A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

Sal Santamaura · Feb 8, 2014

None of your current restrictions should drive a move away from Rodinal and inversion. The Jobo tank's larger volume can be dealt with by using a higher Rodinal dilution, e.g. 1+100. For pre-rinse (if any), stop/rinse and fix, get one of these

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1509-Jobo-Roller-Base-for-Tanks-and-Drums

and manually rotate the tank. Quiet, uses minimal volume. The only real change with such an approach is slightly more tap water for the developing step; even that might be offset by less water used in the other steps.

Rudeofus · Feb 8, 2014

markbarendt said:
Edge effects/accutance/sharpness, whatever one might call it, can be enhanced by the developer, I think much of this has to do with how strong or weak the solvent action is.

Solvent action (or lack thereof) is an important factor, that's why I recommended PC-TEA which is completely free of solvent. But look at high acutance developer recipes and you quickly see that they follow the same pattern as compensating developers: moderate to high pH and high dilution.

And the reason is simple: local exhaustion does create edge effects. Strongly exposed parts of the image use up developer quickly, and poorly exposed parts don't use much. In the region where these two image parts meet, the strongly exposed part will see more development, because they neighbor part didn't use "its" developer, and the poorly exposed part will see less development because its neighbor used up all it got. The result will be higher perceived sharpness as illustrated by PE's post #16 in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread.

Strong agitation, as used by Stone, will reduce exhaustion effects, which is the reason why he sees poor sharpness with Rodinal 1:50. Using a developer which creates good sharpness without depending on edge effects will likely solve his problem.

markbarendt · Feb 8, 2014

Rudeofus,

Reducing development of the highlight areas and extending/increasing the development of the shadow areas "reduces" the difference/contrast between the two areas.

How can reducing the difference between the two areas (moving the tones on the negatives closer to one another) increase sharpness?

markbarendt · Feb 8, 2014

Okay Rudeofus, I think I see what PE is Illustrating.

It does seem to me that the edge effect described there would require adjacent areas (in the scene) with significant luminance differences. A checkerboard could yield this effect, or a line as was used in test the illustration was based on. For tones that start closer together I'm not so sure it matters that much.

I do agree that edge effects in that sense are not in the cards for Stone given the use of the JOBO. That's okay it's not the only way to get nice sharp pictures.

Rudeofus · Feb 8, 2014

markbarendt said:
It does seem to me that the edge effect described there would require adjacent areas (in the scene) with significant luminance differences. A checkerboard could yield this effect, or a line as was used in test the illustration was based on. For tones that start closer together I'm not so sure it matters that much.

What I refer to is not some oddball effect that lives on in some research laboratories. It is the key to local contrast enhancement and acts exactly like unsharp masking. All high acutance developers attempt exactly this effect and are formulated accordingly.

A few design rules help:

Dilute developing agents trigger exhaustion effects which amplify edges.
Weak buffering causes extra edge effects if the oxidation products of the dev agents are acidic.
Low restrainer makes the film more sensitive to Bromide released during development, which gives extra edge effects.
No solvent (Sulfite below 30 g/l is effectively no solvent) prevents mush from physical development.

BTW I have no idea what you expect for tones that are close together. You sure don't want to create artificial lines or tone steps where there should be smooth tonal transitions. Increasing the separation of similar tones can be done by increasing overall contrast, i.e. push development, and it has nothing to do with sharpness.

Regular Rod · Feb 8, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I know this subject has been covered 100 times, and I did do some searches, but didn't exactly come out with what I was looking for.

Sorry, the "send" button is next to another button.... Ugh, I'll continue...

So normally I used to developers, Rodinal 1:50 for almost all of my normal developing, and DD-X for my push processing.

In general I get very good results with both developers, however now that I've switched to rotary processing, the images that I get using Rodinal tend to be less sharp in the grain level of viewing, so if I end up printing large images, I can see less sure edges.

I will preface this by saying that I use the scanner to scan my film, I do not yet using enlarger. That said when the scanner scans the film I can see green distinction, in that distinction of edges is much murkier now that I'm using a rotary processor.

I also tend to like a little more contrasting my images but that of course is simply an adjustment of my development times and exposures with this new system.

But the sharpness, I'm told is less with Rodinal and that in general Rodinal isn't good for rotary processing.

The only other film I was half happy with was HC-110(B) but the times are too short for many films.

I've also used Ilfsol 3, and tried that in the rotary, with some of the worst grain I've ever seen, yet other negs were just fine using a ilfsol 3 on hand processing (even with HP5+).

So what developers would others recommend for rotary, to get sharper grained images (not finer grain, sharper edges).

I know this is subjective, but looking for new developer options.

Edit: to make a few restrictions clear, I thought a lost world help narrow it down.

1. No Powders
2. No Pyro
3. No replenishing (one shot only).

I know it makes things tough, if I have to I'll stick to DD-X but was hoping to cut costs a little for non-pushing...

Thanks.

1. At what stage do you wish to avoid powders? All developers start out as powders. Do you mind using powders if all they are for is for you to make up into LIQUID stock solutions?
2. Is Catechol acceptable?

RR

nworth · Feb 8, 2014

Pyrocat-HD was designed expressly for rotary processors, and it produces exceptionally sharp results. The original version ships as two bottles of liquid, which are combined, diluted (usually 1+1+98, so it is quite economical), and used as a oneshot. Although some people here seem to have had good experiences with it, the consensus from other forum threads seems to be that HC-110 does not perform well in rotary processors. My very limited experience with it in rotary processors supports the consensus; I found it inconsistent and less sharp.

Roger Cole · Feb 8, 2014

cjbecker said:
I haven't looked up prices in a while and that is just crazy. Given it does last a while using it one shot. But wow.

The bottle is larger (way larger) than it used to be. The new bottles are 1 litre, more than twice the size of the old bottles so the price either hasn't gone up at all or only by a quite small amount.

Roger Cole · Feb 8, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Well, to give you an idea....

Ah, I missed this, so that does put a different light on things.

HC-110 is probably a nearly ideal choice. Very flexible and versatile, lasts nearly forever as concentrate, use one shot easily, much less expensive per film than things like DD-X or T-Max.

cliveh · Feb 8, 2014

I thought sharpness was about focusing the camera.

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2014

if you do a search on google in flickr there are quite a few peeple using their own liquid developer
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=urinol developer
its a home brew .. and liquid

NedL · Feb 8, 2014

jnanian said:
if you do a search on google in flickr there are quite a few peeple using their own liquid developer
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=urinol developer
its a home brew .. and liquid

Jnanian that won't do. It doesn't meet the criteria.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v190/n4771/abs/190167a0.html

However, the rest of us could try it. Eat lots of phenolic apricots and blueberries, walnuts and cashews, then wash it down with lots of home-roasted coffee and tonic water ( for the quinine )... maybe we can figure out the dietary equivalent production of Pyrocat-HD...

StoneNYC · Feb 8, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Too many generalizations going on here. Edge effects may or may not be enhanced by a particular type of developer and/or agitation routine, depending on the film. There are many variables, and what we assume is happening in a given case may not actually be happening. Data from Kodak, Richard Henry, etc. yield one surprise after another.

Also, if this is sheet film, do edge effects even matter? Unless they are extreme, can you see them when the enlargement factor is small? Does Mr. Stone know what he's looking for/at? Does he understand the working properties of his developer and film? Define sharpness, etc.

There's a lot of baloney out there regarding "sharp grain edges".

When I'm home later, I will post examples of what I mean.

For 4x5 I want sharp images even with HP5+ with enlargements up to 20x24 sharp to the point they look contact printed. Currently I can get that even with scanning 6x7 at light-jet enlargements of 11x14 if that helps.

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2014

NedL said:
Jnanian that won't do. It doesn't meet the criteria.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v190/n4771/abs/190167a0.html

However, the rest of us could try it. Eat lots of phenolic apricots and blueberries, walnuts and cashews, then wash it down with lots of home-roasted coffee and tonic water ( for the quinine )... maybe we can figure out the dietary equivalent production of Pyrocat-HD...

how doesn't it fit his criteria ?
it with grain and acutance most likely works with rotary and any film he can shoot
he's already got the developer, he just needs to pee in his jobo ...
and he probably doesn't need to worry about disposal

maybe the tannery already has dibs on it all ... ?

eddie · Feb 8, 2014

StoneNYC said:
For 4x5 I want sharp images even with HP5+ with enlargements up to 20x24 sharp to the point they look contact printed.

The only way to get a 20x24 to look contact printed is to start with a 20x24 negative. I print 4x5 to 20x24 often. I use excellent camera, and enlarger, lenses. Still, they don't come close to resembling a contact print. (I don't do any scanning to digital output, so I can't comment on what effect sharpening, or any other Photoshop acrobatics can achieve.) Contact printing is a different beast than enlarging.

removed account4 · Feb 8, 2014

eddie said:
The only way to get a 20x24 to look contact printed is to start with a 20x24 negative. I print 4x5 to 20x24 often. I use excellent camera, and enlarger, lenses. Still, they don't come close to resembling a contact print. (I don't do any scanning to digital output, so I can't comment on what effect sharpening, or any other Photoshop acrobatics can achieve.) Contact printing is a different beast than enlarging.

you can say that again!

eddie · Feb 8, 2014

Well, Stone is rapidly moving up the format ladder. In a few weeks, this thread will probably be moot.

L Gebhardt · Feb 8, 2014

My choice is XTOL replenished for use on the Jobo. DDX is very close to XTOL, only in liquid form. I haven't used it in years, but I saw very little difference in 4x5 FP4+ in XTOL or DDX when used on a Jobo. So sticking with DDX might be your best bet when rotary processing. If you want to get more edge effects use your Jobo tank as an inversion tank. It will take lot's of fluid, but Rodinal is cheap and works well diluted.

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 8, 2014

Stone, by limiting yourself to liquid developers, there are not many options. You already have DD-X on hand. It's an excellent developer, and sharp at high dilutions. DD-X was harder for me to get than Xtol (very similar to DD-X, IMO), so I stuck with it for a while until I started using Pyrocat-HD and more recently, Obsidian Aqua.
Was moving back with the folks due to your recent house fire?

StoneNYC · Feb 8, 2014

I was half exaggerating with contact I just meant very very sharp edges and fine detail.

StoneNYC · Feb 8, 2014

I'll try DD-X at 1:9 (I assume when people say high dilutions for DD-X that would qualify?).

Richard Man · Feb 8, 2014

If it is the Mamiya 7 lens, and may be the other 6x7 systems also, it may indeed be "sharper" than most 4x5. The lens are without peers, the negatives are flatter, so of course it's going to be tack sharp. You don't shoot 4x5 necessarily for its tack sharpness. Heck, a *&^#( 16 MP sensor can look "sharper" than 4x5.

NedL · Feb 8, 2014

jnanian said:
how doesn't it fit his criteria ?
...

Click the link it explains all. He said no pyro!

markbarendt · Feb 8, 2014

Want more detail, want a significant difference, use a 100 or 125 ISO film. Not suggesting 4x5 HP5 is lacking for what you want to do, probably fully capable.

But with FP4 or TMX or ... you would get a serious bump in detail.

removed account4 · Feb 9, 2014

NedL said:
Click the link it explains all. He said no pyro!

i saw that, but its not pyro, its PEERO

A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency