2-bath D76 ... or other 2-bath ... your experience?

[jtk]

I've extensively used Tetenol Emofin, a packaged 2-bath developer.....but it's always incipiently unavailable. I'm down to one unused package (easily a dozen 35mm) so I'm thinking about alternatives. Emofin

I've read that 2-bath D76 is almost as good (2X speed, high acutance, modest grain, controlled contest, excellent tonal subtlety).

Have you used Emofin, 2-bath D76, or some comparable 2-bath developer...and what's your experience?

 

[jim appleyard]

I don't know if you'll get twice the speed from D76D as I've never used it, but I've used Thornton's 2 Bath quite a bit and like it. I get box speed from it. You'll have to buy the separate ingredients and mix it yourself, but that's pretty easy to do. What I like about 2-bath dev is that you can change the amount of the ingredients to suit your needs. For instance, I shoot a lot of Pan-F and Thornton's original recipe calls for 12g of sod. metaborate. I drop it to 7g for Pan-F and it controls the contrast.

I like Diafine a lot for pushing Tri-x, but you have to use an EI of around 1250.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've extensively used Tetenol Emofin, a packaged 2-bath developer.....but it's always incipiently unavailable. I'm down to one unused package (easily a dozen 35mm) so I'm thinking about alternatives. Emofin

I've read that 2-bath D76 is almost as good (2X speed, high acutance, modest grain, controlled contest, excellent tonal subtlety).

Have you used Emofin, 2-bath D76, or some comparable 2-bath developer...and what's your experience?

sorry but, my experience is that two-bath developers are a waste of time.gone back to one-shot developers exclusively.

 

[jtk]

sorry but, my experience is that two-bath developers are a waste of time.gone back to one-shot developers exclusively.

Visited your website.. your "experience" with B&W is evidently lacking. Or..perhaps you can find someone to help you describe that experience.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Visited your website.. your "experience" with B&W is evidently lacking. Or..perhaps you can find someone to help you describe that experience.

Hi... I’m interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion Ralph’s B&W experience is somewhat limited as the result of your visit to his website?

 

[darkroommike]

Visited your website.. your "experience" with B&W is evidently lacking. Or..perhaps you can find someone to help you describe that experience.

Also curious as to how many books on black and white photography you have published, Ralph and I have agreed to disagree on methods a few times but he's a good photographer.

 

[BradS]

Visited your website.. your "experience" with B&W is evidently lacking. Or..perhaps you can find someone to help you describe that experience.

Ooops! You apparently do not know who he is.
Ralph is the author of the very highly regarded book, Way Beyond Monochrome
I think you owe him an apology.

FWIW, I have used D23 and D76 for over thirty years. After reading Barry Thorton's book, I experimented with various divided versions of both d76 and D23 and came to the same conclusion as Ralph. If you are careful and know what you are doing, you can achieve the same result with the ordinary D76 and D23.

 

[jtk]

Ooops! You apparently do not know who he is.
Ralph is the author of the very highly regarded book, Way Beyond Monochrome
I think you owe him an apology.

FWIW, I have used D23 and D76 for over thirty years. After reading Barry Thorton's book, I experimented with various divided versions of both d76 and D23 and came to the same conclusion as Ralph. If you are careful and know what you are doing, you can achieve the same result with the ordinary D76 and D23.

Thanks. Have you used Emofin? Perhaps like Diafine but with detail resolution similar to Rodinal.

Book-writing isn't similar to photography. His casual dismissal of my question indicates he thinks of himself as an important person rather than teacher.

I mentioned Emofin and asked for specifics, not self-inflated opinion.

Here are a range of more creditable comments, found immediately on the topic via Google, just now:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-15811.html

 

[BradS]

Self inflated...indeed.

Sometimes we attribute to others those characteristics we most dislike about ourselves.

Please leave now.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Self inflated...indeed.

Sometimes we attribute to others those characteristics we most dislike about ourselves.

Please leave now.

Yep, just amazing how un-selfaware some are.

 

[jim appleyard]

And now for something completely positive...two bath/divided devs can be very useful. For instance, when someone gives you a roll of film to process for them and they don't know what type/brand of film it is; soup it in a tow bath and you'll get something decent out of it, provided it was exposed in the proper fashion.

You can also dev different types of film at the same time. It's also good for folks who have limited access to chemistry or don't want to bother with having lots of chems around.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've been thinking about ordering D D76 from Photog Formulary, don't know if in allows for high ISO or not, will take a look on the online data sheet. I used Dinafine in the 70 and 80s when I needed high speed, and later when I moved back to Arizona. Used during the summer months when my tap water is in the 90s. I also tired Berry Thornton's formula but did not care for the grain. I believe AA recommended divided D 23 (?) and at one point stated that a divided developer would replace water bath development. What I don't like about Dinafine is what looks to me to be a lack of acuity, hoping that D D76 will have tighter grain. Not urgent, moving into the summer here is in the low desert, although very bright low contrast, a lot of reflected light.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

sorry but, my experience is that two-bath developers are a waste of time.gone back to one-shot developers exclusively.

I agree with Ralph two-bath developers are pretty much the same. Nothing miraculous about them. You sacrifice contrast control and get nothing for it. Stick with D-76 or something similar.

 

[jim appleyard]

I agree with Ralph two-bath developers are pretty much the same. Nothing miraculous about them. You sacrifice contrast control and get nothing for it. Stick with D-76 or something similar.

To me, you get a different kind of contrast control. Instead of time/temp/agitation, you can control it by the amount/type of chemistry and get the above mentioned positives of the two bath. Miraculaous? No, just another tool in the bag.

 

[David Allen]

I've extensively used Tetenol Emofin, a packaged 2-bath developer.....but it's always incipiently unavailable. I'm down to one unused package (easily a dozen 35mm) so I'm thinking about alternatives. Emofin

I've read that 2-bath D76 is almost as good (2X speed, high acutance, modest grain, controlled contest, excellent tonal subtlety).

Have you used Emofin, 2-bath D76, or some comparable 2-bath developer...and what's your experience?

Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer is very simple and cheap to make.

For my kind of photography, I exclusively use Delta 400 (rated at 200) developed in Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer.

All of the images on my website were made using this combination.

I can highly recommend this two-bath if you photograph in similar conditions to me.

Bests,

 

[Gerald C Koch]

To me, you get a different kind of contrast control. Instead of time/temp/agitation, you can control it by the amount/type of chemistry and get the above mentioned positives of the two bath. Miraculaous? No, just another tool in the bag.

You also get tonal compression which may or may not be desired.

 

[jtk]

You also get tonal compression which may or may not be desired.

With Emofin you only "get tonal compression" if you want it. Totally controllable. I've heard that's true of D76 split as well.

 

[jim appleyard]

You also get tonal compression which may or may not be desired.

No major argument here, although I have not seen a big difference between Thornton's 2-bath and MQ devs like D-76. I do see a difference between Thornton's and Rodinal, my favorite developer for Pan-F.

I used to dev b/w film for the local lab. Sometimes I'd get a "mystery roll" (unknown film in a generic, no-label cassette), into the two-bath it would go. Better to get a bit less tonality than to run it thru D-76 for the wrong time.

 

[jtk]

Perhaps the "tonality" question works for people limited to a very few (or just one) papers...

...however, printing inkjet one almost always uses applications (e.g. PS) that facilitate incredibly wide range of interpretations of tone, printing on papers that aren't graded by tone: Given a very flat negative OR a contrasty negative an exquisitely complex mix of interpretations WITHIN ONE file, ranging from foggy mud to extreme lith.

For me, a flat negative is almost always ideal because that facilitates easy control over tonality.

If, instead, a neg is very high contrast (common for me in the Southwest) I can nearly as easily explore both highlight tonality
and shadow detail.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Visited your website.. your "experience" with B&W is evidently lacking. Or..perhaps you can find someone to help you describe that experience.

father, forgive him as he doesn't seem to know what he is doing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Also curious as to how many books on black and white photography you have published, Ralph and I have agreed to disagree on methods a few times but he's a good photographer.

thank you for your confidence in me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ooops! You apparently do not know who he is.
Ralph is the author of the very highly regarded book, Way Beyond Monochrome
I think you owe him an apology.

FWIW, I have used D23 and D76 for over thirty years. After reading Barry Thorton's book, I experimented with various divided versions of both d76 and D23 and came to the same conclusion as Ralph. If you are careful and know what you are doing, you can achieve the same result with the ordinary D76 and D23.

thanks Brad but, no apology required; we are all friends here.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks. Have you used Emofin? Perhaps like Diafine but with detail resolution similar to Rodinal.

Book-writing isn't similar to photography. His casual dismissal of my question indicates he thinks of himself as an important person rather than teacher.

I mentioned Emofin and asked for specifics, not self-inflated opinion.

Here are a range of more creditable comments, found immediately on the topic via Google, just now:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-15811.html

I answered your question, which was about experience, in post #3. that was as specific as I can get on this issue!

 

[bascom49]

Perhaps the "tonality" question works for people limited to a very few (or just one) papers...

...however, printing inkjet one almost always uses applications (e.g. PS) that facilitate incredibly wide range of interpretations of tone, printing on papers that aren't graded by tone: Given a very flat negative OR a contrasty negative an exquisitely complex mix of interpretations WITHIN ONE file, ranging from foggy mud to extreme lith.

For me, a flat negative is almost always ideal because that facilitates easy control over tonality.

If, instead, a neg is very high contrast (common for me in the Southwest) I can nearly as easily explore both highlight tonality
and shadow detail.

If you are trying to achieve a flat negative for scanning and printing ink jet using two bath developers that would have been helpful to know. The hybrid forums may also be more helpful for you. Here on the analogue side most of us are primarily interested in tonality, paper choices not withstanding.

As to two bath developers, I get better results and better tonality using Rodinal and Perceptol. The two bath developers ala Barry Thornton was interesting and fun to experiment with though.

I have no experience trying to create a flat negative from a scene with normal contrast so I have nothing to offer there. I do have negatives that are flat from low contrast scenes, rainy days, fog, early morning for instance.

 

[juan]

I once used Faber’s divided D76 formula in a very high contrast situation. It flattened the contrast well. But I didn’t find the results better than I could get using other means.