A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
OP

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format

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.

markbarendt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,317
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
StoneNYC said:
I would still think with that much more surface area, that the image would be sharper...
Click to expand...

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.
 
OP
OP

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,631
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

I just did.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,631
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

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!
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
3,009
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
Ilfotec HC is my developer of choice.
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
3,009
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format

CatLABS

Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,576
Location
MA, USA
Format
Large Format

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.
 
OP
OP

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
CatLABS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
StoneNYC said:
you're saying at a given size print, say 11x14, the Mamiya print will look sharper than the 4x5?
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
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 !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
NedL said:
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!
Click to expand...

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


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


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

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
3,400
Location
Sonoma County, California
Format
Multi Format
StoneNYC said:
...So why don't I just mix up my breakfast of orange juice and coffee, and then pee in it, and develop with that?...
Click to expand...
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
StoneNYC said:
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
Click to expand...

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 ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format

Um, you mean benign, not non-benign.
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,259
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
Stone- Why did you switch to rotary, if you liked the results you were getting with your film/developer combinations prior to the switch?
 
OP
OP

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
eddie said:
Stone- Why did you switch to rotary, if you liked the results you were getting with your film/developer combinations prior to the switch?
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,426
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
StoneNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,259
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register