturates the film with active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients (usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath (because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath (it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a thickness of about 2/1000mm). It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact single bath developers with a second alkaline bath. If you would drop the second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23 or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX. So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more hassle with no rewards. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical style I like very much. Martin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote: I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. Given Ilford's current states of affairs, I wouldn't count on either. In fact I see that their prices here in America have risen a good deal since my last purchase. Of course Galerie is still worth it. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? Ilford's developers are fine to use. Microphen is a good speed-enhancing developer comparable to T-Max RS. ID-11 is virtually identical as D-76. That said, I still recommend purchasing your own chemicals and mixing your developers from published formulas. I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? Since it's a UK item I doubt any in the US have tried it and I haven't heard about it until this post. Sounds like a PMK/Windisch variant. WINDISCH CATECHOL DEVELOPER SOLUTION A Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml Sodium sulfite 80.0g Catechol 12.5g Water to make 1.0Ll SOLUTION B Distilled water 750ml Sodium Metaborate 100.0g Water to make 1.0Ll PMK DEVELOPER SOLUTION A Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml Metol 10.0g Sodium Bisulfite 20.0g Pyrogallol 100.0g EDTA (optional) 5.0g Water to make 1.0L SOLUTION B Distilled water 1400ml Sodium Metaborate 600.0g water to make 2.0L From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. Do you mean two-bath or split stock ? The developer you reference is a split stock not a two bath formula. A split-stock combines the ingredients from a stock solution which is usually diluted (1:5:100 for this variant) whereas a split stock has the developing agent in the "A" bath and the alkali in the "B" bath. Divided D-76 Solution A Metol 2g Sodium Sulfite 100g Hydroquinone 5g Pot. bromide 1g Water to make 1.0L Solution B Borax 50g Water to make 1.0L But why then aren't they more popular? Two-bath formulas have a nasty habit of compressing the tonal scale. Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? I am now recommending D-76H for general usage with medium and large format films and D-23 for 35mm. If you're buying over-the-counter formulas then I would suggest Microphen and Perceptol. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote: I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. Given Ilford's current states of affairs, I wouldn't count on either. In fact I see that their prices here in America have risen a good deal since my last purchase. Of course Galerie is still worth it. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? Ilford's developers are fine to use. Microphen is a good speed-enhancing developer comparable to T-Max RS. ID-11 is virtually identical as D-76. That said, I still recommend purchasing your own chemicals and mixing your developers from published formulas. I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? Since it's a UK item I doubt any in the US have tried it and I haven't heard about it until this post. Sounds like a PMK/Windisch variant. WINDISCH CATECHOL DEVELOPER SOLUTION A Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml Sodium sulfite 80.0g Catechol 12.5g Water to make 1.0Ll SOLUTION B Distilled water 750ml Sodium Metaborate 100.0g Water to make 1.0Ll PMK DEVELOPER SOLUTION A Distilled Water (195°F) 750ml Metol 10.0g Sodium Bisulfite 20.0g Pyrogallol 100.0g EDTA (optional) 5.0g Water to make 1.0L SOLUTION B Distilled water 1400ml Sodium Metaborate 600.0g water to make 2.0L From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. Do you mean two-bath or split stock ? The developer you reference is a split stock not a two bath formula. A split-stock combines the ingredients from a stock solution which is usually diluted (1:5:100 for this variant) whereas a split stock has the developing agent in the "A" bath and the alkali in the "B" bath. Divided D-76 Solution A Metol 2g Sodium Sulfite 100g Hydroquinone 5g Pot. bromide 1g Water to make 1.0L Solution B Borax 50g Water to make 1.0L But why then aren't they more popular? Two-bath formulas have a nasty habit of compressing the tonal scale. Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? I am now recommending D-76H for general usage with medium and large format films and D-23 for 35mm. If you're buying over-the-counter formulas then I would suggest Microphen and Perceptol. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Phil,
In general I recommend staying away from proprietary, special application developers for general use and frankly have never heard of Presysol. AB developers like Diafine and various home-brews are great but rather limiting. Their very consistency can restrict time temperature variations to adjust contrast of your negatives while you are in the "just foolin' around" stage. And while it's great that you have chosen to shoot a "trio" of films from the same maker, I am curious about your reasons to be shooting three films in the first place. (Three VERY different films, I might add.) Without that bit of data it's difficult to comment on the suitability of either your film or developer choices. BUT, if I were buying something in a can or bottle for you to use, I probably recommend (in no real order) D-76/ID-11 (easy to home-brew if Kodak AND Ilford fold), HC-110 or the Ilford equivalent (a liquid alternative for which many film makers publish data, or D-23 (not available pre-packaged, as far as I know, but the world's easiest home-brew). Finally, it's been said before, but I'll say it again. If you are just starting out, new to the black and white experience, you will learn more, faster by sticking to just one film and one developer, and most likely after many years of shooting black and white you'll find that one film and developer combo are all you ever needed. -- darkroommike ---------- "Phil Hobgen" wrote in message ... Hi, I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Phil,
In general I recommend staying away from proprietary, special application developers for general use and frankly have never heard of Presysol. AB developers like Diafine and various home-brews are great but rather limiting. Their very consistency can restrict time temperature variations to adjust contrast of your negatives while you are in the "just foolin' around" stage. And while it's great that you have chosen to shoot a "trio" of films from the same maker, I am curious about your reasons to be shooting three films in the first place. (Three VERY different films, I might add.) Without that bit of data it's difficult to comment on the suitability of either your film or developer choices. BUT, if I were buying something in a can or bottle for you to use, I probably recommend (in no real order) D-76/ID-11 (easy to home-brew if Kodak AND Ilford fold), HC-110 or the Ilford equivalent (a liquid alternative for which many film makers publish data, or D-23 (not available pre-packaged, as far as I know, but the world's easiest home-brew). Finally, it's been said before, but I'll say it again. If you are just starting out, new to the black and white experience, you will learn more, faster by sticking to just one film and one developer, and most likely after many years of shooting black and white you'll find that one film and developer combo are all you ever needed. -- darkroommike ---------- "Phil Hobgen" wrote in message ... Hi, I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:29:42 -0500, "Mike King"
wrote: Finally, it's been said before, but I'll say it again. If you are just starting out, new to the black and white experience, you will learn more, faster by sticking to just one film and one developer, and most likely after many years of shooting black and white you'll find that one film and developer combo are all you ever needed. While I agree with you on most things, I will suggest the use of two films. One high speed and one slow. I would subsequently suggest the use of Pan-F+ and Delta 400 if using smaller formats such as 35mm or 120. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message ...
I use Fuji and Ilford films and Paterson developers Fuji Neopan 400 (EI 320) Paterson Acutol 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Fuji Neopan 1600 (EI 650) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford FP4 (EI 160) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford Pan-F (EI 50-64) Paterson Acutol 1+21, 9 minutes @ 68F/20C Also: Ilford HP5 (EI 320) Paterson Acutol 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford Delta 400 (EI 320) Paterson FX-39, 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Hi, I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. I like Neopan 400 slightly better than HP5. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? Paterson. I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? What the hell is that stuff? From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Tough to control. Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? Paterson Acutol for conventional films, Paterson FX-39 for new technology films. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Hobgen" wrote in message ...
I use Fuji and Ilford films and Paterson developers Fuji Neopan 400 (EI 320) Paterson Acutol 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Fuji Neopan 1600 (EI 650) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford FP4 (EI 160) Paterson Acutol 1+15, 7,5 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford Pan-F (EI 50-64) Paterson Acutol 1+21, 9 minutes @ 68F/20C Also: Ilford HP5 (EI 320) Paterson Acutol 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Ilford Delta 400 (EI 320) Paterson FX-39, 1+14, 8 minutes @ 68F/20C Hi, I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and compare results against a consistent baseline. I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase in price any time soon. I like Neopan 400 slightly better than HP5. From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But what to choose ? Paterson. I am tempted to try Prescysol from http://www.monochromephotography.com/developer.htm but I haven't found any independent reference to it - does anyone have experience of using it? What the hell is that stuff? From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Tough to control. Are equally good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what would be a good choice? Paterson Acutol for conventional films, Paterson FX-39 for new technology films. I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits - but all advice and opinions are welcome! Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------- Phil Hobgen for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems) | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 192 | September 14th 04 01:59 AM |
darkroom wannabe | EC | In The Darkroom | 59 | September 4th 04 01:45 AM |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |