keith_tapscott

<p><a href="http://www.fomafoto.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/05759ceb343b5bdcb453186589ca6af8.jpg">http://www.fomafoto.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/05759ceb343b5bdcb453186589ca6af8.jpg</a><br>

This developer is made to the same formula as the D-76d buffered-borax developer, but has longer development times than standard D-76/ID-11.<br>

You will find the development times for Fomadon-P on the digital-truth website.</p>

<p>FP4 Plus and ID-11/D-76 diluted 1+1 are a vey well matched pair and the tonality is very nice. I prefer that classic look to the newer B&W films.</p>

<p><strong>Revert to graded papers?</strong></p>

<p>Actually, that is not a bad idea. :-)</p>

<p><strong>Ron Mowrey said: </strong><br>

<em><strong>"All variable contrast papers give you a good range of contrasts and are equally useful. </strong> </em><br>

<em><strong>This is a myth. Some VC papers supply such poor performance in terms of curve shape (characteristic curve) that they do you a severe disservice. This is particularly true at extremes of contrast.</strong> </em><br>

<em><strong>In their article in Photo Techniques magazine (March/April 2005), Dick Dickerson and Sylvia Zawadski show the curves of several brands of VC papers. They are not identified as to brand, but are quite revealing to the discerning photographer. Some of the papers are simply not usable!"</strong> </em></p>

<p>Having tried quite a few different brands of VC papers over the years, I have to say up to a point, I agree. I use Ilford Multigrade IV Glossy RC paper for contact-prints and for general use. I also sometimes use the fibre-based version. I also use Ilford Ilfospeed graded resin-coated paper which I think is a very good product and good old Ilford Galerie.<br>

I know there are people who will strongly disagree, but I think that the print can look noticeably better when a good negative is enlarged or contacted on graded papers.</p>

<p>Lex, I am glad you have made Ron`s<strong> B&W Photo-Myths </strong> `sticky`s`.</p>

<p>Ron, I believe that those problems of old were much less likely to have happened with borate containing developers.</p>

<p><strong>Lowell Huff </strong> said: <em>Hello Keith As far as the differences in formulas, powder to liquid, there are many chemicals (P.E.D.s) that are only in liquid form which eliminates them from the powders. The chemical science (P.E.D.s) used to make liquid formulas allows us to enhance the amount information that each emulsion has available.</em></p>

<p>Lowell, what are (P.E.D`s) and in what way do they help to enhance the amount of information on the various film emulsions?</p>

<p>Nick, I have that Jobo book by John Tinsley. Those times for FP4+ were from before the time Ilford invested in a new coating machine and switched to coating their emulsions onto a new film base. The old development times for FP4+ were then found to be too short, so you will need to read the latest Ilford technical publication for FP4+. Also, the Delta 400 mentioned in that book is for the old version while the latest Delta 400 is the 3rd generation version. Those times for Delta 400 don`t apply for the latest version.<br>

I suggest looking up the small-tank times and using those as a guide if a pre-rinse is used and reduce by around 5-10% if a dry pre-warm is used instead. You then need to see if the film contrast is OK, too much or too little and adjust the times from there.</p>

<p>Tom, it is not a straight forward question to answer as there are so many different factors involved. Frank has made a good suggestion, depending whether you use Kodak B&W films and developers. The trouble is that there are so many different B&W film developers available and some are much more active than others, so there is no such thing as one factor applies to all.<br />Developers of the D-76/ID-11 and D-23 types are fairly low energy developers which may only need moderate correction. Weaker developers of the D-25 type like Microdol-X and Perceptol may need little or no correction. Higher energy developers like T-Max, T-Max RS will probably need a bit more correction and energetic, rapid acting developers like HC-110 and Ilfotec HC may require the most correction. This will also apply when using different processing temperatures, again different developer types may need more or less adjustment for different working temperatures.<br />T-Max, T-Max RS, Xtol, D-76/ID-11, DDX and Ultrafin Plus should be suitable for rotary processing. Read the technical data by the film/developer manufacturers for rotary processing and use that as a starting point.</p>

<p>Lowell asked: <strong>"As far as the statement of shelf life, I repeat myself, what processing is done on the shelf?"</strong><br>

Lowell, no processing is done on the shelf AFAIK :-), but a lot of developer concentrates which are quite highly diluted may go off before a low-volume film user is able to finish off using the contents of the developer storage container. This may lead some people to continue using a concentrate that is going off, thus leading to unsatisfactory results if they are not aware of a use by date (hence shelf life). <br>

Developers which are sold in dry powder form are either used at stock strength, or more commonly, are moderately diluted to 1+1 or to 1+3 maximum beiing typical. The low-volume film user is more likely to finish off using a powder form developer much more quickly than a high dilution liquid concentrate. As I said, some liquid developers have good keeping properties, but not all of them. Ilfosol-S which has now been replaced by Ilfosol 3 and Paterson FX-50 were notorious for going off soon after the bottles were opened. The high volume film user would probably benefit from using a liquid developer in terms of economy. My reply in the thread is not any critism of Clayton or any other developer manufacturer for that matter, but simply asking you to explain your statement from what you said in your first post.<br>

"<strong>In what way do liquid developers actually out perform those developers which are sold in powder-form?"</strong></p>

 

<p>Lowell, even the liquid concentrates sold by Clayton and other manufacturers need to be made up from the raw constituents required just the same as powder developers. The main difference is that the customer buys a ready mixed stock or concentrate. Developers sold as powders are usually made from simpler formulas than the liquids and are usually used more quickly due to the lower dilutions required.<br>

Some liquid developers do have a decent shelf life (not all of them) and low volume film-users might find that they have a lot of unused developer concentrate left over when the developer is past it`s use by date with the liquids.<br>

Please explain why you think that liquid developers out perform those sold in dry powder form? There may be differences in economy, but I am interested in your statement that liquid developers work better. I am sure there are some here who will disagree.</p>

Robert, that should be Sodium sulphite (sulfite), not sulphate (sulfate).

I suspect that the OP is a small-volume user, hence the reason that he wants developers to last well as concentrates. Unfortunately, developers like Rodinal and HC-110 do not provide the optimum overall balance of speed, grain and sharpness. Aculux is Paterson`s fine-grain developer which is now in it`s third incarnation and is an excellent choice for modern B&W films as it works equally as well with films such as T-Max, Delta and Acros as it does with the traditional films like FP4, HP5, Tri-X etc.

If you want long lasting liquid developers, then Rodinal and HC-110 will suffice, but if you want a better overall yield with smooth tones and good sharpness, then try Aculux3. The shelf life should be fairly good if the concentrate is decanted in to several small glass containers which have been well stoppered. As PC B mentioned, Tetenal Protectan is a useful product to have around.

<p>Stephen, the sunny sixteen rule is indeed useful for photographers who use manual exposure film Cameras who may have forgotten their light-meters. ;-) Lynn`s suggestion to bracket + & - half a stop is well recommended.<br>

The latest standards for current B&W films is ANSI/ISO6-1993. The ISO now recommends that the manufacturers use a slightly lower speed rating than that achieved with testing to the current ISO standards. This takes into account B&W films excellent latitude towards overexposure to avoid underexposing the films.<br>

Now I have a question for you as you don`t mention if your Plus-X scan is from the negative or an enlargement. <strong>How well does your negative enlarge using proper B&W paper, silver-halide `not` inkjet? </strong></p>

<p>Thanks Jeremy, the image actually is from a HP5 Plus negative. I only bought the scanner last week and I don`t know how to use the software properly hence my question.<br />I opened up the image in PS Elements 3 and clicked on the `<em>Smart Autofix</em>` tab or what ever it`s called.</p>

<p>Hi there folks,<br>

I have just bought an Epson 4490 for scanning 35mm and 6x7 B&W negatives for uploading onto websites like P.N and APUG etc. I have made my first negative scan which looks a rather muddy compared to the actual silver halide paper enlargement.<br>

Could someone advise me (A dummies guide) on how to get a good scan?</p><div></div>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=888240">Robert Vonk</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 03, 2009; 04:49 a.m.</p>

 

<p>The Heiland TAS film processor:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TAS_Flyer_D.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TAS_Flyer_D.pdf</a></p>

 

<strong>Interesting, but does it process B&W film at 42 feet per minute as the OP asked? :-)</strong>

 

 

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=888240">Robert Vonk</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 03, 2009; 04:49 a.m.</p>

 

<p>The Heiland TAS film processor:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TAS_Flyer_D.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/TAS_Flyer_D.pdf</a></p>

 

Interesting, but does it process B&W film at 42 feet per minute as the OP asked? :-)

 

<p>Bruce has made some valid points. I believe that acutance (only one `C`) is a grossly overstated phenomenon and a good way for the marketing people to sell their `<strong><em>magic potions</em></strong>`.</p>

TMX was the I.D. code for the original T-Max 100 film, which was replaced by 100TMX in 2002. The main difference that I noticed was the different development times for the latter, other wise they are near enough identical.

<p><br />To increase the contrast of your D400, you will need to increase the development time slightly. Try around 10-15% longer than the recommended times to start with and see if that works. Keep it exposed at E.I.400 unless the shadows are too thin, in which case you should try a lower E.I. of around 250-320.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Jennifer,<br>

I have a 4x5 MPP VIII Camera and I use it with a Schneider 180mm f/5.6 Symmar-S and a 90mm Schneider f/8 Super-Angulon as both of these lenses have the same filter size. It is quite a versatile outfit, but as Aaron says, what sort of subject matter do you regularly photograph? This will help you to choose the extra lenses you require. Some people only ever use a 150mm and take some excellent photographs.<br>

Keith.</p>

<p>Subject: most useful lenses</p>

<p>I am a relative beginner and have been using my 4x5 camera for a year with just 150mm f5.6 lens.<br />I'd like to invest in a new lens, but what would be the most useful, I don't want to make a costly mistake.<br />advice please in laymans terms<br />Thanks</p>

<br /><br />-- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5020424">jennifer drake</a></blockquote>

<p>Ethol UFG and Acufine are now both available in the UK from Silverprint in London. According to the MSDS on BKA site, UFG is an Elon-Hydroquinone formula while Acufine mentions Hydroquinone only, but I also suspect it contains Phenidone, otherwise it is probably a similar developer to UFG.<br>

As little is known about these developers over here, are they suitable for exploiting the ISO of the 400 speed group of films while keeping graininess as fine as can be expected without loss of effective film speed? Also, do they keep well once mixed to a stock-solution?</p>

<p>To repeat my point, the film scanner is only required to scan B&W negatives to produce modest file sizes for uploading onto website galleries, not for producing inkjet prints.<br>

Keith.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the replies. I live in England, so I will check out the film scanners mentioned.</p>