A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm pumped. This is about to get good!

I think the light bulb moment will happen any day now.

 

[wildbill]

cutting costs and $6/sheet for 4x5 film just don't seem to go together.

Thomas,
gotta move quick. light bulbs are being phased out.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

cutting costs and $6/sheet for 4x5 film just don't seem to go together.

Thomas,
gotta move quick. light bulbs are being phased out.

Vinny,

I guess it just sounds better than 'The thing that looks like a light bulb, but really has a bunch of LEDs in it' moment...

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

cutting costs and $6/sheet for 4x5 film just don't seem to go together.

No kidding...

 

[StoneNYC]

cutting costs and $6/sheet for 4x5 film just don't seem to go together.

Thomas,
gotta move quick. light bulbs are being phased out.

That was a special request, that I made, others climbed on board and it took off, would I normally buy film at $300/50 sheet box? No... Would I look like a jerk if after all my fuss to get it off the ground I didn't even buy a single box? Yes... So I bought one, and it's almost done, the Eastman Double-X special order of 4x5 film only needs 6 more box orders to happen. I'm an honorable man, I wasn't about to leave everyone in the dust and back out.

Anyway I'm very concerned about money, but that was a special circumstance.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the Eastman Double-X special order of 4x5 film only needs 6 more box orders to happen...

You're spending too much time on this "magic bullet" and not enough paying attention to the other one. Keith placed that order yesterday:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc/131324393576850​

 

[StoneNYC]

You're spending too much time on this "magic bullet" and not enough paying attention to the other one. Keith placed that order yesterday:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc/131324393576850​

Oh I don't check his FB and he hadn't emailed me yet, awesome!

 

[MattKing]

Make sure you process that stuff in a cine developer like D-96 or something.

You forgot your emoticon, Michael.

Here, I'll help: :devil:

 

[wildbill]

Make sure you process that stuff in a cine developer like D-96 or something.

that won't produce sharp negs unless you buy a cine machine to put it in.

 

[StoneNYC]

Har har (D-96 is a D-76 variant and I'm not worried about sharpness in Double-x, it's fairly grainy so for that film it's more about the tones to me, this is the only film I don't care about sharpness for...

 

[Roger Cole]

FX-39 is a magic billet. At least waiting for Freestyle to get it, ship it, try it out etc. will give a respite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

Har har (D-96 is a D-76 variant and I'm not worried about sharpness in Double-x, it's fairly grainy so for that film it's more about the tones to me, this is the only film I don't care about sharpness for...

Hi Stone
My 5222 is not to grainy less annoying than HP5 bit more visible than Delta 400...
How do you soup it?
Noel

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone
My 5222 is not to grainy less annoying than HP5 bit more visible than Delta 400...
How do you soup it?
Noel

It's because I scan it I think.

I've tried Rodinal and Ilfsol 3 and DD-X but all seem relatively the same grain wise.

It's sharp, just grainy.

 

[Chris Lange]

Epson flatbeds without betterscanning holders make everything within a given format look pretty much the same, especially in 35mm or medium format.

 

[StoneNYC]

Epson flatbeds without betterscanning holders make everything within a given format look pretty much the same, especially in 35mm or medium format.

Not at all correct, but we will have to agree to dissagree

 

[Xmas]

What scanner do you use and have you compared a
print with the negative using a good quality loupe?

The Microphen and Rodinal I use seem the same.

 

[StoneNYC]

What scanner do you use and have you compared a
print with the negative using a good quality loupe?

The Microphen and Rodinal I use seem the same.

No optical print to compare. And Epson V750

 

[Chris Lange]

Not at all correct, but we will have to agree to dissagree

Mushy grain, or overall unsharp image. Either way the scans are substandard, regardless of the developer or processing method. It's fairly immaterial to judge the merit of a film/developer combination off of scans (which by the way, unless you are scanning with a dedicated film scanner in 16bit greyscale / 48bit color tiff files with Silverfast or Vuescan Pro, are probably not all that great anyway) is pretty much a fruitless endeavor.

No matter what developer you use, your scanner will, never, and I mean, never deliver the resolution or acutance which is feasibly begotten from a medium format or large format negative (and the lack of quality on 35mm is so drastic that it's not even worth mentioning). To be honest, the only difference you will ever see on a scanner like the V750, even WITH a glass carrier, will be between inversion processing and rotary processing, not the individual chemicals used. You're lucky to get an optical resolution of 1600dpi on the input scan, and that's with every possible variable perfectly corrected.

You want "sharper" negatives? Everyone has answered that question already, be it via Xtol, HC-110, or what have you. The only true route to sharper negatives is sharper lenses, optimum f-stops and better focusing technique. LF lenses are rarely as "sharp" as their MF or 35mm counterparts, and good luck keeping film truly flat without a glass carrier. MF for sharpness, LF for tonality, 35mm for when the overall gestalt is the most important factor. To be completely honest I have no idea why you are using 4x5 instead of your Mamiya 7 if you want "sharpness" Tmax 100 on a Mamiya 7 can easily rival a 4x5 shot for tonality and granularity, up to a very respectable enlargement factor.

I'm still waiting on you to get 100 rolls of one film, to use in one camera, with one developer, on one concentrated subject matter, and present a truly concise idea, instead of fucking around with this chemistry bullshit.

 

[StoneNYC]

Mushy grain, or overall unsharp image. Either way the scans are substandard, regardless of the developer or processing method. It's fairly immaterial to judge the merit of a film/developer combination off of scans (which by the way, unless you are scanning with a dedicated film scanner in 16bit greyscale / 48bit color tiff files with Silverfast or Vuescan Pro, are probably not all that great anyway) is pretty much a fruitless endeavor.

No matter what developer you use, your scanner will, never, and I mean, never deliver the resolution or acutance which is feasibly begotten from a medium format or large format negative (and the lack of quality on 35mm is so drastic that it's not even worth mentioning). To be honest, the only difference you will ever see on a scanner like the V750, even WITH a glass carrier, will be between inversion processing and rotary processing, not the individual chemicals used. You're lucky to get an optical resolution of 1600dpi on the input scan, and that's with every possible variable perfectly corrected.

You want "sharper" negatives? Everyone has answered that question already, be it via Xtol, HC-110, or what have you. The only true route to sharper negatives is sharper lenses, optimum f-stops and better focusing technique. LF lenses are rarely as "sharp" as their MF or 35mm counterparts, and good luck keeping film truly flat without a glass carrier. MF for sharpness, LF for tonality, 35mm for when the overall gestalt is the most important factor. To be completely honest I have no idea why you are using 4x5 instead of your Mamiya 7 if you want "sharpness" Tmax 100 on a Mamiya 7 can easily rival a 4x5 shot for tonality and granularity, up to a very respectable enlargement factor.

I'm still waiting on you to get 100 rolls of one film, to use in one camera, with one developer, on one concentrated subject matter, and present a truly concise idea, instead of fucking around with this chemistry bullshit.

And will again have to agree to disagree....

 

[mrred]

Mushy grain, or overall unsharp image. Either way the scans are substandard, regardless of the developer or processing method. It's fairly immaterial to judge the merit of a film/developer combination off of scans (which by the way, unless you are scanning with a dedicated film scanner in 16bit greyscale / 48bit color tiff files with Silverfast or Vuescan Pro, are probably not all that great anyway) is pretty much a fruitless endeavor.

As with printing in the darkroom, there is skill involved. It's not all about the equipment.

 

[Xmas]

No optical print to compare. And Epson V750

You could read my post again you look at a grain area on the print and at the same area on the neg with a loupe or 5cm lens if they are the same you may have damaged negatives!

If they are different do have different scanner settings for C41 and silver if you go to advanced scanner options.

I do use a scanner to catalogue/proof and densiometry but A4 (8x10) grain does not look that bad even with Forma 400.

 

[StoneNYC]

You could read my post again you look at a grain area on the print and at the same area on the neg with a loupe or 5cm lens if they are the same you may have damaged negatives!

If they are different do have different scanner settings for C41 and silver if you go to advanced scanner options.

I do use a scanner to catalogue/proof and densiometry but A4 (8x10) grain does not look that bad even with Forma 400.

You're not being helpful and spouting a bunch of nonsense. I said I don't have any prints optically printed so I cannot look at the print with a loupe.

Secondly I know how to change my scanner from "transparency" scan to "color negative" scan.

Thirdly you're saying FOMA isn't that bad, but at what DPI are you scanning? What scanner? And nothing looks bad on an 8x10 I'm talking about much larger than 8x10.

 

[Xmas]

You're not being helpful and spouting a bunch of nonsense. I said I don't have any prints optically printed so I cannot look at the print with a loupe.

Secondly I know how to change my scanner from "transparency" scan to "color negative" scan.

Thirdly you're saying FOMA isn't that bad, but at what DPI are you scanning? What scanner? And nothing looks bad on an 8x10 I'm talking about much larger than 8x10.

More slowly please your large inkjet prints should look ok if they don't you need to look at the negative under a microscope to confirm it is not the negative... Or get some one to do you a wet print.

Your scanner software may have two transparency modes, as well as a retained silver mode, & a C41 mono mode, eg does the V750 have an IR ICE? Note Im not a scanner person, and don't know your software options, but if it does have IR or similar you need to switch it off rescan and reprint with dust spots...

I apologise I was too abstract... when I scan 35mm for proof and file I use 2400/inch, if/when I inkjet, I encapsulate in plastic and mark up with white board crayon for wet print crop, burn and dodge split print % - iterations... but the inkjet proof print 'grain' at 8x10 size still don't look that bad for grain, even if horrible for artistry, framing, etc. I rescan the finished marked up encapsulation, if I may need to try and repeat the wet print... most wet prints are filed in shredder.

I know one of the best wet printers in London, she does 1st time VC split, ... and burn in 15 minutes in foreign dark room... rather better than my weekends...

All my indexing is on computer with keywords so I can locate the negative file number.

Note I don't care what your troll playmates make of my process.

I've had other photogs look at an inkjet and ask how did I get the effect what film and dev... it was 35mm Forma 400 in Rodinal 1+100 stand for 40 mins at 20C.

So either you are too picky about grain or you are too close to print or bad scans or you have damaged negs... Grain should not look bad even on an inkjet.

But the grain will be present.

So at 18 inches from nose on a 8x10 print is the grain ugly? If you look at HCBs prints in an exhibition you will see grain... Ansells prints will be better prints in many ways.

Henri said 'Adams and Weston are going mad they are taking photos of rocks' - I don't think Ansell or Ed will have been too upset?

 

[StoneNYC]

More slowly please your large inkjet prints should look ok if they don't you need to look at the negative under a microscope to confirm it is not the negative... Or get some one to do you a wet print.

Your scanner software may have two transparency modes, as well as a retained silver mode, & a C41 mono mode, eg does the V750 have an IR ICE? Note Im not a scanner person, and don't know your software options, but if it does have IR or similar you need to switch it off rescan and reprint with dust spots...

I apologise I was too abstract... when I scan 35mm for proof and file I use 2400/inch, if/when I inkjet, I encapsulate in plastic and mark up with white board crayon for wet print crop, burn and dodge split print % - iterations... but the inkjet proof print 'grain' at 8x10 size still don't look that bad for grain, even if horrible for artistry, framing, etc. I rescan the finished marked up encapsulation, if I may need to try and repeat the wet print... most wet prints are filed in shredder.

I know one of the best wet printers in London, she does 1st time VC split, ... and burn in 15 minutes in foreign dark room... rather better than my weekends...

All my indexing is on computer with keywords so I can locate the negative file number.

Note I don't care what your troll playmates make of my process.

I've had other photogs look at an inkjet and ask how did I get the effect what film and dev... it was 35mm Forma 400 in Rodinal 1+100 stand for 40 mins at 20C.

So either you are too picky about grain or you are too close to print or bad scans or you have damaged negs... Grain should not look bad even on an inkjet.

But the grain will be present.

So at 18 inches from nose on a 8x10 print is the grain ugly? If you look at HCBs prints in an exhibition you will see grain... Ansells prints will be better prints in many ways.

Henri said 'Adams and Weston are going mad they are taking photos of rocks' - I don't think Ansell or Ed will have been too upset?

I don't ever ink jet print, only chemical prints with a light jet optical "printer" on RA4 paper.

I don't use any IR dust removal at all.

I don't use Viewscan or SilverFast, just Epson scan software as it makes more sense to me.

I can't for the life of me get silverfast to make a good scan (when I can even get the program to function at all).

I don't understand a lot of the "silver mode" stuff that must be specific to your scanning software and is not universal. I have 3 options.

B&W
Color negative
Transparency

That's it

And then 8 or 16 bit B&W or 16 or 48 bit color.

I always choose the higher bit.

Anyway I think I'm just particular, possibly more than I need to be.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I can sum up this thread with one word.

Ugh

A year and a half and over 5000 posts, seriously? I remember back when Stone joined and he was like a bull in a china shop with his slurry of simple questions. Not much has changed. Might as well call this place StonePUG at this point.