evan_parker

80F definitley seems warm. HP5+ doesn't have too delicate an emulsion in my experience, but 80F is pushing it... especially for the extended development times that such a high dilution of HC-110 is going to give you. What I have been doing to great success is putting a bottle of distilled water in the fridge, mixing up the developer with this cold water when I need it, then warming up the developer in my hands, watching the thermometer, while I watch Comedy Central :).

Mr. Urmonas,

 

That's right. Rodinal developing HP5+ has the same color going in as it does going out. This is my experience with Rodinal developing all Ilford films. However, all Kodak films have a dark purple, as do the Agfa films I have tried (APX 100 and APX 400). I wonder why some films have the tinge and others do not... maybe the anti-halation backings are formulated differently in Ilford films? I've noticed that the colored tinges are nice because, for us water stop users, it tells when all the chemical is washed out (when the purple has gone completely away, I fill and rise the tank two more times).

I've never experienced this particular problem before, but it is out of the question that it is uneven development/bromide drag?

The SB50-DX is nice if money is tigheter, because it is still quite powerful when used in conjuction with the N80's built in flash. The 80 is nicer, of course, with modelling light and all, but the 50-DX isn't bad. Plus, I can get a 2-pack of 123A lithium batteries for $2.13... oh the joys of a 6% over cost camera store discount :)

I have a large, clear bottle of HC-110 concentrate that I have had for

a few months, but I'm now ready to start using it. However, right

above the developer line in the bottle, there is an orange, speckled

tint on the plastic... it looks kind of like oxidized developer, but

I'm not sure. Has anyone seen this before, and what are the suggested

solutions? I'd love to try it outright, but I really don't have any

rolls that are easily replaceable right now.

 

Thanks a lot for your help, fellow photo.netters!

I know that Clear File has two nearly identical types of 35mm neg sheets, one labelled "Archival Classic" with a white stripe across the top, the other completely clear (I forget what is embossed on it). Just another reason to keep your eyes open when buying neg sheets, even if they take the same number of frames per strip and are the same format.

 

However, I do not believe they are really of different quality. They both should be archival, although I have noticed the Classic pages are a bit flimsier, although they have strips across the top which makes them easier to write on.

Mr. MacKenzie, I also believe that HC-110 has a very long shelf life as well as Rodinal. Good knowledge for those who develop film infrequently (although I am not one of them!). :)

 

Evan

I third the answer about the film touching itself within the tank, leading to the uneven development. In my experience, uneven development due to insufficient agitation and the like is less linear and often looks like streaks "dripping" from the tops and bottoms of the rebates onto the exposed part of the negative.

I know that you don't have this developer, but Rodinal 1:50 for around 13minutes, rotary agitation for 5 seconds every minute, 30 seconds at the beginning, works very well on both the new and old Tri-X emulsions in my experience.

 

Also: Ilfosol-S is not a great developer for fast films. Try it with a nice, slow emulsion: You may be impressed.

Mr. Kenstler,

 

You make an excellent point about the density of the negative in a chromogenic film and the apparent grain. It's always better, in my experience as a photo lab tech, to deal with negatives that have been heavily overexposed rather than negatives that have been underexposed even a stop or two.

 

Every few weeks we run the Aperion TrueBalance test negatives to calibrate our machines for color and density correction. This basically amounts to a Color test chart and the face of a Caucasian woman printed as underexposure, normal, overexposure, and "super-over" over exposure on different types of film stock. I, along with my Fuji SFA printer's scanner (pre-Frontier, sorry guys :) ), can make a print from a negative exposed by two or even more stops look virtually indistinguishable to prints made from normally exposed negs. I suppose this is why many photo companies put 800 speed film in their cameras. This is also probably why people who pull XP2 to 200 get even better results than those who shoot it at 400.

 

This is offtopic, but I have to rant. You know those "Jazz" and "Harmony" and other generic brand cameras at Wal-Mart and other grocery stores? They're actually pirtaed Kodak, Fuji, Konica and Agfa disposable cameras, loaded with the cheapest film money can buy (no printing on the rebates whatsoever, let alone DX codes) shut with duct tape and wrapped in a paper container. Not that anyone here would ever do this, but don't buy these. Spend the extra $1.

 

Last thing, I promise this time: Maybe it's just because I work on a Fuji printer, but I consistently get better results using Fuji films, especially Superia 400 and 800 films, over their Kodak equvialents. Anyone else experience this?

By what I know from people who have developed XP2 Super at home with Ilford's kit versus at a lab, the lab development offers slightly less acutance because of continuous, versus intermittent agitation which the person using the at-home kit used (which tends to foster edge effects, if I remember correctly).

I have recently "discovered" Ilford XP2 Super, and I'm quite pleased

with the way the prints turn out on black and white paper: grainless

and very creamy, perfect for potraiture. But I have one problem: It

just isn't REAL black and white film. I've always prided myself on my

film developing technique, and even though I run the photo lab that I

develop my C-41 film at, I just don't feel nearly as involved in the

process.

 

I guess, in a way, this question stems from the film vs. digital

debate, i.e., the distance a photographer allows themselves from the

post-exposure side of photography, the darkroom, the tanks and the

trays and the sloshing chemicals. Part of the reason I love black and

white is because I control every single part of it. If something is

wrong, it is because I mixed a chemical incorrectly, exposed a

negative badly, or just plain forgot to do something. XP2 takes a

pretty large part of the chain away from me. Then again, isn't a

photograph about the subject matter? If a photo is truly eye-catching

and conveys a message, does it matter how it was recorded? Why not use

something that offers the photographer more convenience?

 

Now, I'm not asking anyone to make up my mind for me. I'm just

wondering if there are others that might have a comment on what I've

been thinking about recently, both the traditionalists and the "new

wave" photographers.

 

Thanks for your time.

I know this makes me sound like a real jerk, but I love maintaining my photo equipment as well, making sure everything is in perfect condition, my lenses and filters are always clean, my bag has plenty of every type of film I'd need, etc.

I never want Tri-X or TMAX 100 to leave us, but the fact is that with the great number of smaller black and white material manufacturers (Ilford, Bergger, Forte, Agfa (kinda), Fomapan, and the Fuji B&W division) I highly doubt that we will have to worry about the mere availability of black and white films. Sure, we will have to worry about some of the bigger players leaving the market and ascending prices in an increasingly niche market, but think of it this way: There are still manufacturers of high quality POP, albumen, and salted paper processes!

Not to discount Mr. Fortier's comment, but I THINK (no flames, please! :) ) that the Mr. Megargee's comment was in regard to "zonal expansion or contraction development", i.e., one would shoot their film at their normal EI and then overdevelop or underdevelop on purpose to contract or expand the zones, ala Ansel Adam's "The Negative".

Mr. Beal, let us not forget that Acros is itself a tabular-grained film! Rodinal, although not particularly suited in my opinion to Delta films and TMY, does wonders for TMAX 100.

Tonality, tonality... an elusive term certainly, but it does exist, and different developers do lend different tonalities (sp?) to the same film.

 

I believe that this is caused by the fact that developers tend to alter the characteristic curves of films, so that the contrast in the highlights, midtones or shadows of a certain developer on one film is completely different than the contrast of a different developer on that same film. In my experience, dilute/slow working developers tend to give better tonality, that is, they are able to more accurately reproduce the nearly infinite amount of tones that were present in the real-world scene. Rodinal definitley fits this bill more than, say, HC-110 in my experience, where it takes 6 minutes to spit out Tri-X negs that are very "soot and chalk".

An electronic pH checker, like the ones mentioned here, seem like the best idea. Two probes are inserted into a solution, and the LED corresponding with the pH of the solution lights up. What could be easier than that?

I thought the same thing Mr. Hoffman did after reading your post: TMAX 100 has pretty much the straightest characteristic curve line of any black and white film I know of. It might be worth a shot.

 

However, I know that many developers DO have the tendency to change characteristic curves. I think, although I may be wrong, it is this tendency to change the curves that gives different developers their different inherent tonality or tonal scale. HC-110, for example, gives an "upswept" curve line, meaning more contrast in the highlights than, say, D-76. D-23, as a soft-working developer, sounds like it would be the best place to start.

1:50 Rodinal, to me, is the "magic" dilution. I get great results when using this dilution on many different films, everything from TMAX 100, Pan F+ to HP5+.

 

I hate to admit I have not extensively used Acros, and have only once souped it in D-76. However, TMAX 100, being a tabular-grained film also, works absolutely wonderfully in Rodinal 1:50! The grain of the film is so fine that the Rodinal doesn't even seem to bring it out that much (like it does with, say, Tri-X). The Rodinal also keeps the "greasy" apperance of TMAX films in solvent developers (like ID-11 and D-76) at bay while enhancing its tonality. I'm sure you've tried TMX, but give it a go again in Rodinal 1:50. I think you might like it. Good luck on your Acros tests though... it seems like you've got a good combination.

I work in a photo lab, and we often get old 110 rolls that people have probably found at the bottom of a dresser drawer, wanting to see what was on it. It's almost always hopelessly fogged, but that's another story...

 

Anyways, the way to tell which is paper and which is film if you're having trouble deciding which is which (and I did, for the first few times I tried it, as 110 film has a paper backing too) is found in the difficulty of tearing. The paper backing tears very easily and has the familiar "ripping texture" of paper. Film has the "ripping texture" of plastic, very smooth, and the different sides will feel different, whereas on paper they will feel the same.

 

On another note: Am I the only one who takes the 110 film catridge into their hands, twists it, and cracks it open to get out the film? Is there a more scientific way to do this?

Another vote for XP2+, pulled to 200. Although I really prefer to use traditional black and white films, when you are working with this load, I would shoot something that can be easily developed, cheaply and reliably, at any respectable lab that runs control strips and cleans their C-41 machines daily. Plus, this way you can choose to spend your time printing instead of developing film. Digital would be another option too... I'm definitley not a proponent of the "Rise of the Machines", but 200 rolls equates to quite a few exposures. :)

There's one thing you absolutely must remember when you read photo.net: You can't account for taste. One man's "grainy, virtually unusable" is another man's (or woman's) "high acutance, excellent tonality". I use Rodinal 1:50 on Tri-X and HP5+, 35mm. Yes, it is more grainy than, say, D-76, but the tonality makes up for it. 5x7 is the perfect enlargement size for this combination for me, although 8x10 is not out of the question. Grain is visible, but grain is beautiful. If you really HATE grain, use Ilford XP2 pulled to 200.

I acquired a big box of photo stuff from my photo teacher, and in it were a roll or two of Panatomic-X, probably exposed in the eighties or late seventies. 35mm. E-mail me at (abstraxion @@@@ razor.ws) if you're interested, Lex!

T400CN does not print as well on color enlargers, including one-hour labs and the like without massive amounts of color correction. Consumer Kodak C-41 Black and White prints much more easily on color paper, in my experience. However, if you are going to be printing on black and white paper and insist on using chromogenic film, Ilford XP2 Super would be the way to go, as its base is clear.