A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

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.

Yes it was the Mamiya 7 and all the filters were ether Mamiya (polarizer) or B+W schott glass (spelling?)

I would still think with that much more surface area, that the image would be sharper...

I'm using the 4x5 as a "starter" LF to learn how to work in that type of system, but want to go bigger for some work. 8x10 for color landscapes/mountainscapes while it still exists, and perhaps larger for B&W work.

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.

I only mentioned HP5+ because it would be the one to worry about most.

I'm refining my system so that I'm only shooting 3 B&W films.

HP5+
Acros100
FP4+ OR Delta100

And Velvia50

This is across the board in all systems... So the importance in sharpness isn't always specific to LF work, because I'll still be shooting 120 and probably 35mm sometimes with those same films.

I like HP5+ for it's versatility (200-3200 EI) much better than TMY-2 which is finer grained, but really only good for 320-1600. (As far as the way I function).

My GF is sleeping, I'll have to get to the computer to show sharpness differences tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks for helping, I'll try DD-X 1:9 with the next batch of films.

 

[Richard Man]

No way, if you have a Mamiya 7 and nail the focus, most 4x5 will have trouble keeping up in SHARPNESS department. The film flatness and your ability to focus critically are your limiting factors here.

You are chasing the wrong magic potion.

 

[markbarendt]

I would still think with that much more surface area, that the image would be sharper...

I wish it was that simple.

Yes, Didjiman has a real point, as do you, the 4x5 format definitely increases the potential over 6x7 but lenses do have a huge effect.

Sharpness is just one part of the equation. The 4x5 will probably record significantly more detail and have a different look/tonality/feel. 8x10 or 11x14 will change that calculus again as will your lens choices along the way.

The Mamiya 7 and large format cameras are completely different beasts in the wild, the work they are best at is very different. The Mamiya is fast and simple and sharp. A 4x5 (or larger) camera will give much more creative control over how and what you focus on and the shape of your subject matter.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hmmm well that would explain why my picture of the Colorado with the bridge going over it looks like the bridge was etched with a lazer... That said, you're saying at a given size print, say 11x14, the Mamiya print will look sharper than the 4x5? Are you sure about that? I've printed both and the 4x5 does seem to have the advantage...

And I would think the 8x10 would be even better. At 20x24 you should be able to see the edge of the bridge wires... With no sharpness issues better than this 11x14.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

I just did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

No, no, no! I promised not to mention XTOL or replenished XTOL in this thread! Please, please do not make me talk about XTOL in this thread!

 

[StoneNYC]

No, no, no! I promised not to mention XTOL or replenished XTOL in this thread! Please, please do not make me talk about XTOL in this thread!

Sounds like DD-X is my only option..? $$$$

 

[miha]

Ilfotec HC is my developer of choice.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ilfotec HC is my developer of choice.

Does it fit the criteria? Does it give sharp edges? Lol

Edit: oh it's ilfords version of HC-110??

 

[miha]

Does it fit the criteria? Does it give sharp edges? Lol

It does. See page 2: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201062894918374.pdf

 

[miha]

Edit: oh it's ilfords version of HC-110??

Kind of, it doesn't contain (pyro)catehol. HC-110 does.

 

[CatLABS]

Hmmm well that would explain why my picture of the Colorado with the bridge going over it looks like the bridge was etched with a lazer... That said, you're saying at a given size print, say 11x14, the Mamiya print will look sharper than the 4x5? Are you sure about that? I've printed both and the 4x5 does seem to have the advantage...

And I would think the 8x10 would be even better. At 20x24 you should be able to see the edge of the bridge wires... With no sharpness issues better than this 11x14.

View attachment 81804View attachment 81805

The larger the format the harder it is to have sharp images.
That is not to say they cant be sharp, but in most circumstances the smaller the format the sharper the image will be. focal length is just one reason of many.

 

[StoneNYC]

The larger the format the harder it is to have sharp images.
That is not to say they cant be sharp, but in most circumstances the smaller the format the sharper the image will be. focal length is just one reason of many.

But with more detail comes more perceived sharpness, no?

The print is the important part, so keeping sharpness all the way to the print is important. And more details would look sharper than blobs, no?

 

[markbarendt]

you're saying at a given size print, say 11x14, the Mamiya print will look sharper than the 4x5?

Maybe, maybe not, looking sharp and being sharp aren't necessarily the same. The subject matter, the lighting, the film, the lens all have a roll to play.

It is for example possible for a print with nice sharp visible grain to "look" sharp even if it is slightly out of focus. The distinct grain gives the brain something to grab.

Conversely a well focused grainless highly detailed print might not look as sharp, printing it larger though, where the details are big enough for the brain to grab, may actually make it look sharper.

Here's an example:

Dead Link Removed

This was shot by a local guy, Bill Proud, on 4x5 Velvia, ISO 50 I think.

On the little screen here it looks ok, meh, just another pretty landscape, but printed at 40x50 (as I remember) it is simply and utterly amazing. As I remember there are 4 or 5 people in the scene right around the arch, it's been a while since seeing it but I remember being able to discern hats, skin, and other details. IMO a 6x7 neg would probably be struggling to do the same. The 6x7 might still be gorgeous but side by side printed at 40x50?

 

[removed account4]

its too bad you can't mix powders, caffenol c would work wonders with your development regimen
you just need a teaspoon water and 3 totally benign easy to find ingredients that your folks wouldn't even know
were developing agents ( cheap rot gut instant coffee, washing soda and vit c ).

good luck with your search !

 

[NedL]

Kind of, it doesn't contain (pyro)catehol. HC-110 does.

Very interesting... I have a vague memory of reading something about that on the Covington site. So actually, Ilfotec HC meets the criteria and HC-110 does not!

 

[StoneNYC]

Very interesting... I have a vague memory of reading something about that on the Covington site. So actually, Ilfotec HC meets the criteria and HC-110 does not!

Hah! Right! That's what I was thinking!

its too bad you can't mix powders, caffenol c would work wonders with your development regimen
you just need a teaspoon water and 3 totally non benign easy to find ingredients that your folks wouldn't even know
were developing agents ( cheap rot gut instant coffee, washing soda and vit c ).

good luck with your search !

So why don't I just mix up my breakfast of orange juice and coffee, and then pee in it, and develop with that? Lol

Maybe, maybe not, looking sharp and being sharp aren't necessarily the same. The subject matter, the lighting, the film, the lens all have a roll to play.

It is for example possible for a print with nice sharp visible grain to "look" sharp even if it is slightly out of focus. The distinct grain gives the brain something to grab.

Conversely a well focused grainless highly detailed print might not look as sharp, printing it larger though, where the details are big enough for the brain to grab, may actually make it look sharper.

Here's an example:

Dead Link Removed

This was shot by a local guy, Bill Proud, on 4x5 Velvia, ISO 50 I think.

On the little screen here it looks ok, meh, just another pretty landscape, but printed at 40x50 (as I remember) it is simply and utterly amazing. As I remember there are 4 or 5 people in the scene right around the arch, it's been a while since seeing it but I remember being able to discern hats, skin, and other details. IMO a 6x7 neg would probably be struggling to do the same. The 6x7 might still be gorgeous but side by side printed at 40x50?

Right, that's my point.

Also, I'm preparing and looking toward the future, giving myself both options... It's perceivable that my images might not be able to print optically in 30 years because print paper might not be available anymore, so scanning or digitally photographing might be my option, I want to have it be good enough for huge enlargements and also scanning etc. When scanning even 2400dpi I can see the difference between the sharper grain or mucky stuff or finer grain (which is different from sharp) I don't mind some grain so long as the edges are sharp.

Anyway I will do some testing and come back.

 

[NedL]

...So why don't I just mix up my breakfast of orange juice and coffee, and then pee in it, and develop with that?...

Because peero has catechol, and you might need to add powdered soda, so it fails all your criteria . This is where you and I differ: when I read this it fires me up to try it and see what happens. That huge thread about food-based developers was amazing. But seriously, you don't need a respirator and gloves that will frighten the neighbors to mix up coffee, soda and vitamin C... and that might be closer to xtol than some of the other choices. The smell might be a problem though....

 

[removed account4]

So why don't I just mix up my breakfast of orange juice and coffee, and then pee in it, and develop with that? Lol

some people here on apug have done extensive experiments ( look for work done by darkroomexpermente )
s/he made a salad one night, blended it, and processed film and got images, even made a reversal developer out of shallots ... just gotta think out side the box stone.

with regards to your specific question, your morning coffee, oj and pee,

depending on what kind of coffee you drink, it might not work. maybe ... if you drink "espresso" ( often times it is cut with robusta beans to give it krema, but don't count on it )
unfortunately what people suggest you drink as "good coffee" is usually arabica beans and it won't do anything in a developer,
you need robusta beans. orange juice, too much sugar in the mix, ( sorry mcgvyer ) and it will gum up your film ... pee, the jury's still out, but it seems possible
as i have linked to previously that some people do this, but personally i would hesitate ... it might be too warm.

if you drank rot gut instant coffee, or knew you were drinking robusta ground coffee in the am you are golden ..
ive been using caffenol in one sort or another for almost a decade and find it to be as good if not better than most commercially made ( or packaged ) developers out there
less toxic than pretty much anything sold, easy to source the ingredients, and will give you sharpness and grain ... i've enlarged ( hybridly and optically ) caffenoled film
to 16x20 and bigger and the images look sharp, nice micro contrast &c ...

looking on a computer screen isn't the best way to see sharpness, and of course most photographers who look at photographs ( big or small ) have their nose too close
so they miss the sharpness by staring at the brush strokes ...

 

[Roger Cole]

its too bad you can't mix powders, caffenol c would work wonders with your development regimen
you just need a teaspoon water and 3 totally non benign easy to find ingredients that your folks wouldn't even know
were developing agents ( cheap rot gut instant coffee, washing soda and vit c ).

good luck with your search !

Um, you mean benign, not non-benign.

 

[removed account4]

Um, you mean benign, not non-benign.

yeah that's the ticket !

thanks roger, i deleted something else and forgot the "non"

 

[eddie]

Stone- Why did you switch to rotary, if you liked the results you were getting with your film/developer combinations prior to the switch?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone- Why did you switch to rotary, if you liked the results you were getting with your film/developer combinations prior to the switch?

Two reasons, one because the MOD54 I was using got damaged by someone else, and the replacement was the 2509n

The reason I chose the 2509n was I want to keep consistent, and shoot a lot more color film, and for that I need a processor, I also want to be able to develop more than just 6 sheets at a time, so the rotary does 12, I also had the drum already... I'm also shooting more and more film and my wrists are starting to hurt from all the damn inversion, and I'm tired of being stuck there not being able to pee for 20 minutes and many other reasons. Inversion just no longer works for my workflow and the rate I'm shooting at.

Anyway this is what I'm doing.

 

[MattKing]

But with more detail comes more perceived sharpness, no?

The print is the important part, so keeping sharpness all the way to the print is important. And more details would look sharper than blobs, no?

No!

"Sharpness" is mainly a subjective measurement, not an objective one. It is better to refer to it as "perceived sharpness".

The factors that affect sharpness are, in order of weight:

1) accutance (referred to sometimes as edge contrast);
2) micro-contrast;
3) macro-contrast; and
4) resolution.

If you increase the resolution, it often decreases the perceived sharpness, because it often makes the transitions between adjacent details more smooth.

The artificial sharpness that comes from a lot of digital post-processing emphasizes and clarifies those transitions - often at the expense of the actual detail at those transitions.

The developers of the re-sizing algorithms that permit people to print 16x24, 300 dpi prints from 12 megapixel files have definitely figured this out.

 

[eddie]

The reason I chose the 2509n was I want to keep consistent, and shoot a lot more color film, and for that I need a processor, I also want to be able to develop more than just 6 sheets at a time, so the rotary does 12, I also had the drum already... I'm also shooting more and more film and my wrists are starting to hurt from all the damn inversion, and I'm tired of being stuck there not being able to pee for 20 minutes and many other reasons. Inversion just no longer works for my workflow and the rate I'm shooting at.

OK. That all makes sense. It may take a bit of time to dial in the change. If DD-X is your favorite, that's probably what you should work with. Looking at not using it because of cost is really a false economy. The time you take shooting, the cost of your film, and the time to process far outweighs the extra cost of DD-X. Compromising on your developer of choice is probably your worst option.
Also, don't think of it as "not being able to pee for 20 minutes". Think of it as not being able to make new developer...