scotty_elmslie

<p>I am glad that you found the article useful. If anyone want to see it, it is in the Online Darkroom archive from May 2015.<br> I have not actually tried it with 120 film yet. I'm happy to see that the technique translated from small to medium format.<br> Scotty</p>

<p>I tried Rodinal and HC110 for stand development of CMS 20 and had problems with Rodinal - bromide drag, where the un-exhausted developer flowed down the surface of the film. I had better luck with HC110 because it seems to be more viscous.</p>

<p>I meant to say theonlinedarkroom.com</p>

<p>I did extensive tests (see my article in onlinedarkroom.com) using Rodinal 1+119 and HC110(G) and settled on HC110 because Rodinal had problems with bromide drag. I ended up with about 15 minutes, semi-stand development and an ISO of 8. TMax developer highly diluted might give results similar to HC110 with stand development but you will have to figure out the dilution.<br> <br> I don't find CMS 20 to be worth the trouble since I can get similar results (and better shadow rendition at a normal ISO) with Rollei 25 and Xtol using standard dilutions and methods.</p><div></div>

<p>Everyone seems to talk about Rodinal with stand or semi-stand development but I have found it to be a disaster because of bromide drag when I used it to tame the contrast of CMS 20 II.</p> <p>So I used HC110(G) for 8 minutes and 16 minutes with semi-stand. No bromide drag but a problem from over agitation in smooth sky areas. My final attempt will probably be at ISO 8, 13 minutes semi-stand and less agitation than for my 16 minute attempt.</p> <p>I think the results with Tmax developer would be similar to HC110 because both developers are more viscous than Rodinal - that's just a guess on my part.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=287732">Bill Bowes</a> "Beg to differ Scotty. Re-read my 80s procedure...bones basic if I say so. ..."<br> <br> Bill, I was referring to only the original list. I did not realize that the floor was open to nominations or I would have mentioned Tmax 100 which appears to be the film that killed of Panatomic X.<br> <br> I tried 80s and found that it needed an ISO of 40 to get decent shadow details. Coincidentally, RPX 25 does nicely at ISO 40 when developed in Xtol 1+2 for 9:30 at 68F. Carefully handled with conventional developers and methods it is a match for CMS 20 II and you get the bonus of texture and details in the shadows that are blocked up with CMS 20.<br> </p>

<p>The only two that will not be a hassle to develop are the Rollei RPX 25 (expensive) and the Pan F+. The others require special developers or extra handling like stand development.<br> Tmax 100 is finer grained than Pan F and not a problem to develop once you get the development time right. You do need to fix it a little longer than normal to get it to clear completely. Delta 100 is similar to Tmax 100.</p>

<p>I find that Tri-X in Diafine at ISO 400 produces plenty of contrast. The higher you set the ISO, the thinner the negative. The apparent reduction in contrast seems to come from dropping the exposure down toward the toe of the curve.<br> The result of shooting Tri-X at high ISO is not much different when using Diafine or HC110(B) pushed a couple of stops.<br> I like Jose Angel's suggestion - if you have to use a higher contrast paper, stick with your favorite developer and just increase the negative's development time.</p>

<p><em>I believe this less density for scanning is a fallacy.</em><br> <em> </em><br> I find that my scanners (LS9000 and V750) are pretty forgiving about some development deviation (within about +/- 20%) since you can compensate for this directly at the time of scanning. A good film scanner can see though a fairly large amount of density variation. Of course, what it cannot do is make up for an underexposed negative or highlights that are developed too strongly, so it is probably a good bet to stay close to development times that would work in a normal optical enlarger, After all, scanners are intended to deal properly with normally developed negatives.</p>

<p>I do not have a problem with scratches in tray development. First, I only develop two sheets at a time. After all, I went to a lot of trouble to capture the image. A little more time developing it is just part of the deal. Second, I do not shuffle constantly. Three inversions for each sheet at one-minute intervals provides enough agitation, allows the developer to work in peace and exposes the surfaces to fewer scratching opportunities. <br> Probably no effect scratching, but I use Rodinal 1+49 or HC110 1+63, At those dilutions with sheet film they are more economical, sharper and you will not notice any impact on grain.</p> <p>My times are taken from http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php and sometimes shorten them about 10% when I am scanning the negative.</p>

<p>TMax 400 is so smooth that almost any developer will be fine, especially for 4x5 film. Highly diluted HC110 (about 1+49 or 1+63) will do fine and even a Rodinal equivalent at 1+49 will give you good results without making the appearance of grain into a problem. XTOL would be fine as well but at 1+1 it might be a bit wasteful - 1+3 would be more efficient. </p> <p>None of these is a bad choice so just pick one and work out your development times to suit your intended contrast.</p>