I'll try it someday...
i guess you'll never try it then because i have no need to try something new, find magic bullets
re-tool my system besides, i'm doing my best to use as much NON TOXIC chemistry as i can use.
and caffenol is about as non toxic as it gets ... i can't speak for RO-9 and the others on your list but i am sure it is nasty
( and im not talking about the color chems that you have said you use ) .. and using them in the kitchen at the sink YIKES!
i figured i would post 3 links since it is probably as good as if not better than hc110 and ilfotec, pyro, and anything else you throw at it
download the figital revolution ( steve schaub in vermont ) used caffenol extensively for film he digitized and got images sharp as nails ..
its like a snipe hunt! ...
Having a closed mind is a bad thing, you should really try Pyrocat HD, it's a superb developer and very easy to use and fits your criteria.
Ian
..,and the fact after 14 pages nobody has defined sharpness.
Yeah that.
Finally, keep in mind edge effects typically aren't visible without a sizeable enlargement factor, nor are differences in acutance,
Every Stone post gets to an epic 50 pages+ because no one reads his requirements. Of course the requirements are so specific that probably only one person can eventually definitively answer them... himself XD
That's true, often people just spew what they do regardless of what any OP is asking.
Example: "I live in X country and I'm in an isolated area and can only get foma100 and Rodinal, suggestions for pushing to 1600?, please help"
You'll get stupid answers
You should use xtol and D3200
You should her HC-110 and stand develop with HP5+
My favorite are the morons who suggest stuff like "you should get Plus-X and develop it with home made chemical X that is illegal to use in your country"
Film that isn't produced and some home cocked formula... With no access to old film, and little access to chemistry they still think the poster can go to a chemical supply company like it's walmart... It happens so much it would be laughable if it weren't true.
Given the limitations you outlined,and the fact after 14 pages nobody has defined sharpness,
Kind of, it doesn't contain (pyro)catehol. HC-110 does.
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.
After going through this entire thread, it left me wondering why you are not interested in powders? This inclusion would give you lots of sulphate based solutions with enormous economy. I'm not trying to sway you. I am just curious.
Not really. In general, there is no substitute for square inches when it comes to sharpness. Depth of field is a matter of overall magnification, so it should not matter. (Depth of field tables are misleading, since different rules are used for for different tables, and most are not referenced to set viewing conditions.) With a view camera (or a tilt-shift lens) you can even sometimes compensate for limited depth of field. Camera support for larger formats is a real issue; heavy weight and large sizes can make things difficult, especially in the wind. Lenses do have to cover a bigger area, but most lenses for 120 size cameras are comparable in absolute sharpness to those for 35mm, and lenses for 4X5 and 5X7 are not far behind; lenses for 8X10 still produce better full-frame images than those for 4X5. In general, for a given print size 120 will be a lot sharper than 35mm, and large format will be sharper than 120.
When you mention using powders the OP wants to run and take a powder, if you get my drift.
I get your drift, even if it is misplaced. I just wanted to know if there was a specific reason why.
most people answer all your questions stone,
you change the questions, often times, mid stream
after you reject the answers of everyone who seems
to have oodles more experience than you
... often times your questions could have been answered
without even starting a new thread seeing there are 1.5 million
posts here and chances are a lot of questions have been answered
in the past 11 years.
not suggesting for you to stop starting epic threads, but once in a while do a search ..
its OK to dig up and add to a thread that was started 8 years ago
That was covered in post #13.
Often when I see this kind of pattern the person is not looking for information or advice, but rather for confirmation or some sort of "permission" to go ahead and do what they've already decided on.
I'm not saying this is the case with Stone. He just seems to have such specific requirements and criteria that threads turn into a "but why not powders?" or "why are you so opposed to pyro?" or whatever rather than telling him what he's asking. And when people DO tell him what he's asking, the thread continues anyway.
Bottom line - you aren't likely to get the kind of exagerated edge effects you get with Rodinal and stand or minimal agitation using any developer with rotary agitation. But these have little to do with fine detail anyway and may even obscure it. Pretty much any normal developer is capable of good results with rotary processing as I confirmed some over a decade ago when I first got my Jobo. For what he wants, HC-110 or Ilfotec HC are probably going to be about as good as it gets.
My advice, and double your money back if not satisfied, "these differences in developers are so subtle that, once you get your process with any of them dialed in, none are going to make or break a photography. Get yourself some HC-110 or Ilfotec HC, stop wanking around on the forums and start shooting and processing."
I should take my own advice more too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?