A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[removed account4]

if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I haven't used DD-X but I understand it's similar to T-Max developer and I've been using that since the 90s, both the regular and RS versions. In case (and I realize this is a very big IF) it is like T-Max in this regard, my observation on different dilutions: if time and temperature are adjusted to get the same contrast there is little if any difference from the label 1+4 up to 1+6, and not much at 1+7. I am not a big fan of the 1+9 dilution. It's not "bad" but I don't like the midtones as much which seem a bit depressed to me at that dilution. I tend to use it at 1+5 for the times given for 1+4, or sometimes 1+6 with a bit more time. It really doesn't make much difference.

For T-Max I'd say dilute it further for economy, at least to 1+6 or maybe 1+7, but not to expect radically different results once you dial in your times. DD-X may be similar but you'll have to try to see.

I'm a dummy, I prefer easy dilutions like 1+4 or 1+9 ... Really my math skills are 1+4= 10+40= 100+400=500ml

If it's 1+5 I would be ok since technically I need 560ml for a round of 4x5 and I suppose 1+6 would be ok for 35mm which needs a bit more dev...

I'm a simpleton hahaha

But seriously that's totally another reason why I would want to use powders, all the crazy American sizes in gallons instead if even liters is really not good for me, I would screw it up in a heartbeat .... Also I don't have that kind of container storage.

I would CONSIDER ID-11 since it's 1L packets, but really again going outside in 10 degree temps or lower to mix chems isn't my idea of fun and being dependent on the weather, when I tend to develop on bad weather days... Etc etc

Anyway I'll try 1+9 and see how it goes.

 

[NedL]

This thread just goes forever, but seeing MrRed in his freaking dust mask, demanding to know what's wrong with powders made it all worthwhile.

 

[StoneNYC]

This thread just goes forever, but seeing MrRed in his freaking dust mask, demanding to know what's wrong with powders made it all worthwhile.

+1

 

[MattKing]

if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer

This applies to sheet film - not roll film - and may have applied more with older films than the current mainstream materials.

In my case, I would recommend the RS because it can be used in a replenishment regime, but we cannot go there.

 

[Roger Cole]

if you use tmax use RS or you will get green metalic stain/fog
only removable through farmers reducer

Huh? You mean with sheet film? Yeah, that's supposed to be why they developed (pardon the pun) the RS. I prefer the RS anyway. Never mind the mixing instructions - just dump the small bottle into the large bottle, mix, and dilute from there.

 

[Roger Cole]

Stone, any of the dilutions are very easy. 1+6 is 7 parts total. Just round the volume you need up.

You need 560ml? 560/7 = 80. 80ml of developer concentrate plus 480ml of water = 560 ml of solution.

Say you wanted to use 1+5. That's six total parts. 560/6 = 93.33 so round up. 94*6=564. 94ml of developer plus 470ml of water (you can figure that out by taking the total you worked out, 564, and subtracting the 94ml of concentrate) gives you 564ml.

 

[miha]

Do not confuse pyrocatechol with pyrogallol, which is pyro. Pyrocatechol is much less toxic (though still somewhat toxic), and the stain it produces is a bit different. It is more like hydroquinone, though far from the same.

No confusion here! Pyrogallol, Catechol, Hidroquinone, Resorcinol,... they all stain to a degree.

And there's more to it (from Wikipedia):

Caffeic acid may be the active ingredient in caffenol, a do-it-yourself black-and-white photographic developer made from instant coffee.[19] The developing chemistry is similar to that of catechol or pyrogallol

 

[nworth]

Actually - resolution (which is what you are talking about) has nothing to do with sharpness.
A large, yet blurry negative, while it could be enlarged quite a bit before you get to see the grain structure on the print break down, will still be blurry.
In the studio, there are ways to overcome the depth of field issues, as you noted, however, that does not negate the fact that the longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field. That is not a matter of reading a table, its a matter of physics. While this is not absolute, in most cases, focal length tends to get longer, the larger to format, due to the respective angle of view.

The quality of the lenses is not in question here at all, and it may very well be that some 4X5 lenses have by far better line per MM then some MF or other lenses, but that will not help increase the depth of field, or reduce camera movement.

I agree that a blurry negative will produce a blurry print regardless of format. But your interpretation of depth of field is incorrect. Depth of field is calculated from the range of distances that will render a point within a given circle of confusion on the negative. In the US, generally the circle of confusion is usually given as .001 inch for 35mm and possibly larger for larger formats. The lack of good standardization doesn't help. But at the final print, that circle is enlarged. The actual blur size is dependent on the total magnification from subject to print (and f/ stop). That is the physics. Actual sharpness depends not only on physics but also on lens resolution, focus accuracy, camera shake, processing, enlarging accuracy, and probably other factors. As photographers, we can screw up most of them.

 

[mrred]

This thread just goes forever, but seeing MrRed in his freaking dust mask, demanding to know what's wrong with powders made it all worthwhile.

It's nice that I have provided some entertainment around here...

 

[markbarendt]

But at the final print, that circle is enlarged. ... As photographers, we can screw up most of them.

I agree completely.

I also believe that we have control of both of these factors.

 

[removed account4]

RS as i eventually learned it, is for replenishment and ROTARY systems
i'd hate for stone to have similar problems that i had
with NO SUPPORT from the manufacturer.

im not even sure why they bothered with the other stuff
except to confuse people

maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now
but i wouldn't risk using the non RS ... replenished, single shot, rotary, small tank, deeptank ...
its not worth the trouble of ruining one's film. developer is cheap, exposed film is pretty much priceless.

 

[CatLABS]

I agree that a blurry negative will produce a blurry print regardless of format. But your interpretation of depth of field is incorrect. Depth of field is calculated from the range of distances that will render a point within a given circle of confusion on the negative. In the US, generally the circle of confusion is usually given as .001 inch for 35mm and possibly larger for larger formats. The lack of good standardization doesn't help. But at the final print, that circle is enlarged. The actual blur size is dependent on the total magnification from subject to print (and f/ stop). That is the physics. Actual sharpness depends not only on physics but also on lens resolution, focus accuracy, camera shake, processing, enlarging accuracy, and probably other factors. As photographers, we can screw up most of them.

all true, and as i said, again, the larger the format, the harder all of those are to control, due to weight, size, focal length etc... increasing the chance of having a blurry image to start out with as the format gets larger.

As for DOF - only a small fraction of the field of view is in fact in focus. DOF makes the rest "appear in focus". The longer the focal length, less of the world "appears in focus", and you need more closed apertures to gain the same amount of DOF as with a smaller aperture on a shorter focal length. Regardless of format. Even though one enlargers less when using a larger format, it does not change the simple fact that the smaller aperture will require a slower shutter speed, thus increasing the chance of camera shake., and that will increase with focal length, and compound the issues above (size, weight etc..)

 

[StoneNYC]

RS as i eventually learned it, is for replenishment and ROTARY systems
i'd hate for stone to have similar problems that i had
with NO SUPPORT from the manufacturer.

im not even sure why they bothered with the other stuff
except to confuse people

maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now
but i wouldn't risk using the non RS ... replenished, single shot, rotary, small tank, deeptank ...
its not worth the trouble of ruining one's film. developer is cheap, exposed film is pretty much priceless.

This I agree with

 

[markbarendt]

all true, and as i said, again, the larger the format, the harder all of those are to control, due to weight, size, focal length etc... increasing the chance of having a blurry image to start out with as the format gets larger.

Within the norms of common LF "good practices", ie on a capable tripod, etcetera; LF is IMO less likely to have blurry images.

Sloppy work in any format is prone to problems.

If you are making the argument that small is simply easier than big, that is an oversimplification.

Sure my Fiat 500 is easier to toodle around town in but it can't do the same work as the 4WD C2500 I drive to work can.

 

[MattKing]

"Sharp" does not equate to "not blurry".

"Sharp" is quite subjective.

"High resolution" does equate to "not blurry".

Stone seems to prefer images with artificially high edge contrast - the sort of thing you get sometimes with reduced agitation film development and enlarging with unsharp masks (plus some more "modern" alternatives).

If he is going to move to large format, and still obtain results with artificially high edge contrast, he will either have to learn masking techniques in the darkroom, or introduce the contrast using those "modern" techniques.

His move to rotary processing seems counterproductive for his preferences.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

His move to rotary processing seems counterproductive for his preferences.

Very true. The only way I have been able to observe significant edge effects is with reduced agitation.

Best edge effects and 'perceived' sharpness I ever saw was with Pyrocat-HD, which is available in liquid kits, and is quite benign compared to pyrogallol developers. But since that isn't an option I suggested the TFX-2 and FA-1027 developers from the Formulary.

Liquid, not pyro developers that give very sharp negatives.

Stone, you don't give much wiggle room for creativity. I'm sorry for saying this, but I think you pay way too much attention to these details with film developers and such. Be best to just get some HC-110 and go shooting more.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now...

Champion, having been stiffed in the bankruptcy, has apparently now been replaced by Tetenal as manufacturer of Kodak-branded photo chemicals.

I don't think there have been any changes in the basic makeup of TMAX and TMAX RS developers. TMAX is still contraindicated for sheet films.

 

[CatLABS]

If you are making the argument that small is simply easier than big, that is an oversimplification.

No, its just a fact of life. The extraordinary is when someone invests extra time and effort in direct proportion to the format he is using.

Sure my Fiat 500 is easier to toodle around town in but it can't do the same work as the 4WD C2500 I drive to work can.

An example would be the 50% and more of Americans (of which about 96% own a car) who toodle their 4WD SUV's around town.

 

[StoneNYC]

Very true. The only way I have been able to observe significant edge effects is with reduced agitation.

Best edge effects and 'perceived' sharpness I ever saw was with Pyrocat-HD, which is available in liquid kits, and is quite benign compared to pyrogallol developers. But since that isn't an option I suggested the TFX-2 and FA-1027 developers from the Formulary.

Liquid, not pyro developers that give very sharp negatives.

Stone, you don't give much wiggle room for creativity. I'm sorry for saying this, but I think you pay way too much attention to these details with film developers and such. Be best to just get some HC-110 and go shooting more.

Ok, I'll inquire, HC-110 has a LITTLE but of pyrocatechol in it, so I assume PYROCAT has a LOT of it?

What's the difference? Both are neuro-toxins correct? I'm trying to educate myself. If I'm wrong and asking, try not to bash me, just want to be well informed.

Thanks.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ok, I'll inquire, HC-110 has a LITTLE but of pyrocatechol in it, so I assume PYROCAT has a LOT of it?

What's the difference? Both are neuro-toxins correct? I'm trying to educate myself. If I'm wrong and asking, try not to bash me, just want to be well informed.

Thanks.

I will let the chemists explain the differences between pyrocstechin and pyrogallol.

Pyrocat is mucho different from HC110. Sharper, finer grain, and a different tonal palette.

 

[StoneNYC]

I will let the chemists explain the differences between pyrocstechin and pyrogallol.

Pyrocat is mucho different from HC110. Sharper, finer grain, and a different tonal palette.

Realized after I spelled it working, but, ok chemists! Let me have it!

 

[removed account4]

stone,
i don't think pyro is going to work,

stone said in his first post, no pyro ...

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

april fool's ? ...

 

[Roger Cole]

RS as i eventually learned it, is for replenishment and ROTARY systems
i'd hate for stone to have similar problems that i had
with NO SUPPORT from the manufacturer.

im not even sure why they bothered with the other stuff
except to confuse people

maybe they have changed the ingredients and manufacturer since champion makes it all now
but i wouldn't risk using the non RS ... replenished, single shot, rotary, small tank, deeptank ...
its not worth the trouble of ruining one's film. developer is cheap, exposed film is pretty much priceless.

I've used the non-replinished, non-RS version in my Jobo many, many times, with absolutely no issues at all (for roll film -never tried it with sheet film so I have no comment on the real possibility of dichroic fog.)

And I always use the RS one-shot.

Just because they designed it to be used a certain way doesn't mean you have to do so.

 

[Roger Cole]

Stone, you don't give much wiggle room for creativity. I'm sorry for saying this, but I think you pay way too much attention to these details with film developers and such. Be best to just get some HC-110 and go shooting more.

A consensus is being formed.