jim_causey

Rodinal concentrate is well known for working even after having turned brown...

I wouldn't throw away the part b, in case you ever want to use some of the older-style European films that need hardening, or perhaps to harden Polaroid negatives.

Roger,

 

It would be cool if you could check with Ilford and report back, actually -- it would be *sweet* to have PanF in sheet film.

I'm in a college photo class and I purchase my own developers and do all my own

processing at home specifically to avoid the restrictions that have come up in discussion

here. The expense is miminal for even the more exotic developers.

There are lots of great films to experiment with for different looks, even if you like TriX.

 

All the same, though, if you like TriX, stick with it. I have a feeling that TriX will be the last traditional black-and-white film made by a major manufacturer anywhere.

>Never use Rodinal for high granularity films, it just gets bigger.

 

Unless that's what you want.

 

As suggested by Les McLean, I've used Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 in Rodinal and been thrilled and the lovely, huge, popcorn grain. It works particularly well at night.

Stick with FP4+, or even play with PanF+.

Given that Ilford now appears to be interested in actually operating at a profit, I wouldn't count on the continued long-term availability of "Arista Pro" rebranded Ilford film for too much longer.

I have to second the notion of getting rid of your obsession with German glass, particularly as a beginner.

 

I'm sure there are millions of living photographers who can take better photos with a toy camera than I can with a Leica.

Blindly following recommendations for ISO speeds for a film isn't really any more useful than simply going with the manufacturer's suggested speed. In the end, there are way too many personal variables, as people have already suggested -- what developer(s) are you using? How do you process? How do you intend to print? Are your camera's shutter speeds and apertures accurate? Do you meter the same way, with a meter calibrated identically to the recommendation?

 

In the end, if you're going to change film speed, you should do your own testing with your own conditions to determine your personal speeds and circumstances.

Sabrina,

 

Let us know what happens. I personally have a bad feeling given the pedigree of these owners, but I hope it works out for you.

I've also seen students reverse the ratio in mixing developer all the time -- with Sprint's D76 clone, instead of 1+9 they do 9+1 and end up with massively overdeveloped negatives.

I tend to think HP5 looks much better in HC-110 than Tri-X, at least in 35mm... to each their own.

 

You need to test different speeds and dilutions to find your own favorites for grain and acutance. As a standard, though, D76 should give finer grain than HC-110.

Which Aero film are you talking about? Sorry, I'm a bit new to all this -- I'm falling in love with silver halide film at the wrong time, apparently ;)

 

My friendly conversationalist suggested I try Technical Pan. I pointed out it was ironic he suggest I try another film that Kodak has chosen to stop making, and he was forced to laugh. They do, apparently, still have stocks of it, and are still selling it dealers.

I called that same number, but the guy I talked to made basically the same implication -- that yes, they would not have discontinued the film if it had any feasibility to even be sold once a year, and it would never be remanufactured again. But he told me every time someone asks for Pan-X or any other discontinued film that they listen, take the request seriously, mark down that person's request and forward it on, and he asked me what I use it for and why... he was really nice.

 

He didn't give me a name and number for someone to contact about Pan-X, though... who'd you get?

I've written a letter for Kodak but it seems to me that the contacts listed here, which are Corporate Media contacts, may not be the most effective people to reach.

 

With that in mind, I just called Kodak to ask them who would be the right people to write. They wouldn't really give me more appropriate addresses, but they did mark me down as someone else who wanted Pan-X, and explained the company line on why it was discontinued (that they'd tried making more and more limited runs to keep it around, etc etc), and that they would notify the higher-ups that I'd requested it, and they suggested that I use Tech Pan... ironic, since that's also been discontinued.

 

From this web site:

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2569&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a8022de3e#bu

 

I think Michael McDougall, the Director, Products & Services, WW Public Relations, Digital and Film Services might be a better contact than the ones suggested above. Anyone have any ideas on the most effective people at Kodak to write?

Ron Mowrey once suggested using a baby's ear syringe to gently flow on a stream of wetting agent on your hanging negatives instead of squeegeeing and the like, and it works very well for me. I also dilute Photo-flo much more than the package suggests (more like 1:500 for the 1:200 concentrate package).

 

I've seen suggestions as well for adding isopropyl alcohol to your wetting agent mix to avoid the problem, but have not tried it.

Thanks to everyone for the informative answers. I'm going to give XTOL a try soon (when I run down my supply of ID-11 a bit).

I'll second two-bath fixing; it's also recommended by Ilford in the documentation for Rapid Fixer.

It's a very "rough idea", though; the formula for HC110 has changed many times during manufacturing.

The "Film Developing Cookbook" seems to imply, but only in a vague

sense, that XTOL provides all of D-76's advantages, with even better

image quality.

 

Has anyone compared the two developers in their own testing? If so,

what is your impression in the difference in image quality between the

two?

Except for your final rinse/photoflo and the water you use to make up your developer, I don't think distilled water or filtered water is necessary, unless you have insanely hard or polluted water. Just be consistent and you'll be fine.

 

After a recent discussion on APUG, I use distilled water to mix up one-shot developers (probably unnecessary in nearly every location in the US and Europe, particularly with developers like Kodak's D-76 powder that are specifically designed to handle extreme water conditions) and in the final water/photoflo rinse; everything else is tap.

 

Photographers have been developing film in everything from river water to sea water with good results since the beginning of the art form.

Bill, sadly, in a lot of schools and colleges, the young bucks I see and study with happily dunk their hands in the trays, regardless of where they've been and the resulting contamination of their prints (and mine).

I don't really agree with Chris' assertion about Rodinal being based on one of the "least toxic of developing agents".

 

The "Film Developing Cookbook" claims that Rodinal is one of the developers that requires more careful handling than many of the more environmentally friendly alternatives; P-Aminophenol is highly toxic by ingestion, mildly toxic by absorption, and can cause skin irritation.

 

Other agents, such as phenidone and ascorbic acid are way less toxic.

 

As for claims that metol's allergic responses being overwrought, again, Anchell and Troop claim that if metol were discovered today, it would likely be considered too toxic by regulatory agencies to be used in consumer products.

You might want to pick up the "Film Developing Cooking" by Anchell and Troop. This article is also helpful:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/developers.html

 

There are lots of developers that don't use Metol. The Sprint D-76 clones don't use it (even though D-76 does); HC-110 and Rodinal don't; Microphen doesn't.

 

Check out the formulae at:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/developers.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?c=11

 

...for more information as well.