mikael1

M M: APX 400 at EI 200 in Diafine? The recommende EI for Diafine is 500 but some say it's more close to 800. Didn't they come out a bit overexposed?

Sorry to seem confused Tim. I know the look of D-76 1:1 and straight D-76 as it is THE standard at my photo school. Everybody uses it (even I, from time to time), nobody knows anything else or tries anything else. Perhaps you could think there's a reason for it. But this time I don't think it has anything to do with anything else than lazyness and interest. D-76 is the only developer available at school, for a low cost. Convenient you might say. Recently I've seen quite large blow ups of some of these 35mm negs. I know one shouldn't expect too much of 35mm negs blown up to at least 1x1 meter, but the grain is really NOT pleasing (mushy mushy). I like sharp grain, the type of grain I've seen with Rodinal. It seems to work alot better with these type of enlargements (yes, very grainy, but "nice" grain). I know some of my negs might be material these type of enlargements at a museum later this year and I want it to look good.

It should of course be "and the <b><i><u>developers</u></i></b> listed under the four different"...

I'm sorry if I sound old and grubby but the search motor works just fine and a simple search gives you the answer it the two first pages:<BR>

<a href=http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=AWFID%3A1a028422fd3461a7%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.photo.net%2Fgraphics%2Fanimated_photonet_logo.gif%3BAH%3Aleft%3B&domains=photo.net&q=apx+400+new+old++%22developing+times%22&btnG=Google+Search&sitesearch=photo.net>Search</a>

<BR>

I'm no saint myself and I'm sure that if posted one or two questions that has been answered already.

Hans: D-76 only, I'm afraid. This is a village.<BR>

If I order I can get FX-39, Acutol, Aculux, Technidol, Xtol, Tmax RS, HC-110, D-19, Rodinal and the films listed under the four different makers names in the hierarchy under "Svartvit kemi" here:

<BR>

http://www.scandinavianphoto.se/navigation/nav_new.asp?section=14.7&%23Svartvit+kemi

<BR>

Tim: I'm sorry for not calling you Tim. As far as I see, tip #1 in your post is that I should have already chosen a film and developer combo that I'm very familiar with. It was hard, because I had none. Now it seems like I will pretty much rely on Diafine for awhile. Tip #2 was that If was unable to get good results from D-76 1:1 I might as well go do something else than developing film. If there was any other hidden tip that I failed to see, please tell. Thank you for your tips.

Maybe on your side of the pond. I have never seen Edwal it in Sweden, not in the online stores either.

<BR><BR>

I'm aware that D-76 isn't the top choice for acutance, but D-76 is what I have to try now. As I said, I'm trying to make the best out of it.

<BR><BR>

I guess I'll now tomorrow how good it works :)

Calm down Timmy, I'll do test strips.

I might have found something. Here:<BR>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004eni <BR>

Richard Ilomaki says he's using 1:3 developing at 1.75x the times for straight D-76. I'll try twelve minutes tomorrow if nobody has a better tip.

<BR><BR>

Here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006BHT

<BR>

15 minutes are suggested for 120 film. Are the times for 120 and 35 the same with New Tri-X?

Yep, I'm sure any of them would be great for my films. It's just that they're really hard to come by here (if possible at all, check in the hierarchy under "Svartvit kemi" here: http://www.scandinavianphoto.se/navigation/nav_new.asp?section=14.7&%23Svartvit+kemi and you will see what I have to choose from) and these are the last rolls I wont be doing in Diafine (for some time). As I already have a bag of D-76 it would be very comfortable to able to use it, preferably with the highest possible acutance available for it, hence my request.

Thanks for the answers... I can get my hands on Neofin Blue, but it's damn expensive and will take about a week to get here. I want to do these rolls before the weekend and D-76 is the only thing I can get here. Rodinal don't seem to give me the speed I need for Tri-X at 400. I've really liked the results I've seen with straight D-76 (from a tonal point of view), in moderate enlargements. When enlarged "too much" you start seing that mushy style grain and it isn't really what I'm after. Adding sulfite to Rodinal to gain some speed like mentioned here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003CSC might be something to try in the future, but I can't my hands on sulfite here either...

I read on a couple of sites that Ilford had times for ID-11 (which should be pretty much exactly the same formula as D-76?) at 1:3, but I can't seem to find it in: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/PDF/ID-11.pdf

After some bad luck with Rodinal and Tri-X I'm off to try that bag

of D-76 that's been collecting dust for awhile. I more or less

recently found a developer and film combo I really like, Diafine

and Tri-X, but have some films from my trip to Egypt which I've

been shooting at 200 & 400 with Tri-X (also two rolls of APX 100

at 100 are in there). <BR>

More dillute, ie. 1:3, I've heard D-76 starts gives a little more

acutance than straight or 1:1, which is what I'm after. I'm having a

hard time finding starting times for these combos though,

massive dev chart has none. If anybody could suggest

something to start with I'd be really happy.<BR>

Examples of these combos would be greatly appreciated too...

 

<BR><BR>

Also, I read ( www.photoformulary.com/uploads/01-0270.DOC

):<BR>

"D-76 is most often used diluted 1+1. It is very important, if

consistent results are to be obtained, to develop only two rolls of

35 mm per liter of the diluted solution. When the developer is

diluted even to 1+3, only one roll per liter should be developed. It

is possible, at the 1+3 dilution to develop two rolls per liter, but

the results will not be consistent, and there is the possibility that

a speed loss will occur. Another point is that, when the developer

is diluted, it becomes very sensitive to the pH of the water supply

used, so that under these conditions, distilled water should be

used to obtain completely reliable results."<BR><BR>

 

How correct is this? Can I only develop one film in my three roll 1

liter Paterson at 1+3?

This got better after getting different (harder) bottles from a little more expensive maker. <BR><BR>

Developed my first roll this evening. Only had time to check it against a lamp before I had to leave it drying over the night. Tri-X at 1600. Looked REALLY promising! As I thought though, the shadows seemed a little bit too dense on some of them (old rolls that was set to 1600 instead of 1250 because they weren't meant for Diafine). I'm going there the first thing in the morning tomorrow and I will try printing...

Jorge, that was exactly my idea and I will do that :)

OK... I can report that soda bottles are not a very good idea. At least not with the un magic ones we seem to have in sweden. Having bought 8 pieces of 0.5 liter ones and 2 pieces of 1.5 liter ones I can report the bottles (that used to contain sparkling soda) leaks plenty of air after the security seal (which seems to have no function other than for assuring noone has been drinking in the store) has been opened. I've tried three types of bottles, all leak when I fill them up and leave about three centimeter of air and press it out so that the bottle is slightly depressed and the liquid level is at top. Some of the bottles leak in air so that the volume is back at normal after 1 second, some of them leaks so that it is back to "normal" in a minute or two.

<BR><BR>

Well, at least I'm not thirsty.

Thank you for fast and very informative answers! Maybe I should try to get the not so stiff kind of 0.5 or 1 liter coca cola bottles (that was what you meant by "soft drink" i guess?). Wouldn't it be better to get the soft type so that I can press out a little air by the force of my hands when there is a gap? What's the purpose of getting the heavy weight ones as described by Barry? Is the oxygen permeating the walls as with the accordion ones?<BR><BR>

 

Have you two used distilled water for the sollution? I'm thinking about doing so if not too expensive. Should the distilled water be treated different in any respect? I might sound a little (if not a lot) over cautious with these things but getting your hands on Diafine in Sweden is a story that involves getting it from people going to New York, hence my rigidity. :)<BR><BR>

 

OK, one thing for shure. I'll spare my money on something better than $8 Hama accordion bottles. Thanks again for the answers!

If I've got things right it's pretty much general consencus that

most developers don't really appreciate air. Being on the country

side I wont have the ability to get bottles of the type I'd really

like to use ( the "accordion" type of things keeping air levels to a

minimum shown here:

http://www.scandinavianphoto.se/item_img/908759.jpg ) and will have

to use standard 1, 1.5 or 2 liter bottles for one liter of Diafine.

This way I'll have pretty much air located at the top. How much will

this affect the developer? If I order the accordion type of hama

bottles they'll be here in perhaps three or four weeks. Will storing

in standard bottles be OK?

Also, I've bought the gallon version of Diafine and I'll get 1

gallon (~4 liters) of each sollution. What do people generally do

with these? Keep one liter for development of one sollution and then

fill up from a three liter bottle containing the rest when needed?

The accordion bottles mentioned above are available in two versions:

0.5-1.2 liters and 1.0-2.0 liters. Getting four of the 1.0-2.0 seems

to fit...

I've tried 1+25 too, no luck...

Interesting...

I'm all eager to try it, I might like it as I like not too contrasty negs.

I've tried and tested APX 400 35mm in Rodinal alot but with no luck. Very high base fog and contrast less negs. I will do some more tests later. I've only tried with sodium ascorbate at 1+50 because the times without the ascorbate that Agfa listed was 30 minutes. A little too much, at least for me.

Thanks for the answers...<BR>

<BR>

 

Yup, I've checked out the webpage before and a film at 500 is pretty optimal if I use APX 100 at 200 and Tri-X at 1250. I will then have the spectra that I need. All of these films are very cheap to me too, through school.<BR>

<BR>

 

 

The question is just, how will it look? Yeah, I know, I could wait and try :) But I'm so curious! :)

Hopefully I will receieve this developer that is unavailable in my country after my friend gets home from New York and I must say I'm really eager to try it out.<BR>

Right now I use mostly shoot 35mm with APX 400.<BR>

I wonder if anybody have any experience with this film and Diafine? I know it doesn't offer that much speed increase with this film, but Tri-X will do that job.

Just about the only report of this combo I can find is here:<BR>

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v03/msg11278.html<BR><BR>

Is there a reason for this? I don't mind alot of grain, I like it (ie. Tri-X 35mm in Rodinal). I'm an accutance guy rather than fine grain.

Lex, what times do you get for straight Microphen with what agitation at what celsius? I'd like something to start experimenting with. I read in some other thread you reuse the same liter around ten times. I'd like to try this. Have you tried using it even more? Right now I'm using Rodinal 1+50 with Tri-X exposed at 400, but I need something for the rolls exposed at 1600 and perhaps 800. I've heard the more you dilute Microphen the more it acts like an acutance developer. What does it look like straight?

I will be giving this a try tomorrow again as I now have access to the lab. Judging by some posts by Patrick Gainer here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Mbo

the negatives did not looks good at all with ascorbate & rodinal but the prints were better. I judged the negs just as they were and they shure were ugly. Maybe I should give yet another try doing some serious printing tests.<BR>

In another post here:<BR>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0059lw<BR>

Nicholoas Twist says "Ugly looking negs though (high FB+F, with borax added, however fog apparently is lower)" about apx 400 with ascorbate in Rodinal here:<BR>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0059lw<BR>

I can't say I'm very familiar with the term FB+F, but I guess it has something to do with fog. The black is not really black but a "higher value towards gray"? Does this affect the highlights too because they were not close to white either? Patrick claims this has to do with the ascorbate in the first thread i mentioned, but I get the same results with Rodinal 1+25 without ascorbate. Patrick seems to mention a cure here:<BR>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Mbo<BR>

"Instead of sodium ascorbate, use ascorbic acid, then add sodium carbonate to bring the pH up to where development can begin."

hope it works better than Borax, because it seems to do nothing for me. How would this mix into my mix mentioned in the first post of my thread?

Tomorrow I will be going to Egypt. I've got 46 rolls (mostly Tri-X

but also APX 100) of B&W film with me and some Velvia. Will it be

very likely that I'll have to pull the Tri-X to ISO 200? I will

mostly be shooting portrait stuff but hopefully I will have the

chance to visit the desert areas too. Is there anything I should

think of? Is there a filter that goes extra well with the terrain

and the colour of the sand? Right now I've only packed a red 25a

(yes, extreme, but I guess I'm a little pubertal and like black

skies) and a linear polarizer. I'm a little worried by the sand too.

Is it very nasty and get into your stuff? Also, I've bought a

Lastolite (Sunfire/Silver) 50cm reflector... All tips appreciated.

Please reply ASAP as I will be leaving this city today and I do not

now if I will be able to check this site before I leave...

I see... The guy that uploaded the picture states just what Dan Fromm said. "Does not focus to infinity because of the distance to the film plane".

My bet is to either get a Konica body to use the Hexanons with that I haven't bought yet. I think I'll get AI or AI-s Nikkors instead, they're not that much expensive. Thanks for all the answers.