paul_brenner1

I've used the Combiplan tank for the over 15 years I've been doing 4x5, and think it's great.

Because it's almost impossible for me to make my basement purely light-tight, I've always used the spout. Yes it's slow, but I've calibrated my times. I tip the tank to help the developer run down the side. When emptying, I uncork the bottom drain and drain from the top.

So many folks over the years have mentioned uneven development with the Combiplan, especially with the spout, I did a test to be sure I simply wasn't blind. I shot a blank wall to a zone VI density. Essentially no unevenness at all.

Paul

Thanks for the feedback.

Since I posted my question, I went to web sources, including the Formulary. It indicates 9 minutes @ 70 degrees. That makes a lot of sense in relation to FP4+, listed as 10 minutes @ 70 degrees. I don't have a revised copy of Hutchings book, just the original (I really have been meaning to get a new copy!) I know that he revised several of his times recommendations, especially with Ilford film as it changed. 12 minutes was probably either a simple mis-print or for an earlier version of the film.

Paul

I shot a roll of Ilford Pan F recently for the first time in a long

time. In checking development times, Gordon Hutchings (in his first

edition) indicates a time at 70 degrees of 12 minutes (??!??). In

the "Film Developing Cookbook", the time is indicated as 7.5 minutes.

After 30 years doing B&W, and 15 years of pursuing fine art B&W

seriously, I've found that absolute precision is not as important as

some folks might believe. However, we have a fairly big gap here!

Based upon my experience with FP4+, the "Cookbook" time seems a lot

closer to what I think is right. However, I'd be interested in

thoughts.

Thanks,

Paul

Someone e-mailed me and directed me to the Ilford website, where the technical data on the rapid fix indicates that the ph is 5-5.5, which is definitely acidic, though not excessively so.

I guess that answers it. Like some of the respondents, I've always gotten good results using rapid fix, but may try the alkaline fixer.

Paul

From what I understand from your post, you are diluting 1:7 directly from the bottle rather than making a stock solution and then diluting 1:7 (which is the same as 1:31 directly from the bottle.)

My guess is that the temperature has something to do with it. Around 68 degrees, each degree adjusts the time by about 20 seconds, so you are effectively developing for at least 1 minute 20 sec less, converted to 68 degrees; but as the adjustment gets greater for lower temperatures, you could be developing for effectively as much as two minutes less at 68 degrees, i.e. 3 minutes at 68. Not only is that obviously a shorter time, per se, but at that time/temperature combo, you might not be getting a "full" development. That could make up for the much stronger working solution you are using.

Paul

A lot of good information and responses to my recent post, "New Tri-X

and PMK Pyro". I wanted to start a new post to pursue a specific

issue arising from it.

Tim mentioned that rapid fix contains no acid. I indicated that I

thought it did. I was wrong (at least for Ilford, which I use.) The

ingredients are listed as: Ammonium Thiosulfate; sodium acetate;

sodium sulfite; sodium bisulfite; and water.

That being the case, would there be any advantage to using one of

the "alkaline" fixers rather than this rapid fix, which seems

reasonably close in formula to at least the alkaline rapid fixer

shown in "The Darkroom Cookbook? (I wonder what the ph of this is

compared to the "alkaline" fixers?)

Paul

I've been using the new Tri-X 120 400 with PMK Pyro, and it seems that about 10% less development is appropriate. Not sure if 10% less is effectively what you're doing with 1:50 HC-110 and 6 minutes, but could be.

Anyway, to get to your point about 35mm vs. 120: All else being equal, I always found that 35mm Tri-X 400 and 120 Tri-X 400 behaved differently. For me, same developer, same temp, same time, same exposure, 35mm was denser than 120; in other words, a faster film. So when I shot 35mm (rarely), I adjusted accordingly. I guess I say all this to say that it doesn't surprise me that the new Tri-X 400 would show differences between 35mm and 120, regardless of which way the difference shows up for you.

Paul

Thanks to everyone for their great comments (not that there won't be more come)!

Thanks for the heads-up that Gordon is now not recommending the afterbath.

Tim mentioned that rapid fix is ok because "without the acid...". I assume that standard rapid fix is indeed acidic, but that the reason it may be ok is simply that the shorter fixing time doesn't (supposedly) results in less impact on the stain. As I've indicated, I've always gotten beautiful stains with Tri-X and HP5+ using rapid fix; notwithstanding that, I will be trying alkaline fixer again.

Paul

For what it's worth, here are some reactions and results from using

the new Tri-X (120 400) and PMK Pyro:

1. As near as I can tell, cutting back development by about 10%

seems about right. I'm somewhat vague here because the film looks

different enough, including staining, that it's hard to make a

precise comparison. (And since I don't have any old Tri-X left, I

can't do a "side-by-side" comparison.)

2. Staining is WAY different. As has been mentioned many times on

this forum, the old Tri-X and HP5+ stain beautifully. If I follow

the same procedures as I did with the old Tri-X, the stain is

minimal. With the old Tri-X, I'd use a water stop-bath, acid rapid

fix and, even with no rinse before the Pyro soak, I'd get all the

stain I could ask for with 2-3 minutes in the Pyro. With the new Tri-

X, I do several rinses after the fix, then soak in Pyro for at least

5 minutes. (Before folks point out that I should use an alkaline

fix, I've tried that, and the results are the same as rinsing after

using acid rapid-fix.) The stain is close to the old Tri-X in

intensity, but is somewhat brownish rather than that beautiful

green. Maybe there's no printing difference, but I sure loved the

LOOK of the old Tri-X negs. Maybe I'll switch to HP5+

I'd be curious to hear what experiences others have had with the new

Tri-X 120 400 and PMK Pyro.

Paul

I recently bought some of the new "Arista.edu" film from Freestyle.

At $1.39 a roll for 120, I couldn't resist, especially for uses where

I'm testing equipment.

At any rate, I (strongly) believe that it's Fortepan 200. Obviously

I've got some testing to do, but does anyone have suggested starting

points for development time/temperature for Fortepan 200 and PMK Pyro?

Thanks,

Paul

Michael, Jim,

Thanks for your thoughtful reponses. You are both, technically speaking, absolutely right. I did not hold "everything constant" in the sense you were talking about.

Early in my development (no pun intended!) as a "serious" black-and-white photographer, I spent a fair amount of time with densitometry, doing the Zone I fb+fog film speed and the Zone VIII development tests, and I respect that approach greatly. (In recent years I've gone to a more intuitive approach, that works well for me given my chosen subject matter and lighting.)

Anyway, while strictly technically I agree with your points, I'd point out the following from a practical standpoint: As we all know, film speed, as measured by zone I density, reacts relatively little to differences in developing time. That's why, of course, "pushing" film results in a much greater change in contrast than in additional shadow detail.

That being the case, from a film speed standpoint, practically speaking, developing two "400" speed films in the same developer for the same time, is essentially holding things constant, as film speed would not change appreciably over a wide range of development time differences. So if I get a meaningful difference in film speed under these circumstances, again practically speaking, I think it's fair to conclude that the film is inherently slower in that given developer.

Progressing from there, we know that contrast will certainly be impacted by development time, as the highlight areas will be progressively more impacted. So given that the film speed result is basically valid, if I'm getting less contrast for the same development time, I think I can conclude that the film is inherently less contrasty, in that given developer.

One final note: As I mentioned, I did these tests in HC-110 as well as PMK Pyro, so in one case staining was not an issue.

Paul

Hi Michael,

I wonder if you're comparing HP5+ to Tri-X "Professional" or sheet film, with its nominal speed of 320?

I have done density checks, but I don't need a densitometer to check results when I do the following:

Take my RB 67 and two backs, shoot a roll of HP5+ and Tri-X 400 identically, develop them together, then examine the negs and print. The HP5+ negs are thinner; and in printing them, printing times are shorter, and I need to use higher contrast with my VC cold light head. That's definitely a "holding everything constant" test.

I've only done this test with the two developers I use the most, HC-110 and PMK Pyro; for all I know, HP5+ may be faster in some other developers. But for those two developers, holding everything constant, HP5+ is both slower and less contrasty than Tri-X 400.

Paul

Chuck, John,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Chuck, I'm using Tri-X 400, not the professional 320 stuff.

John, regarding HP5+, as mentioned in my post, keeping everything constant, I find HP5+ almost a stop slower than Tri-X 400, and less contrasty. The contrast I can deal with, but I don't like losing the speed.

At the end of the day, HP5+ may be my best bet if I want to get as close to old Tri-X as I can; but I should probably try Delta 400 also.

Maybe I should try Tri-X 320 roll film; I've used it in the past in 4x5 (long ago, before my PMK days.) Does anyone know if Kodak has changed or is going to change Tri-X 320?

Thanks,

Paul

Well, I tested a roll at my lower development time but with a rinse

between fixing and re-soaking in PMK to see if I got more stain. No

go. Clearly the new Tri-X does not stain nearly as much as the old

Tri-X.

Don't know what I'm going to do. I don't like HP-5: In contrast (no

pun intended!) to others' experience, I find that, all else being

equal (including in PMK), I lose almost one stop in speed and some

contrast with HP-5.

Hmmm!

Paul

I've used PMK Pyro since 1992. Due to work demands, I don't do as much b&w as I would like. I've had batches of A & B (not mixed together) for a VERY long time at times and I've never noticed deterioration. Someone once told me that the life was "essentially indefinite" and I would agree with that.

Paul

Trefor,

Very interesting. Among other things, you've confirmed once again what I've experienced for twenty years, that 135 Tri-X 400 is not the same film as 120 Tri-X 400 (regardless of what Kodak says.) In any case, Kodak has sure thrown us a curve.

Anyway, back to PMK: I always found that Tri-X stained strongly, to the point that I re-soaked the film in PMK straight from the rapid fix, to "tame" the stain. That no longer seems to be true. The stain seems more neutral. When I developed my first test roll of nes film for my standard time, I did a water soak between fix and PMK; a bit hard for me to distinguish between over-development and strong stain. My second roll, I broke a rule and changed two factors: Shorter development and no water soak. Before I develop several rolls from a trip to New Mexico, I think I need to burn two test rolls to test my "old" time with less stain, and my "new" time with more stain. My suspicion is that the new time and more stain may be right on.

Paul

Following are my preliminary findings with PMK and the new Tri-X (ASA

400, medium format):

Developing for my standard time, the negs were clearly over-

developed. As first shot I tried 10% less. It seems to be about

right.

A busy schedule has kept me from darkroom printing for a while. But

in scanning some of these negs, they apparently have less density, as

the scans start out less bright than the scans of "old" Tri-X. The

negs look pretty similar, but I notice clear, unexposed film is more

neutral than with the old Tri-X (not that there's a lot of stain in

unexposed areas.) This could mean less overall density. And

obviously, eyeballing a neg is not a scientific way to judge density!

Anyway, I'm curious what experience others have had with PMK and the

new Tri-X.

Paul

I tested WD2D+ recently. I had the same experience: A stain very close to PMK. I did not use distilled water. But I also found that my negs were very thin and low contrast at what should have been the correct time. Also, the stain is very dependent upon processing, more so than with PMK.

I know that one must figure out how to use a new combination. But the bottom line for me is that, over ten years ago, my first PMK negs were right on the button and I've always found it easy to use with any film I've tried it with. I'm going to stick with what I know and love. I'm sure others will figure out how to use WD2D+ and come to swear by it.

Paul

Maybe I'll try a pic including someone like that with my RB67! Seriously, negs don't get much sharper than with a GS645S on a tripod and with the timer set to get past the t button thunk.

One more thing I learned: The time setting can be used with any shutter speed setting; but the shutter time follows the shutter speed set. In other words, if you have the shutter on 1 sec, and you push the t button, you get the one second buzz; the only difference is that the shutter doesn't close after the one second. Particularly if you are doing a time exposure close to one second, it seems to make sense to use a nominal shutter speed of 1/125 or higher. Then, the shutter instantly snaps open, and no buzz.

I love the camera, but I wonder what the designers were smoking or drinking!

Paul

Doug,

Glad your Fuji is back. Before you put a roll of film in, try my "test" to prove it to yourself about the t button vs. the shutter. If you watch the t button as you press the shutter release, you'll also see that its return to the pre-cocked position coincides with the loud thunk. I wouldn't have bought the camera this time, I don't think, if I hadn't discovered this. My major problem with this camera was always the thunk which, with the light weight, always concerned me regarding vibration.

On a different subject, another thing I like about the GS645S, as opposed to the larger Fuji rangefinders: To do a time exposure with its larger siblings, you must rotate the dial to close the shutter. Of course, with the GS645, you trip the shutter with the t button then fire the shutter release button to close it.

Paul

Glenn and Doug,

Thanks to you and all the others for your thoughts. I am now careful to apply some pressure as I do the initial spooling, as well as winding smoothly, and no problems.

I absolutely agree with the comment about using it where the 4x5 is impractical. I just got back from a week vacation with the family in New Mexico, and loved using it. Another plus: I can use it on a lighter tripod than I could with my other medium format cameras, a tripod it was actually practical to take with me.

Finally, regarding the comment about the noisy shutter: I had tried this camera several times before over the past decade but never kept it. This time, something really "clicked" (no pun intended.) In testing it, I found that the loud click is actually not the shutter, but the time setting mechanism (the "t button".) You can prove this to yourself by advancing the timer lever a bit, than pressing the shutter. You will hear the loud click of the t button, then the quiet click of the shutter itself.

Now, when I use a tripod, I use the timer setting. Even hand-held, I will advance the timer lever one click. I've done tests, and hand-held at 1/60 or 1/30, the negs are sharper when I've done this. You just have to get used to holding the camera still that extra fraction of a second. It sounds weird, but it works.

Paul

Thanks for the responses. I've read the same thing about making sure the film is tight when you first spool it. I think I'll pay extra attention to that, as well as firmly winding with one stroke.

Paul

I recently purchased a GS645S Pro (the non-folder with the 60mm

lens.) I utilize a number of large and medium formats, and had looked

at this camera over the years. This time, it was finally right for

me, as I was looking for a lightweight mf camera to take on hikes,

etc.

Anyway, on a recent roll, I noticed upon completion that it was not

wound tightly on the take-up spool. Fortunately I could re-shoot the

images, as I feared (and was correct) that I got some fogging.

I believe that this occurred because I hadn't always wound the film

after each exposure in one firm motion. I did so on the next roll

and had no problem. But can anyone suggest anything I might also

need to look out for in this regard?

Thanks,

Paul

Thanks for your thoughts. Since I posted, I went ahead and developed two rolls I had shot a few weeks ago. Some good images, but I figured I could intensify if I went too far in shortening the time.

As the first roll didn't appear to be too radically over-developed, I decided to reduce development by 10%, and rinse the film after fixing, as I mentioned. The negs appear to be spot on, so I think I will stick with this.

A couple of months ago there was a string of posts regarding PMK Pyro

and the new Tri-X. I'm wondering whether anyone has some recent

experience/info regarding the new film.

I've developed one roll in PMK and it appears that I need to shorten

the time, but as I don't have any old rolls left I can't do a

precise "all else being equal" test.

One thing seems clear: The new Tri-X doesn't stain nearly to the

extent of the old Tri-X. The old film stained strongly, and I would

re-soak the film in the spent Pyro developer directly after pouring

off the fixer (non-hardening, rapid fixer), with no intermediate

rinse, because I didn't like the extent of stain I was getting with a

rinse first. I'm going to go back to a rinse because the staining

with the new film is materially less.

Anyway, I'd be curious about folks' experience, info, etc., about PMK

times with the new Tri-X.

Thanks,

Paul