evan_parker

anno - Almost sounds like reticulation, as often films that have been reticulated (purposely or otherwise, due to rapid and extreme changes in pH and temperature) look like their grains have been swollen. Older films were more prone to this.

Another vote for underexposure. HP5+ and ID-11 can give glowing, creamy skin tones given the right exposure and development, and I can attest to this.

I routinely dilute Rodinal 1:50 and use it in 14oz of solution, and I've never seen any problems. I rate Tri-X at 400 right now, and the results seem fine, but I'm thinking of pulling the film a bit as this is what the general consensus seems to think is the best thing to do.

Yes, they absolutely should be able to process this film. A frightening number of labs will simply see "Black and White" on the label of the cartridge and refuse to process it, even though it may be a chromogenic B&W film. If they have on-site processing, they shouldn't even need to send it out.

This consumer-grade film prints particularly well on color paper in a normal 1-hour lab condition. As a photofinisher myself, I've seen every kind of chromogenic paper come through my lab, and with the ancient Fuji SFA enlarger that we have, this Kodak film consistently turns out the best. The worst by far is Ilford XP2+, which doesn't print particularly well on color paper due to its lack of an orange mask. However, this film is absolutely superb on black and white paper.

 

Although I've never tried it, you may wish to pull this film to 200, as many chromogenic B+W film users like to pull their films to reduce the grain and improve tonality.

Sorry I can't help with your particular question, but have you used Pyrocat-HD on any films yet? I am anxious to try this developer, but I'm a little leery to do it without seeing some results (which seem to be scant on this developer).

I've noticed that, if you scan your negatives, one's results are much better when you use a specialized Filter (such as those available at SilverOxide.com) or when you adjust the levels versus just Desaturating the image. I find it gives a result much truer to what an actual gelatin silver print might look like.

The right to receive a hand-check is implied in the regulation that says you may request one.

 

Think of it this way: I am also allowed for them to REQUEST that they let me through without any security check at all! I can REQUEST that they put me on their Christmas card list! Will they? No. So why write that you may request a hand-check if you will not receive it?

Agfa only lists times for APX 400 exposed at 320.

Does anyone know if the Arista D-MAX that Freestyle sells is now the

new Delta 400 formulation that everyone seems to be raving about?

 

Also, does anyone know any times for APX 400 @ 400 in Rodinal? I can't

seem to find any times even on Massdev.

 

Any ideas? :)

However, when one compares the RMS granularity of a negative film like NPH to a slower, slide film like Velvia, one has got to say "nice butt".

What about us with condensers? :)

Mr. Oliveira,

 

I would appreciate a copy of your Diafine recipe! Please send it to abstraxion AT razor.ws, thanks very much.

I've got Rodinal and HC-110 on hand, but....

 

I don't WANNA use Rodinal and get lots of grain (35mm) or HC-110 and get compressed highlights!!! **whine**

 

I want to use my lovely D-76 (or Microdol). Any other suggestions? I'm going to try the ziploc bag trick soon.

I like Rodinal, but I would use HC-110 if you want to stay with liquid developers. D-76 is a great developer, but I hate mixing powders and wondering if I did it correctly/thoroughly.

I'm in Columbus Ohio, and I'm an avid darkroom-ist. The only problem

is, my parents refuse to air condition the house, and the house gets

inordinately hot during the day (85+ deg F). Sometimes, later in the

day, I can cool down my D-76 developer solution by mixing it with an

equal part of cool water, but sometimes the water just isn't cool

enough to compensate.

 

My question: would it be wise to keep a gallon of water in

the 'fridge and use it to mix up my developer solutions? Would there

be any kind of adverse reactions in the developer by being mixed

with, initially, very cool water?

I love 1:50. It's economical, and is a good half-way point between 1:25 and some of the more extreme compensating dilutions. Tonality is still there, as well as acutance.

You're probably right, Mr. Vanson. It's just that I've had these films printed at many different places that have had Noritsu and Fuji printers, and they've all turned out bad. Perhaps, like you said, it is the operator's fault.

 

Also: The SFA, at least as far as I know, can lock in color filtration settings, but only RELATIVE corrections, meaning that it will make its decision about color correction and then apply the locked in corrections, making it a semi-useless feature.

OK, so perhaps I'm being a bit drastic. However, I work at a local

one-hour lab that uses a Fuji SFA processor (previous generation

before Frontier) and prints onto Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and I

have been less than impressed with all the chromogenic B+W film that

has come through, even the Kodak T400CN with its orange mask.

 

When I'm operating the printer, the computer automatically makes a

correction adjustment, I view it, and then I correct with my own

judgement for every exposure. Problem is, our printer gets very

confused with B&W film and basically prints it with some absurd color

shade. One order I processed had six different color casts on

different exposures of the same roll, and I couldn't do anything

about it!

 

Is there a way to make these films produce GOOD prints on color

paper? Perhaps with a Frontier?

My vote goes for Rodinal, esp. since you are shooting medium format and are scanning to the web where grain won't become as apparent.

 

By the way, it is generally accepted that Arista 400 is Ilford HP5+, whereas Arista "D-MAX" 400 is Ilford Delta 400.

Clayton makes very good chemicals. They are at least the quality of anything by Kodak or Ilford.

Pushed film is especially susceptible to X-ray "contamination" per Kodak's in-depth study of the matter. Exposed film, since it has already passed its sensitivity threshold (think of it as inertia for a photographic emulsion) is slightly more likely than unexposed film to suffer from X-ray contamination, although the effects of X-rays are cumulative and thus it is NEVER a good idea to scan film with X-rays, regardless of ISO.

Adorama is great, as is Freestyle (<a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz">link</a>). Adorma tends to have good deals on grey market Kodak film, but also check out Freestyle's Arista private-label films as they are merely rebranded Ilford film and often considerably cheaper, especially if you bulk load. <P>

My personal advice is not to use a private-label developer, but instead use name-brand developer, which is often not that expensive anyways, and generic everything else. Don't skimp on the developer.

If nothing else the other posters have suggested works, try putting ND material between the lens and paper or between the bulb and condenser. A smaller bulb could work too, perhaps.

 

Also, check your safelight. Is bright enough to read from, or is it shining directly onto your easel? Then it is probably too bright, and it could be depressing your highlights. There are numerous "safelight tests" that can be found on Google to determine exactly how "safe" these lights are.

I agree with Mr. Waller. Shooting TMX or Delta 100 is going to give you the fine grain you need, while using an acutance developer like Rodinal is going to avoid the, to my eye, greasy-looking results that one gets by using solvent developers with these films.