big toys are better

One thing is likely true, and that is that the quality control of a liquid mix versus mixing a powder composite is easier to guarantee. One of the very real issues of powers is that they can separate over time, and this is why using part of a bag of power is very bad practice. Another problem is that there can be incomplete emptying of the container, or spillage that can affect the final product in small but potentially important ways. Finally, we all know about the problems with XTOL, and that sad history is a testament to the simple fact that the exact mixing technique can also degrade the final product (e.g.-- water is too hot/too cold, destructive oxygen introduced by over-vigorous mixing, incomplete dissolution of the chemicals, etc.)

 

On the other hand, many if not most liquids have few problems associated with them so long as they don't get too cold (especially don't allow to freeze, but also try to minimize infiltration of oxygen into the stock container) and the user is careful with the mixing of the working solution (I ALWAYS use distill water for mixing developers) . Agfa's Rodinal seems to be one of those amazingly tolerant mixes, and I love it for that reason. HC-110 also seems to be an especially well thought out liquid developer, but I have learned that if some things freeze, such as TF-4 fixer (and some others aw well), it is never the same afterwards.

A simple answer is always use distilled water for your developer step, and ponder the quality of your water for all else. As was noted in other threads, the exact chemical composition of your developer in particular can have significant impact on the effectiveness of that developer, and add little quirks you might not understand.

 

Those that use "tap water" for everything can get away with it but what they get in the end is probably a bit unique. That is what "testing" is all about-- learning what the combination of your particular chemical mix and technique creates with your film. Changes in pH or chemical composition. especially with a developer, can have small yet potentially also significant impacts on the final image, or in some cases affect the archival longevity of that image.

 

For these reasons, I always use distilled water for mixing up any powdered developer, all developer dilutions and also for my final rinse including the Photoflo mix. Better safe than sorry, and easier to control the outcome as well. but that doesn't mean that it is a failsafe, or that tap water is inherently an issue.

I like to start with roughly doubling focal lengths when building lens repertoires (Michael Briggs recommendation of using a 1.6 factor actually does a better better job of "filling the gaps" but is more difficult to do in larger film sizes given the limitations of lens selection). Given that you already have the 240mm and 270mm G-Clarons, you ought to ponder a 450mm (such as the 450 mm Fuji-C or Nikon M) or maybe a 600mm process style lens (if you also get that 360mm "normal") since they are relatively small and light, though also f/9 or slower. I have over the years gathered a close range of focal lengths for LF since I like and use more than one sheet film size. G-Clarons came in useful lengths such as 150mm, 210mm, 240mm, 270mm and 305mm, all of which can be used in some way on an 8x10 (only the 150mm has no hope of covering it at infinity, while your 240mm Symmar-S is hard pressed to cover 8x10 as well as the G-Claron 240mm when stopped down).

 

Once you get to 300mm, even the standard lenses such as Symmars also work well for 8x10, but you pay a steep price for their speed in the extra weight and large filter size. Good for the studio but not so much for field work.

 

BTW, the 210mm G-Claron is barely usable as a very wide-angle equivalent for 8x10 if stopped way down and not used with much movement, and the 240mm and 270mm are good for more modest "WA" looks. However, while this makes the 210mm and 240mm a great "WA" choice for backpackers, ponder getting a true WA when you can, though they obviously also suffer the weight and filter issues of the Symmars, etc..

Yup, I just checked again and see that 5x7 Fujichrome is back again. Hope it stays that way for a while. I wish I could get more Astia though.

Lowell may have a valid point.

 

Most of us likely know that the Agfa formulation of Rodinal is not quite the same as the paper versions published broadly, and Agfa's formulation seems to be a bit better as a consequence. HC-110 is also not exactly known, and we likely all agree that it is a great developer that rivals the venerable D-76. FX-2 and the Formulary's TFX-2 contain glycine, a wonderful but rather unstable chemical not inclined to be mixed in with other chemicals in a power composite, and their liquid formulation is acknowledged to be a bit different than the published formula for FX-2.

 

What the magic components may be in any particular liquid developer can be something that won't translate to powders for one reason or another, or is a fine tuning outcome kept proprietary for obvious reasons.

I'm curious, is anyone here scanning anything larger than MF and 4x5 on the V-750?

I agree that there could always be self-coating of B&W film, and it need not be on glass since the clear plastic may be available is one searches diligently (e.g., I have a large format laser printer that will accept digital images and make negatives and positives on clear film designed for it). While the quality of such personal work might not compare with Ilford and Kodak products, it would allow us to continue working. Fortunately, I suspect there will always be at least a few specialty manufacturers for sheet films even if their quality is not quite as good as the best we can get today.

 

However, my real concern is the rapidly declining availability of color sheet film since 5x7 is largely dead now and I will not be surprised to see 8x10 fade away as well, taking away any opportunity to do 5x7 color. Even 4x5 is becoming more limited, and If this continues to be a problem, I'll have to hope that LF digital backs get cheaper plus better in image quality, and maybe even with a 5x7 version.

"Its really a matter of preference, once opened/mixed both have the same shelf life."

 

This is not completely true, as some liquids have very long shelf lives even after first opened. Rodinal is certainly in that category, and HC-110 is probably not too bad either. If you decide liquid is a good choice, especially if you are not processing enough film to use up even small batches of powdered chemicals before they go bad (XTOL is particularly a concern once mixed), then the two liquids mentioned above are certainly two to consider, and are particularly good for general use when highly diluted. However, once mixed into a working solution, any developer is very short lived.

Thrilled to hear that my favorite LF format is growing in popularity. Even my local lab in Maine will do 5x7, even in E-6, although unless you have the film stocks that is a pipe dream, at least for now. Half-frames of 8x10 are more likely....

Yes, it will unless you go to a much higher dilution such as at least 1;200 and better yet 1:400.

 

Better yet, why not just use the processor to agitate for a time and then let the film stand for a few minutes, thereby gaining most of the advantages of Rodinal. Set up a pattern of 1-2 minute agitation, and 2-5 minutes standing. At the required high dilutions the tank will be mostly full.

 

The stand method is particularly important for contrasty films like Efke 25, and as I've noted before, controlling developer concentration and agitation method can be applied to selectively develop the shadows and mid-tones over the highlights..

For the 8x10 "normal, try a process type lens, but you'll have to compromise at 300mm, such as the Nikon 300 M (f/9) which I have long used, or the Fujinon here to be found at Badger Graphics, both with Copal 1 shutters and quite small and so very useful for field work:

 

Compact 300mm/8.5

 

 

FOCAL LENGTH: 300

 

APERTURE: 8.5

 

MODEL: C

 

SHUTTER: C-1

 

IMAGE CIRCLE: 380

 

DEGREES: 66

 

FILTER: 52

 

GRAPHICS: 4

 

ELEMENTS: 4

Regardless of age of your tank, fill the tank up with extra reels since this will break up the flow or the chemicals during process and minimize inconsistencies as well as ensure that the reels don't slip up, but do be sure to strongly tap the bottom of the tank on a sponge or folded towel to break loose any air bubbles (don't whack the bottom on a hard surface unless you don't mind chipping off plastic pieces).

Check out the Formulary TFX-2. I've used it in the past with good results (it works well with stand and semi-stand agitation methods), although Rodinal is my normal high accutance choice since it is so inexpensive, versatile and also very long-lasting in storage. Here's their promo of TFX-2, and do check out the PDF file that is also on their web site:

 

FORMULARY TFX-2 HIGH DEFINITION DEVELOPER FX-2 is an updated proprietary modification of the popular FX-2 developer. A number of small modifications have been made to gain better performance with the most modern films including the T-grain films. TFX-2 offers an extremely high degree of sharpness, which is at least as great as the Beutler developer, although somewhat less than FX-1. However, gradation with TFX-2 is much more pleasing than with either Beutler or FX-1. TFX-2 offers a speed increase between one half and one full stop and has an exceptional resistance to streaking. This is one of the most versatile film developers on the market today. By varying dilution, agitation and development time an extremely wide variety of contrast effects can easily be obtained. The stock solution will make up to 10 liters depending upon the dilution used, and has a shelf life of 1 year in a full well capped bottle. The working solution is a one shot

developer with a life of a few hours. Shipped as a liquid concentrate.

There is one significant thing to be aware of with system memory- cheaper DIMMs are often made using the "high density" style of DRAM, and some machines just plain don't like it. Low density is usually more expensive, but almost always also the kind that overclockers demand and is generally more stable.

There is no doubt that newer multi-cored hardware would make things faster for you (a dual multi-core processor box like the Macintosh tower with dual quad-core Xeons is one such pricey option), but a few upgrades to your current machine might be more cost effective for now.

 

The 2.9GHz Celeron is not bad, but a 3.2 P4 with more cache RAM would help some, and can be had for around $100.00. A gamers' version with larger cache RAM will run more $$$ but might also be helpful for PS. An upgrade to 2 GB or more of DRAM at abut $50.00 or so per GB would also help a lot. Just amek sure it will run on your hardware (low density DIMMs seem to be preferred).

 

Finally,add more hard drive space internally since that is faster than the USB bus, and SATA drives in particular are significantly faster. If you can afford it, get pairs of drives to use in a RAID setup (0+1 seems to be the best). There are 10,000 rpm SATA drives that are wicked fast though also very costly, but the drives can always be moved into your next machine. Fast drives make any virtual memory use much faster, so spending money on a 10K drive ought to be for the primary system drives (where your OS and software reside), not for backups. Hard drives vary greatly in cost-- see pricewatch.com for general ideas. Keep in mind that otherwise identical ones differing only in their cache size (DRAM) also means a difference in overall speed.

 

You can also get SATA cards for your computers PCI bus that provide connections for external e-SATA drives which are just as fast as the internal ones. This is quite a bit better than USB and Firewire provide (1.5-- 3.0 Gbps versus 400- 800 Mbps for USB or Firewire.

 

In order of importance to improving your system speed for Photoshop CS, DRAM, CPU and then drives (unless you are low on HD space). Wne this adds up to more than 1/2 the cost of a totally new system, then quickly consider buying new. Memory is significantly cheaper for DDR2 units, so getting a 2, 4 or even 6 GB unit is much more feasible. Again, the drives are easily transferable except for the system drive which requires a bit of expertise to transfer everything efficiently. Changing the Mobo is also possible but be sure that your HP case will allow for it. Your OS may also need to be upgraded if you do so.

 

good luck!

Pan F, Efke 25, FP-4 and most of the 100 speed films work well. I generally advocate using well diluted Rodinal for all of them, but I work largely in sheets now so grain is not a major issue for me. A solvent developer like D-76 might be better for some of the faster films although you will loose sharpness. In 35mm and especially in 120, I really love Pan F and the old Agfa 25 & 100, and wish all were available in 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 sheets.

 

Pan F and Efke 25 in particular will block up easily unless you use a highly diluted compensating developer like Rodinal at 1:50 or higher (unless the scene is relatively flatly lit I prefer to use it at 1:100 or 1:200 and then control highlight and mid-tone development by the amount of agitation-- i.e. my semi-stand technique where I wait 2 and even 5 minutes between agitations when serious compensation is necessary-- at which time a 1:400 dilution may also be necessary but the developing time is very long). At the higher dilutions the highlights quickly exhaust the developer while the shadows never really do, so the real issue is just how much you want to push up the mid-tones and highlights-- with this dependent on both the final dilution and the amount of agitation. Practice makes perfect when it comes to understanding the dynamics of this.

 

When using Rodinal at the higher dilutions, make sure you have at least 6-10ml of the stock solution in the developing tank per 8x10 sheet, 120 or 135-36 roll film.

 

Light filtration such as you discuss, and also the choice of film (i.e. read the Efke film specifications carefully) will in particular determine how the shadows are affected by the light, and you will want to understand how your development will then affect those less exposed areas.

Well diluted Rodinal (1:50 or greater) with minimal agitation is the best solution to contrast issues for the finer grained films-- always has been and always will be. Faster films need other methods but edge definition will then suffer.

 

I've routinely used 1:100 and 1:200 with various degrees of agitation, mostly semi-stand (15-20 seconds of agitation every 3- 5 minutes over a period of 10-20 minutes depending on the film and exposure) with films such as APX-100, FP-4, Pan-F, Delta 100 and the Efke family films with good results. the developer is also very economical to use this way, plus is very stable in storage. It is the ability of Rodinal to work effectively with minimal agitation that makes it so wonderful as a compensating developer.

 

Efke 25 is not a good choice to pull, and Efke's documentation is very direct about this, but the dilute Rodinal and semi-stand processing is a good cure for all but the harshest light situations. For a high contrast scene, try exposing at EI 25, and developing for 20' in Rodinal diluted 1:200 with DISTILLED WATER, agitating for the first minute, and then for 15-20" every 3 minutes afterwards (at 4', 9', 12' & 15'). I use a 3'-5' plain water wash after the developing time followed by an alkaline fixer (TF-4).

 

If the image is not optimally exposed but otherwise looks good and you are confident in the accuracy of your original exposure, then adjust your developing time up or down by 10-20%. If contrast is still a bit too high, then perhaps even less agitation will help, so try 5' intervals, and you can dilute more but the developing times will increase. Also, at these high dilutions, be sure to have enough developer in the final volume to adequately process the film, generally about 6-10ml of the stock Rodinal solution per 8x10 sheet of film.

 

You can adjust your film contrast (and whether the highlights, midtones or shadows get preferential development) by adjusting the dilution and agitation schedules. Just remember that it will be the "shadows" (least exposed areas of the film) where the developer exhausts last when highly diluted, so the agitation schedule will largely determine just how much the midtones get developed at the high dilutions (1:100, 1:200 & greater), while lower dilutions (1:25, 1:50) will benefit the highlights much more regardless of agitation.

Geez! Why wouldn't someone want to do a lifesize or modest macro of a nature scene such as wildflowers, a fungi like a mushroom, peculiar rocks or ice formations, or just good detail of something else of interest that isn't running away? Why not use LF for such items? I've also done 2X-5X of watch mechanisms with 4x5, and using LF for that degree of magnification is certainly applicable to any other small object of interest that is going to be moving about during the exposure!

 

BTW, while perhaps not the best choices, I've use G-Clarons and M series Nikon lenses for such work, most of which is not quite 1:1, but a true MACRO lenses would be a better choice once you get to 1:2 or closer.

Lynn-- Methanol is a "hotter" solvent than the longer chained alcohols, and that is why is has been a problem as a gas drier in the past, and probably also acted too harshly upon your film. I believe both ethanol and isopropanol would work for drying film, and the latter is available cheaply in a 97% solution. Methanol is indeed quite toxic but still used in racing and in certain paints such as the denatured alcohol used to dissolve shellac. I've worked a bit too much with shellac and am now well preserved.... :~)

For those thinking that your camera's bellows draw is too limited for a particular lens, ponder building a long macro-focusing tube out of black ABS pipe-- either a series of tubes of increasing length, or a slider type with a smaller tube in the core. This obviously works well using 4" or 6" hard ABS pipe for the smaller films up to 5x7, but is still doable with the largest sheets so long as you are careful to avoid vignetting, and perhaps with larger pipe diameters. There is also a flexible black polyethylene pipe used for drains and culverts-- 3" & 4" drainpipe is very common but I also have seen 8" and larger diameter if you wanted to engineer in some additional "movements" for the extension, again watching out for any vignetting.

 

Thus while all of the G-Clarons mentioned are up to the job, I also don't see a huge technical problem with a 600mm normal lens used for modest macro work, but you would certainly need to ponder issues such as exposure and stability of the camera. Electronic flash is a common solution for exposure and I use several tripods or a tripod and monopod when stability is an issue.

Rodinal provides the user with very large degrees of control over the final image since it is amenable to a variety of development techniques-- especially in dilution and agitation but even with the addition of other chemicals such as sulfite or even ascorbate to alter the developer's characteristics.

 

Multi-part high accutance developers such as the Formulary's wonderful Glycine based TFX-2 developer can also be mixed in different proportions to control those characteristics, but Rodinal is amazingly cost effective compared to the competition and is such a wonderful developer regardless that I find it to be my primary choice for most of the slower films (200 and down in MF & sheets) and occasionally even the faster films, especially in sheets.

Early film stocks were on a nitrocellulose base, and yes, it had issues with decomposition and I suppose also combustion since "nitro" is indicative of a highly reactive and unstable compound. Many unsaturated vegetable oils will oxidize and when on a flammable item such as a rag or paper towel those may then spontaneously catch on fire when exposed to room levels of oxygen (which is about 20% in normal air). Linseed oil is notorious for that but any oil (and many other compounds) with multiple double bonds will be at risk since it is the double bonds between the carbon atoms that the oxygen attacks.

 

Some photochemicals undoubtedly also contain such double bonds, and will be susceptible to attack and breakdown by atmospheric oxygen, but I also have not heard of any issues of spontaneous combustion. But the degradation is certainly a bad thing and storage in tight containers, either glass or metal, is a good thing. I would also recommend storing plastic bottles of chemicals in a larger glass or metal container to reduce infiltration of oxygen through the plastic during long term storage.

Homemade tubes will also work but work best with well diluted developers requiring either little agitation or perhaps on a continuous roller machine. A 4" diameter tube by 18" long ought to work for your film, but all the work loading and filling has to be done in complete darkness unless you convert another tank and its lid such as from a Patterson System 4 to work with your long tubes....

I agree with the 180mm as being a good step up, with a 300mm or 360mm the next step longer, and perhaps a 72mm XL as the next step wider although the 58mm XL is usable within a few limitations with your formats. In general, I would suggest using the 5x7 film recommendations as a good starting point for adding new glass to your collection.

I hear a lot of mixed reviews as to whether or not the "shock" of going from alkaline developer to acidic stop bath of fixer causes grain, but I suspect it isn't good regardless, so a water bath in between developer and any acid is probably good, and with a strong carbonate based developer like Rodinal, probably essential unless you don't mind the thought of CO-2 bubbles forming within your film emulsion. And a water bath is nominally neutral in pH although it often varies a bit depending on the source of the water, acid rain and alkaline soils often being issues in the eastern and western U.S. respectively.

 

As far as getting good shadow detail, proper exposure and development is the solution there. Unless finer grain is needed, diluted accutance developers like Rodinal and the "semi-stand" method work well to ensure that shadow details in contrasty scenes are pulled out as well as the original exposure allows.