evan_parker

Apparently, back in "the day" before TMAX films were reformulated, TMAX developer (as a push-processing developer) was almost required to compensate for the slow emulsion speed of the film.

 

Nowadays, though, this problem has been mostly defeated. TMAX developer seems like it would be most useful when push processing, like an Ilford Microphen. I use D-76 with TMX and TMY and I am quite happy. PLEASE remember that TMAX negs look about one stop thinner than conventional-emulsion films... it'll save you a lot of trouble. I sure wish I knew that when I started developing TMAX films!

 

I know you don't want to hear it, but almost any developer can give you the results you want if you really take the time to learn to caress it properly.... correct time/temperature, correct EI, correct neg density for your enlarger. D-76 and Tri-X, properly processed, can look damn good; tonality, grain, and all. Who says you need PMK and APX25? :)

Mr. Aceves,

 

What time would you recommend for a condenser enlarger? Perhaps one minute off your time for a diffusion enlarger?

I've been searching around photo.net and around the Internet for tips

on using HC-110 as a compensating developer. Probably the most useful

site I have found is <a href="http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/%

7Eleica/hc110.html">here</a>.

<P>

This guy uses HC-110 at 1:63 dilution, or half dilution B at 75

degrees (~24 deg C). He processes Ilford HP5+ (the film I'm using)

for 10 minutes in this solution. I process HP5+ in Dilution B (1:31)

for 6-6.5 minutes at 68 deg F (20 deg C). Using Richard Knoppow's

(sp?) advice that processing times increase as the square root of the

dilution, and using Ilford's Time/Temp chart, I determined that my

derived time almost equals the time given by the author of the

webpage. I'm going to give it a go in just a few minutes, and let

everyone know how it turned out.

<P>

But while I'm developing/drying... could anyone give me any advice on

using HC-110 as a compensating developer? Is 1:63 the best dilution?

Any specific times?

I, like many photographers, am in search of the perfectly exposed and

developed negative. Over time, I have been able to get negatives that

will consistently print well. However, I'm still not sure exactly HOW

a perfectly developed negative is supposed to look.

 

Are there any pictures of well-developed negatives, perhaps in

tutorials, on the Internet? I know the Kodak dataguides have diagrams

and pictures of them, but I was wondering if perhaps any of you

knowledgeable people could point me towards some pictures of these

wonderfully exposed and developed negs. ;)

Lacey, have you had any experience developing Delta 100 or TMX100 in D-76? These films have been much less process tolerant in my experience than classic emulsion films such as Tri-X or HP5+, but I was wondering if someone with more experience and more rigorous processing standards has had any luck with this film/developer combination.

Personally, if you're used to a fine-grain developer such as Microdol, I would recommend D-76 as it is a high-quality fine-grain developer and very widely available. If you want to try for the photojournalistic look, try Tri-X (which has been around since about, say, the beginning of time but is just as good as ever) which has a very classic tonality and grain structure. However, for ultra-fine grain, you could try Technical Pan developed in Technidol. A more reasonable solution would be TMAX 100 or Ilford Delta 100 in D-76.

I can't say that I blame them. Ilford is a non-factor in North America's consumer film market, but Fuji is neck-and-neck with Kodak in many areas, with both companies struggling for market share. It only makes sense that they would release something to compete with Kodak's T400CN. Plus, if the film didn't have an orange mask like Kodak's, I could use it like XP2 (and probably not have to drive to the film store, just picking it up with my milk).

It is possible that these spots are resulting from a static electricity discharge from the felts of your film cartridge (assuming you're using 35mm/roll film) to the film itself. Just like other static problems, a dry environment exacerbates it. If you can, try winding the film from frame-to-frame more slowly.

Mr. Vanson,

 

I'm sure it was a typo, but I wanted to make sure no one was confused:

 

Dektol is a PAPER developer in all circumstances (special effect/artistic purpose excluded) and D-76 is a film developer (I've never heard of it being used for paper).

Try using Rodinal on Tri-X. You'll be greeted with a nice royal purple upon the emptying of the developer from the film tank.

Lycka till indeed!

First off: I'd really appreciate any HP5+/Rodinal users to let me

know what their times are... I'd like a few informed responses rather

than just hittind Digitaltruth.

 

Also... has anyone here tried R09 from jandcphoto/Fotoimpex?

Apparently, it's the "old" Rodinal formula and produces "better"

results across the board in higher dilutions. A few posts I have seen

praise it, but any additional comments?

 

Thanks very much.

TMAX developer only for TMX? I don't think so... I've got some lovely TMX 100 negs dev'd in D-76 1:1 right here drying :)

Mr. Flannigan,

 

That film cannot possibly be ten years old. The car in the picture is a Porsche Boxster. Its first model years was 1997, although it became significantly more popular in 98-2000 when Porsche created the "S" version of the Boxster.

 

Just so you know. ;)

Mr. Mitchell,

 

Not recommend Rodinal for other 400 speed films? Blasphemy! Tri-X in Rodinal 1:50 is downright sexy. ;)

I've narrowed down my developer to Rodinal, with D-76 as a finer-

grained backup. Now, I've just got to select one or two films to

become familiar with (i.e. buying a 100' roll).

 

I've tried Tri-X and HP5+ in Rodinal, and it seems to me like Tri-X

gave me the better tones, although my testing has not been extensive

enough to determine if this was simply due to subject matter. I have

not tried APX400, but some people on a photographic mailing list I

subscribe to swear by it!

 

Now, I need your opinions, dudes and dudettes. Knowing that I like

grain, shoot in 35mm and develop with Rodinal, what would you

suggest? Does anyone have any experiences they would like to share

using any of these combinations? I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Thanks very much!

As I understand it:

 

D-76 contains a rather large amount of sodium sulfite. Rodinal does not contain any, and this is the primary reason that it produces such high acutance and high grain negatives. Some people have tried adding sodium sulfite to Rodinal, but it tends to kill the acutance of straight Rodinal. My guess is that adding D-76 to Rodinal, even if your times were perfected, wouldn't be of any help. However, adding sodium ascorbate (ala XTOL) is supposed to "improve" Rodinal.

I liken it to fuel injection on cars. A few years ago, it was a big deal, but nowadays you'll still find cars bragging that they have fuel injection technology when in reality almost all new cars do.

 

The same thing goes with Tri-X Pan. For all intents and purposes, just think of Pan film as "regular". Other types of films that exist are orthochromatic (sensitive primarily to short-wavelength, bluish light), infrared film, and litho film (extremely high contrast, used in the graphic arts industry) among others.

<i>I'm</i> just counting how many times Jeff mentions he's using a Hasselblad. Did you hear that guys? A Hasselblad. Yep, a Hasselblad. *cough*Hasselblad*cough*

Mr. Eaton, I believe you are being a bit too harsh in regarding people who prefer convetional B&W film as "fascists". I too believe that conventional B&W film offers more creative control because of the possibilities of different developing and printing techniques that exist, and the fact that one can lovingly caress ones film from exposure to print instead of relegating development and printing to a stranger. I agree, there are far too many B&W film users that denegrate color films because they are not traditionally silver based, but I (perhaps optimistically) believe that the majority of B&W film users regard their choice of coventional film as a personal preference, and not as a result of an "absolute superiority".

Just passing along second-hand information, but I understand that Tri-X at EI 1250 is actually more attractive tonally than Plus-X at 400 in Diafine. Of course, attractiveness is entirely subjective, but if you haven't tried Tri-X in Diafine, do. It seems to be the "magic" combination.

I understand that his favorite papers were Oriental Seagull (fibre based, of course).

I took a series of photographs of an evenly lit gray card, placed at

Zone I throughout a series of EI settings on my camera using Ilford

HP5+ (which is rated ISO 400). When I developed the film, though, I

found that the first frame that had perceptible density to it was the

Zone I exposure at 800! I was told that people very rarely end up

having a higher EI than ISO when determining personal film speed...

 

Anyone have any suggestions on what I may have done wrong?

I'm a lazy bum, so I normally don't bother rinsing in a wetting agent

after I'm done rinsing. However, I broke out some good old Photo-Flo

at 1:200, bathed it for 30 seconds, and poured it back in the bottle.

 

My negatives are now curling AWAY from the emulsion instead of

towards it! What the freak is going on?

One quick question for all you lovely B&W film users out there:

 

What EIs do you shoot HP5+ at, and, if you use D-76/ID-11, what

time/temperature do you develop for? If I'm shooting 400, what do you

think would be a good development time?

 

Thanks very much for your reply.