A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

not sure what it is you claim i don't have experience in ? ..
processing film, making prints, using liquid developers, or rotary processors?

making sharp negatives as a government contractor/ photographer for the habs project ( since 1991 ) and for years prior to that
as a commercial printer / processor ...
using a rotary processor off and on since 2003, and have found it to be useless,
using liquid developers 1981-1991, and off / on until now

forgive my harshness, you seem like a nice guy as well, but ...
but thanks for opening the door, it is my pleasure to walk through it and to not respond to your thread/s anymore
234 responses, 23 pages of fluff to what could have been done with in less than a a page ... and a google search
its a magic bullet you seek, and i hate to say it, you won't find it!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

Hi Stone

I'll try again this time to separate two problems

if you use Delta 400 or 100 in Rodinal 1:100 or more dilute for a full stand you will do ok on edge sharpness

if you only scan the scanner will tend to accentuate grain depending on the software and scanner optics...

Your semi stand in Rodinal may reduce edge sharpness and increase grain!

If the grain is offensive with full stand then you need to go larger in negative size.

Wet printing will give a different grain signature.

So today's task for you and similar others is to pick out a big print and compare the grain on the neg using a good quality jewelers loope or microscope with grain on print.

I used to live with parents when I was at college. So only used Rodinal I borrowed an Uncles drawing board and g clamped it across top of bath with row of trays underneath... with enlarger on drawing board I could do 8x10.

And glase the prints on the window glass.

I could set up or down in 15 minutes the bath room had a WWII blackout blind so at night was good for AgBr.

This reminds me of a story - when I restarted processing 4x5 using the 2509n, I forgot that the spindle still needs to go in. The first three sessions produced images that have grid lines on the inner 2 pieces because the chemical was just spilling everywhere instead of immersing the sheets nicely. Anyway, the first time it happened, I just thought may be I double exposed the film. It's only the 3rd time that a small light bulb lit up and I called myself an idiot.

The funny thing was that just a few days afterward, in a photo group, someone was showing the exact symptom on his film. I called out that he was probably using a 2509 and that he probably forgot the spindle. He said yes he was using a 2509 but then proceeded to swear up and down that the spindle could not possibly be the problem because blah blah blah. I told him to try it anyway.

He never answered back, just disappeared without a trace.

There may be some relevance here, or may be not....

StoneNYC said:

Look at photos from when I joined, and now

Click to expand...

There's definitely been improvement. I think your progress would be quicker if you didn't jump from format to format, film to film, and developer to developer. Everyone who has mastered the medium has done so by simplifying their tools, and paying meticulous attention to the little details.
I do admire your enthusiasm, but think you're impeding your growth with all of the flitting about...

StoneNYC said:

Sorry, I must have missed typed that all, what I mean is that the edges on the new rotary processed film were very soft, where the edges on my older hand inversion developed film were very sharp

Click to expand...

Forgive me if I lost track of any details here.

So, was your comparison made with the same scene and subject? Same lighting? Same format and brand of film? Was this measured with a microscope or side by side prints or side by side on a screen? Were the effects judged at the intended print size?

What I'm getting at is that in my experience with DD-X I can't see a "very anything" difference between rotation and inversion, "slight" might be the word I'd choose. That was true for me with Xtol too.

In general it seems that the suggestion that you move away from rotary to inversion or tray or stand seems to be an effort to get you some edge effects. As best I understand edge effects, they are actually a very localized effect on tones (contrast) not sharpness. Edge effects change the look of the detail more than they change the detail itself. The difference along a distinct edge simply becomes brighter with pronounced edge effects it stands out more, it is also highly dependent on magnification/enlargement.

Part of what I'm getting at here is that the print tonality is affected by the size of both the negative and paper size considerably. What looks good at one print size may look meh or exaggerated at another. Print three different format negatives (35mm, MF, and 4x5 all HP-5) all of the same scene/subject/lighting, all on say 11x14 paper. All might be able to be judged as equal sharpness. The print tonality and detail will look different though. Similarly print the same 4x5 HP-5 neg at 11x14, 16x20, and 40x50 and there will be a similar changes.

What I'm getting at is that what may look just right for one specific subject when combined with a specific format/paper size combo may look less than stellar if any variable is changed.

Judging sharpness and tonality and general goodness of a combo needs to be done at the "one" finished size you intend to be perfect and on the media intended. IMO designing a perfect product is about highly specific results, it is about getting very specific about every detail in the chain, not about being able to print any negative at any size.

John, don't be offended. I mean that I'm looking for someone who currently used rotary to process who has in the past used hand inversion, and when moving to rotary has discovered the sharpness lessened, who found a different developer that works better for rotary that is a liquid and non pyro based

Obvioously that doesn't exist.

As for comparisons, I don't need to compare exact images with exact same tonality etc,

Same film, same camera, same lenses, same developer, different type of processing (Ie rotary instead of inversion).

If ALL my previous negs with the same films (TMY-2 and FP4+) have a sharp grain edge at 1:1 when I zoom in on a scan YES SCAN, it's not invalid, anyway and I see that, the edges are fuzzy with rotary, but all edges are sharp with hand, then I don't need EXACT image comparisons.

Michael R 1974 said:

Well, I'm sorry but to put it plainly that is all wrong. Just wrong. And if that's how you're doing these kinds of comparisons and coming to conclusions about things, nobody can help you. The best they can do I suppose is tell you what you want to hear.

Click to expand...

How is it wrong, and don't tell me "scanning" is the issue, if it were sharp the images would be the same, I keep having life things get in the way if actually reaching a computer to show examples. Eventually.

why don't you like the stain from pyro again?
is that based on experience?

wildbill said:

why don't you like the stain from pyro again?
is that based on experience?

Click to expand...

It's the amount of toxin that is what concerns me, remember Bill that I do my developing at the kitchen sink...

StoneNYC said:

It's the amount of toxin that is what concerns me, remember Bill that I do my developing at the kitchen sink...

Click to expand...

I think dishwasher soap is about as toxic, and laundry detergent, not to mention spray cleaners or heaven forbid Liquid Plumr or oven cleaner.
They use pyrogallol to dye hair among other things.

I think Stone's concern is legitimate, especially as it was handed down by the homeowners. I do hope that when he looks for a new place, a suitable darkroom space will be on his MUST HAVE list.

StoneNYC said:

It's the amount of toxin that is what concerns me, remember Bill that I do my developing at the kitchen sink...

Click to expand...

Bartenders Friend [http://www.barkeepersfriend.com/], a sponge and elbow grease.

I'm done.

markbarendt said:

I'm done.

Click to expand...

Beating your head against a Stone wall can be frustrating...

eddie said:

Beating your head against a Stone wall can be frustrating...

Click to expand...

Yes

why do people even bother to answer his posts anymore?

destroya said:

why do people even bother to answer his posts anymore?

Click to expand...

Now that is the real question. Lets spend the rest of the thread discussing that question.

If you mixed up a batch of OBSIDIAN AQUA in the bathroom instead and then ONLY worked with the stock solutions A and B in the kitchen you would be using an incredibly small amount of Catechol each time you developed your negatives because you use only 1ml of solution A in a total of 500ml of working solution. Wear a pair of nitrile unpowdered gloves, do your agitation over the sink and run the tap when you pour the used up one-shot developer down the plug hole and you and your family will be safe.

Now this does drift away from your original criteria in that you will have used powders (and distilled water) when you mixed your liquid stock solutions and you will be using a chemical (Catechol) related to Pyrogallol BUT you will end up using the very sharpest of developers. Another advantage for you would be that according to its inventor, Jay DeFehr, it is good to use in rotary processors, although I have no first hand experience of this. You may also like that it is not expensive to make, it is easy to use and it keeps indefinitely.

If you want that ultimate in sharpness and you are prepared to be "hygienic" with the right precautions then I believe you would be utterly delighted with the results gained using OBSIDIAN AQUA.

Failing all that, my best friend, who is a fine photographer, reckons ILFORD DD-X is nearly as good especially when used with the ILFORD Delta films. Unlike you I've never used it but I thought I'd pass that on...

That's about all I can suggest for you on this subject. If I was in your shoes I'd go for the best I could to get the results I wanted and just be very careful with any poisons involved.

RR

Pyro is awesome, especially for scanning and using 2-bath ala King Sandy actually thinks that it will work great optically enlarged too.

Michael R 1974 said:

Mark, don't give up yet. This is about to get even better now that it's moving in the pyro=awesome direction.

Click to expand...

Define better.

I don't know that I have any magic bullets to offer.

If you don't know what you're doing with your process then stop wasting time - drop your film at a lab and get on with your life.

didjiman said:

Pyro is awesome, especially for scanning and using 2-bath ala King Sandy actually thinks that it will work great optically enlarged too.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, "Sandy thinks", you may as well say "I'm the mommy that's why".

Different developers simply impart different looks/characteristics. None of the looks/characteristics any developer imparts are intrinsically better than any of the others.

Hi

Trolls are us...

Noel

Please do not feed the trolls.

I'm pumped. This is about to get good!