Film and developer for sharp pictures

[ray_cutting]

<p>Thank you to everyone, looks like i have alot to learn, im building a darkroom right now and will be developing my film and enlarging with my Beseler 23c enlarger and using some type of scanner (not sure which one now, leaning towards a Nikon).<br>

So i guess im trying to find a good starting point, and a basic understanding of the different developers and how they affect the outcome.<br>

I bought some hc-110 based on shadow detail, grain, and sharpness based on the chart but not sure anymore.<br>

Looks like xtol would have been a better choice for me, being that it gives better shadow detail, fine grain and the best sharpness(acutance)<br>

Looks like im going to have to experiment a little to see first hand what everyone is explaining.<br>

Sounds like sharpness is more about developing than film choice, now this brings up another question.<br>

The developer, Kodak makes about 8 different developers and according to the chart i linked on an earlier post the different developers seem to progressivly affect shadow detail depending on which one you choose, but then the affect on sharpness and grain is also affected but they all give very different results.<br>

Can anyone explain basic types of developers, there seems to be ones that are solevent,non solevent,Ascorbic acid, and some that are referred to as standard ect.<br>

Im sure that each developer has its place, but im wondering what purpose does each one serve, are some best for amateurs and some best for machine processing?<br>

Again i appreciate everyones input it all is very helpful.<br>

Thanks</p>

[russ_kerlin]

<p>A lot of us could go on and on responding to your questions, but the best advice is what you have already discovered:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like im going to have to experiment a little to see first hand what everyone is explaining.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! </p>

<p>And, in response to your question about different developers, my suggestion is two-fold. First, read the "Film Developer's Cookbook" when you get it. This will explain the differences, and more. Second, keep watching this forum. Even if you don't engage in the discussions, you will learn a lot from the varied experiences of the folks who post.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Russ<br>

I couldn't agree more, everyones experiences good or bad are very helpful.<br>

One thing i found very interesting is how agitation has a lot to do with the results, very intersting.<br>

Looks like there are dosens and dosens of variables, i had no idea film was so complicated, makes me appreciate it, and the people who do it well, so much more.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Ilford Pan F developed in Rodinal 1:50.</p>

[lambertus_s._hofstra1]

<p>Hi,<br>

As others have said, certainly not what one would expect. I use Acros 100, dev. in Rodinal 1+50 (18 min, 20 degr celsius, 90 degree tilt left and right every minute). I print in the darkroom but scan as preview (Epson 4870). Hard to find the grain at all!<br>

But if this is reticulation I wonder how they managed to do it. I've tried to get it on purpose by going from 30degr. rinsing water to 4 degr. No joy. Apparently modern emulsions are very resistant to the phenomenon....</p>

[mark f]

<p>I think the answer depends partially on how you are evaluating "graininess" . Scanning converntional BW film will show grain aliasing that will make the grain seem much larger. C41 films (I've only used Ilford XP2) scan much better, but I don't like them for enlarging. If I did not develop and wet print myself, I'd stick to C41 films. <br /> I personally use a lot of 120 Acros and Rodinal and wet print. The truth is, though, most modern developers will give you great results once you learn how to use them. The film is what makes the most difference. My advice would be to try Acros or xtol (or any other 100-ish speed film) and a developer like xtol or D76 and just stick to that combination for a good, long time. People make it complicated, but it really doesn't need to be.</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>We all like to mess with different developers, but modern films don't respond to developers like the old ones did. The reality is that most of what a film is going to give you is designed into the film to begin with. Much of what you read will tend to be old lore passed down through many, or wishful thinking, or (gasp) marketing. In a really controlled test, films developed to the same contrast index and correctly exposed for the developer in use, will be nearly indistinguishable in tonal quality and grain. There are a few exceptions, but they're not commonly available. Pick some sensible developer and learn to use it. </p>

[tim gray]

<p>I've not used HC-110. But it's not *that* expensive, so if you just leave it on the shelf, all is not lost. A lot of us like XTOL - I find it is a good all around developer. I find it a lot more usable if I pour the mixed developer into 10 half liter bottles for storage and use. It keeps it from oxidizing as much and it's easier to handle.</p>

<p>As far as other developers go, I think in more practical terms. Liquid developers are easier to mix up on demand. Powdered ones are cheaper to buy and ship. I myself use XTOL, partially because its the last new developer developed (haha) by one of the big companies. It's pretty good.</p>

<p>Some other good books to check out are Tim Rudman's Master Print Course, Les McClean's Creative Black and White Photography, and David Vestal's two books, The Craft of Photography and The Art of Black and White Enlarging. The last two can be bought used for a buck or two, while the others might be more expensive.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Thanks for confirming my thoughts on Xtol, i think im going to use that along with 100 T-max film and stick with it for a while.<br>

I'll probably use up my Hc-110 just to get a feel for it, i tryed it for the first time yesterday, also my first film developing, i decided to try to develop some film i found in a Rolleiflex i recently bought, it was some tri-x pan, there were 2 exposures left on the film so i snapped those off real quick and took it out of the camera.<br>

I figured it would be no big deal if i made a mistake on my first roll, well it appears the roll turned out pretty well, i don't have a scanner yet and my darkroom is not set up yet, but looking at negative with 10x magnifing glass it seems like its ok.<br>

Of course the mystery pics are of someones cat on a window sill. not what i was hoping!<br>

I did not realize the shiny side was so sticky before you let it dry, now i know why its important not to touch or let dust or lint get on it, i could have hung it up and caught some flys with it!</p>

[maxim_muir]

<p>Everyone else pretty much answered your question. The example you displayed on the screen looked more like reticulation to my eyes from temperature shock:)</p>

<p>My fav high acutance developers back in the day were my modified Willi Beutler developer, home brew Rodinal variants, and PMK. I think the Sandy King Pyro-Cat developer would be a nice one for acutance effects, but I was not doing film work when that one was published.</p>