christer_almqvist2

Yes, in principle you should open up one stop if you meter what people in the US call

"caucasian" skin and stop down accordingly if you meter "dark" (sorry, but I do not know

the politcally correct expression) skin.

In practice there is no need to open up/close down except for very black (sorry) skin. This,

obviously, is not so in the case at hand. Very nice looking girl BTW.

Here are some expamples shot without adjusting. The film has been pushed one stop in

all cases. Thus there is a double "error": not opening up and pushing. See for yourself,

scroll down the pages but please disregard the second picture form the top, it was made

differently.

http://www.almqvist.net/chris/portraits

If problems persist, please send the model to me.

distilled water

PLUS

phot-flo

PLUS

alcohol

EQUALS

overkill

write tetenal with your question

technicalservice@tetenal.com

Agfa said 8 mins for 1+25 stating a true speed of 1250.

Based on my experience I would give it ten minutes and shoot at 32oo and accept some

shadow detail loss.

Very interesting reading, even though the film is not easily avialable here in Europe. I have

done a lot of experimenting with Tech Pan, but never liked it 100%. The doc-film I like the

most at present is Kodak Imagelink.

Film speed for Tech Pan used for "normal photography"/continous tone was stated to be

16-25 when developed in Technidol LC. Besides the specialized developers for TP I also

used Xtol and Rodinal with very good result and using an e.i. of 16-25-50.

Perhaps one or the other of the standard developers will give you good results with Fuji

HRII.

I would be interested to hear if anybody has used Imagelink for pictorial work and what

standard developes they have used. I have unsuccessfully ( speed like 3) tried Xtol and

Rodinal and have settled for Spur Imagespeed. Unfortunately the speed i bought at the

price of a Porsche and I would prefer a Mini.

Chris

I have tried 35mm HP5 in Rodinal 1+150, using 2ml Rodinal for a 300 ml Paterson tank. The

best development time was 90 minutes; I also tried 75 mins and 120mins, but 90 was best. I

agitated the first 30 seconds, then turned the tank once after five minutes and once more

half an hour later. I found the prints looked much like those made form negatives that had

been developed in Rodinal 1+25 for ten minutes. (I always expose this film at e.i. 800.)

Chris

http://www.almqvist.net/chris/

sorry, but i can't help.

however i would appreciate if you would publish a comparison with regard to grain and

appearent sharpness.

thanks, chris

No need for you to try Imagelink in highly diluted Xtol, or Rodinal. I have done it. Does not

work. OK, perhaps if you use ein e.i. of 3 (three).

Chris

The last link was incomplete, the first letter was missing, here is the correct one

http://spur-photo.com/dat_ort_ure.pdf

Shawn,

life is full of compromises. I have used, and use a lot of 35 mm Delta 100 in Xtol and

Rodional. In my opinion, the downside of this combo for landscape photography is that

there is too much grain in the sky. The upside is the "sharp look".

When Ilford almost went out of business I switched to TMX, also with Rodinal and Xtol.

Less grain in the sky, but the enlargements look less sharp than with Delta 100. Here one

solution is to use the SD 2525 developer from SPUR. Here is a link that will give you some

information about SPUR developers. It is in English if you click on the Union Jack.

http://www.8x11film.com/

I have worked a lot with Technical Pan but never used Technidol. I have used Xtol and

Rodinal and several private brand developers with TP. If the enlargements looked sharp,

then they were too contrasty and if not contrasty, then they looked soft. But they never

showed any grain!

With TP gone (my last ones went into the dustbin), I have tried other alternatives, and now

we come to the answers to your question ;-)

I will only comment on what I think are the two best alternative.

Kodak Imagelink. I develop this in SPUR Imagespeed and I shoot it at e.i. 40. The

advantages are that prints have no grain yet retain a sharp look. The film comes on 100 ft

reels, but in Europe you can buy 35mm cassettes loaded by SPUR. Cost per film, including

developer will be about the double of what TMX cost you - if you have a good TMX source.

Otherwise the price difference is minimal.

SPUR also has a film of its own. OK, not really, somebody makes it for them. Rumours are

that this is a sound recording film for the movie industry but I have no idea whatsoever. It

is quite similar to Imagelink but has a longer tonal scale, the say. In practice I cannot see

any difference on prints if you expose correctly. It is an orthopancromatic film, and that

may be why I like Imagelink better.

Look here for more details

ttp://spur-photo.com/dat_ort_ure.pdf

Disclaimer: I am not related to SPUR, I hold no stock in the company and I have never got a

free sample from then. I hope that this will change now. ;+)

I develop TP exposed @ ei 20 in Rodinal 1+150 for 10 minutes at 20?C with continous

agitation the first 20 (or so) seconds, and then one vigorous inversion of the tank every 30

sceonds. Nice and creamy prints, no grain. Not too sharp.

However, and TP only exists until my freezer gets empty, I prefer Imagelink which I

develop in SPUR Imagespeed which gives me an ei of 40. I tried Rodinal, but the ei was

about 6, so I would be very interested in hearing what speed other people have obtained

with Imagespeed and Rodinal and what their dilutions and development times were.

Chris

The rumour that Tmax and Rodinal do not go well together is very persistent. I have tried

most popular films in most popular developers and in my experience the TMax-Rodinal

rumour is only two-thirds true (for TMY and TMZ; these are the films with box speeds

of 400 and -sort of- 3200). For these films Xtol 1+1 is my favorite.

A 10by12 inch print from 35 mm TMX (box speed 100) developed in Rodinal is very similar

to a print from TMX developed in Xtol 1+1. I am in the lucky position to have two Leicas

and I have made test using both of them (same lens used for all shots) with TMX and then

developed in Rodinal 1+50 and Xtol 1+1. The shots were made with tripod and within

minutes of each other with absoutely the same light and with the same tripod position. I

made pictures of about a dozen different views, each with a three different exposures. I

can see very subtle differences on the final prints, but they are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps Rodinal developed film gives prints that look somewhat sharper and marginally

grainier than Xtol prints, but it is super marginal

With regard to the development time, for 1+50 dilution, I develop 15 minutes at 20?C but

then I have a diffuser enlarger (V35) that handles contrasty negatives well. I use an

exposure index of 164 and I am willing to lose some shadow detail. BTW that is the time

recommended by Agfa for an e.i. of 80. I agitate continously for the first 30 secs, then turn

the tank twice every 30 seconds.

Christer

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26686760@N00/

My standard developers for TP are:

1. rodinal 1+150 and 10 mins 20?C or

2. xtol 1+3 but then develop for 12 mins

The e.i. will then be about 25, or somewhat lower for rodinal. Agitataion in both cases are 30

seconds constantly to start off with and then two vigorous turns every thirty seconds