A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

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.

Well I'm sure if Sean looks at the numbers he would see an increase in overall participation of members and an increase of involvement. That's a good thing. Plus I know he says I keep things interesting.

And what's wrong with asking simple questions, you have to start somewhere.... I've never taken a class or learned anything in school about film or developing, they didn't have that option in my schools. So I don't have anyone to ask simple questions and learn from, this is my only place to come, if APUG didn't exist I probably would be shooting Digital... That's not even an exaggeration, I was about to give up on the pursuit of film when I found this place.

Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Xmas]

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.

Hi Stone
Thanks a lot.
Your prints should be better than my inkjet proofs by some margin, the grain is meant to be there
The B&W option is for silver negatives and should inhibit any IR (or similar layer) processing, there should be an advanced mode control panel as well but I'd not worry. The advanced mode is (normally) necessary to process Kodachrome and E6 slides differently, with most dust removal algorithms, and similarly mono C41 may need to be different from silver mono...
Silverfast works ok for me, a bit intractable, but I don't use my Epson flat bed scanner cept for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 digital filing, which I don't do regular, like never.
You still need to look at your negative just in case they are damaged... very unlikely with prehardened film unless you were very careless, note I'm not saying you are.
So when you look at a 8x10 print at 18 inches is the grain obtrusive? The visiblity of the grain at a normal viewing distance will vary even with the same film and developer. If you were a painter brush strokes are allowed...
If you viewed a Forma 400, HP5+ or Delta 400 you should see the difference, the Delta grain much less visible? You need to use D400 and a fine grain dev if you want less grain, Rodinal wont help but wont be a big difference.
I use ID68 (a Microphen powder) which you wont like, so cannot help there.
Semi stand with Rodinal is not optimal if you want less grain and more sharpness the full stand is better. Some may say how does that alter the grain, Id leave that to the photo chemists.
If you do find the grain a problem you could try C41 like XP2 but that is more difficult to process at home as the CD4 is well toxic... and my mini labs make an art form out of damaging film, cept for the more expensive one.
Lastly you had a query about technical pan somewhere...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
So sorry you are too picky is probably correct.
Id think about getting an enlarger a little portable Russian spy suitcase enlarger can be set up on a bed room floor at night with heavy drapes, and the print loaded into a tank with a print separator, and processed for time and temp like film where you normaly do film, I've even used Rodinal 1+12 for mono prints, and Cibachromes in a tank.

Noel

 

[wildbill]

Nothing wrong with simple questions. Except when they've been asked over an over because the person asking is too lazy to use the search window at the top of this page.

 

[markbarendt]

Nothing wrong with simple questions. Except when they've been asked over an over because the person asking is too lazy to use the search window at the top of this page.

Or believes that magic bullets exist.

Or believes that the laws of physics shouldn't apply to him.

Or believes that anybody who might buy his work would even care about edge effects.

...

 

[StoneNYC]

Nothing wrong with simple questions. Except when they've been asked over an over because the person asking is too lazy to use the search window at the top of this page.

I use the search bar and didn't help with anything that was what I'm talking about which is moving from Pam processing to rotary and having edge effects issues, if you can find a similar thread which describes the issue that I was questioning, please feel free to show me and prove me wrong but I did a search I will tell you that.

 

[CatLABS]

you have to start somewhere.... I've never taken a class or learned anything in school about film or developing

That's a good place to start, you get some actual facts instead of opinions.

 

[StoneNYC]

That's a good place to start, you get some actual facts instead of opinions.

I don't have the ability to take a class in my current job, I am on call 24 hours seven days a week, and cannot designate time specific to taking a class, or I would end up losing out on valuable work and would be homeless

 

[Regular Rod]

Nothing wrong with simple questions. Except when they've been asked over an over because the person asking is too lazy to use the search window at the top of this page.

Surely the search facility is not the be all and end all? This is a forum. It's there for asking. Some of the answers previously may have been superseded by better information. Books are for searching through. Forums are for asking (and replying if you think you might be able to help).

RR

 

[wildbill]

I use the search bar and didn't help with anything that was what I'm talking about which is moving from Pam processing to rotary and having edge effects issues, if you can find a similar thread which describes the issue that I was questioning, please feel free to show me and prove me wrong but I did a search I will tell you that.

I wasn't referring to this thread. You've started more than one

 

[Chris Lange]

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

I'll be the first one to agree with you, but shooting film and scanning it on an Epson V600/700/750 with the expectation of getting results that exhibit truly accurate reproduction is like trying to use a 3 element enlarging lens to print 20x24, corner-to-corner sharp, exhibition prints on an unaligned, rickety, old enlarger. I used one for 4 years at school, and it got to the point where I would just scan prints while I was there, and bring my film home during breaks to use the dedicated machine we have in the studio at home.

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

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).

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.

Unless your RA4 lightjets are being done on a Lambda, inkjets from a good Epson printer will nearly almost always be sharper, and always better paper, most likely (Museo Silver Rag...I've died and gone to heaven)...unless of course you're after the whole c-print look.

As for not using VueScan or Silverfast...scanning is hard, just like every other part of photography. Epson scan is a POS. Spend the 80 dollars on Vuescan and teach yourself to use it properly. The bits aren't important if you're not using them well.

And what's wrong with asking simple questions, you have to start somewhere.... I've never taken a class or learned anything in school about film or developing, they didn't have that option in my schools. So I don't have anyone to ask simple questions and learn from, this is my only place to come, if APUG didn't exist I probably would be shooting Digital... That's not even an exaggeration, I was about to give up on the pursuit of film when I found this place.

Sorry if that upsets you.

Never stop asking questions, especially the simple ones. But pedantically discussing the intricacies of a bunch of chemicals within a set of arbitrary limitations is not the best way to interact with the forum. I've never taken a class in photography technique, either. Essentially all of my BFA schooling was in effective studio practice and art history, and we were responsible for honing our techniques on our own time. I suppose the advantage to not taking a class is that you don't have a bunch of arbitrary rules floating around in your head (unless you impose them on yourself, in which case... just stop doing that).

It's always something new with you...and it always ends up with excuses for why you can't/won't do something.

Our professors at school confronted torrents of excuses and self-imposed limitations with:

Art is hard, if you're not willing to be invested in it, then maybe this isn't for you.

That shit stings, I know, but breaking free of all this nonsense and just focusing on making a system (haha the broken record spins around once again) that is simple, consistent, and reliable is, and should be, the ONLY concern you have with your work right now. I have written this multiple times before to you, but STOP making excuses, to those whose opinions/advice you reject here, but more importantly TO YOURSELF. You've convinced yourself that you're a better photographer than you actually are, and you've convinced yourself that you're doing the right thing in going to large format and all this brouhaha about using 4x5 now and yaddayadda. I would hazard that everyone here is sick of hearing this tripe, and if you're going to spout off about things in the way you do, commit to your words. You're going LF? Sell your Mamiya and lenses, that way you can stop constantly bitching about not being able to afford photography stuff.

You spend so much of your time wondering about technical variables and boring shit that you completely forget to think about the creative, and art practice side of things. You need to visualize a concept of what you're interested in photographing (these trite poorly lit pictures of scantily clad women are really not the best you can do, is it?) and involve yourself in it.

It doesn't even matter if you're shooting film or digital. But if you shoot film...as I've said before (and will say again)...get RID of the variables, other than creative impulse.

Load the Toyo's holders up, and go photograph something for 3 hours. Then do it again the next day. and the next day, and the next day, and the next day. Shoot every day for 3 hours, leave your cellphone on silent. Shoot only TXT (I know that $300 box of Double X was a really great idea...), use one lens, shoot things you want, shoot things you lust after, shoot things you hate, shoot things that make you want to throw yourself off a cliff, and then shoot things that make you feel like you're bathing in ambrosia... shoot things that make you feel strongly about something, but for the love of god...shoot as much as you post.

Or at least make a concerted effort to make pictures you actually care about, instead of being a masturbatory armchair expert that can only make half-assed excuses for why his pictures aren't up to snuff.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Might as well call this place StonePUG at this point.

Pretty much...

 

[Truzi]

I've found the Google Custom Search function on this BBS is not terribly good. Instead, I just search with Google itself, and add site:apug.org to the search terms. I've had much better luck this way. I know it's easier on a computer compared to a smart phone, but it should still help.

 

[eddie]

I have no problems with the questions, but wish you'd stop arguing with more experienced responders.

I'd also recommend you have someone print a few SG prints, of things you've inked, for comparison. If wet is I your future, you'll be running into even more variables that you need to be aware of before commiting to enlarging. Based on much of your film posts, I think you may be disappointed. It has a longer learning curve, and requires more work.

 

[pdeeh]

I'll be the first one to ... [snip].

superb post. if only it were going to be the last word

 

[StoneNYC]

I'll be the first one to agree with you, but shooting film and scanning it on an Epson V600/700/750 with the expectation of getting results that exhibit truly accurate reproduction is like trying to use a 3 element enlarging lens to print 20x24, corner-to-corner sharp, exhibition prints on an unaligned, rickety, old enlarger. I used one for 4 years at school, and it got to the point where I would just scan prints while I was there, and bring my film home during breaks to use the dedicated machine we have in the studio at home.



Unless your RA4 lightjets are being done on a Lambda, inkjets from a good Epson printer will nearly almost always be sharper, and always better paper, most likely (Museo Silver Rag...I've died and gone to heaven)...unless of course you're after the whole c-print look.

As for not using VueScan or Silverfast...scanning is hard, just like every other part of photography. Epson scan is a POS. Spend the 80 dollars on Vuescan and teach yourself to use it properly. The bits aren't important if you're not using them well.




Never stop asking questions, especially the simple ones. But pedantically discussing the intricacies of a bunch of chemicals within a set of arbitrary limitations is not the best way to interact with the forum. I've never taken a class in photography technique, either. Essentially all of my BFA schooling was in effective studio practice and art history, and we were responsible for honing our techniques on our own time. I suppose the advantage to not taking a class is that you don't have a bunch of arbitrary rules floating around in your head (unless you impose them on yourself, in which case... just stop doing that).

It's always something new with you...and it always ends up with excuses for why you can't/won't do something.

Our professors at school confronted torrents of excuses and self-imposed limitations with:

Art is hard, if you're not willing to be invested in it, then maybe this isn't for you.

That shit stings, I know, but breaking free of all this nonsense and just focusing on making a system (haha the broken record spins around once again) that is simple, consistent, and reliable is, and should be, the ONLY concern you have with your work right now. I have written this multiple times before to you, but STOP making excuses, to those whose opinions/advice you reject here, but more importantly TO YOURSELF. You've convinced yourself that you're a better photographer than you actually are, and you've convinced yourself that you're doing the right thing in going to large format and all this brouhaha about using 4x5 now and yaddayadda. I would hazard that everyone here is sick of hearing this tripe, and if you're going to spout off about things in the way you do, commit to your words. You're going LF? Sell your Mamiya and lenses, that way you can stop constantly bitching about not being able to afford photography stuff.

You spend so much of your time wondering about technical variables and boring shit that you completely forget to think about the creative, and art practice side of things. You need to visualize a concept of what you're interested in photographing (these trite poorly lit pictures of scantily clad women are really not the best you can do, is it?) and involve yourself in it.

It doesn't even matter if you're shooting film or digital. But if you shoot film...as I've said before (and will say again)...get RID of the variables, other than creative impulse.

Load the Toyo's holders up, and go photograph something for 3 hours. Then do it again the next day. and the next day, and the next day, and the next day. Shoot every day for 3 hours, leave your cellphone on silent. Shoot only TXT (I know that $300 box of Double X was a really great idea...), use one lens, shoot things you want, shoot things you lust after, shoot things you hate, shoot things that make you want to throw yourself off a cliff, and then shoot things that make you feel like you're bathing in ambrosia... shoot things that make you feel strongly about something, but for the love of god...shoot as much as you post.

Or at least make a concerted effort to make pictures you actually care about, instead of being a masturbatory armchair expert that can only make half-assed excuses for why his pictures aren't up to snuff.

Wow...

You obviously don't know anything about me or my habits...

I shoot film almost EVERY DAY....

I spend hours at a time wandering and shooting with my 4x5 and come back with only 3 images because each image took an hour to compose. Because I'm careful and contemplative about my imagery.

I'm in no way an armchair photographer...

Everyone here has their own ideas they share but expect me to follow them just because they said it, well I couldn't possibly satisfy all YOUR wants because they are so varying.

I listen to the ones that make sense and it's made me better.

I don't make "excuses" I give reasons for why I have limitations. Many are financial. And I'm altering my career right now actually getting out of the acting business. So perhaps soon I can take a class or two and many other things, but I'm literally always on call and often get a call at 9pm asking if I can be in NY at 6am, I once had to skip my own birthday party because I got called. If you don't go you get blacklisted and then don't get work for months ... It's not easy and don't presume to know my life better than me, it's both arrogant and insulting.

I shoot both models and mountains, and both require different equipment. I won't sell something unless I don't use it for 6 months. And I do sell the stuff I don't use....

With rare exception (Eastman Double-X) I've settled on HP5+ Acros100 and Velvia50 and the rest is just stock I'm running through and essentially done testing with the exception of Delta100 as a replacement for Acros100 in non-night and non-spectral critical images (to save money). Yes everyone says "just pick one" which to me sounds like burying your head in the sand, I should at least see how a film performs under "normal" conditions before I choose one to specialize in.

And with rate exception... Those who can't do... Teach... So I only take advice from than that is procedural, not things like "you just can't do that" because I often find those people to be the ones who are closed minded and will never progress, even if I'm wrong, I'll have tried.

Yes I like seeing a chemical print, I find the ink jet images to lack soul...

Yes I believe it's a lamda style light-jet.

The kodak metallic paper I often use is by no means of lesser quantity than the crappy ink jet paper out there.

Unless I were using a pigment printer, I would just never even bother wasting my money and time (and cheating a client) by selling them an ink jet image. I've done sun exposure comparisons and ink jet images within one year deteriorate so horribly it's embarrassing...

And I own Silverfast, I'm not buying a THIRD scanning software... But I'll say that Epson Scan is in no way a POS at all, it works fast, well, and easily, can you say that about SilverFast? Hell no, sure you might have more "control" over the scan, but if you shot the image well in the first place, you wouldn't really need all those adjustments would you?

Ok I'm done, you frustrated me and I felt compelled to respond to your splatter of misinformation...

 

[Chris Lange]

Wow...

You obviously don't know anything about me or my habits...

I shoot film almost EVERY DAY....

I spend hours at a time wandering and shooting with my 4x5 and come back with only 3 images because each image took an hour to compose. Because I'm careful and contemplative about my imagery.

I'm in no way an armchair photographer...

Everyone here has their own ideas they share but expect me to follow them just because they said it, well I couldn't possibly satisfy all YOUR wants because they are so varying.

I listen to the ones that make sense and it's made me better.

I don't make "excuses" I give reasons for why I have limitations. Many are financial. And I'm altering my career right now actually getting out of the acting business. So perhaps soon I can take a class or two and many other things, but I'm literally always on call and often get a call at 9pm asking if I can be in NY at 6am, I once had to skip my own birthday party because I got called. If you don't go you get blacklisted and then don't get work for months ... It's not easy and don't presume to know my life better than me, it's both arrogant and insulting.

I shoot both models and mountains, and both require different equipment. I won't sell something unless I don't use it for 6 months. And I do sell the stuff I don't use....

With rare exception (Eastman Double-X) I've settled on HP5+ Acros100 and Velvia50 and the rest is just stock I'm running through and essentially done testing with the exception of Delta100 as a replacement for Acros100 in non-night and non-spectral critical images (to save money). Yes everyone says "just pick one" which to me sounds like burying your head in the sand, I should at least see how a film performs under "normal" conditions before I choose one to specialize in.

And with rate exception... Those who can't do... Teach... So I only take advice from than that is procedural, not things like "you just can't do that" because I often find those people to be the ones who are closed minded and will never progress, even if I'm wrong, I'll have tried.

Yes I like seeing a chemical print, I find the ink jet images to lack soul...

Yes I believe it's a lamda style light-jet.

The kodak metallic paper I often use is by no means of lesser quantity than the crappy ink jet paper out there.

Unless I were using a pigment printer, I would just never even bother wasting my money and time (and cheating a client) by selling them an ink jet image. I've done sun exposure comparisons and ink jet images within one year deteriorate so horribly it's embarrassing...

And I own Silverfast, I'm not buying a THIRD scanning software... But I'll say that Epson Scan is in no way a POS at all, it works fast, well, and easily, can you say that about SilverFast? Hell no, sure you might have more "control" over the scan, but if you shot the image well in the first place, you wouldn't really need all those adjustments would you?

Ok I'm done, you frustrated me and I felt compelled to respond to your splatter of misinformation...

I'm sorry to hear that your career is so overwhelming, Stone, I really am. I'm legitimately not saying these things to you with malicious intentions, but you seem to be veritably stuck in a rut regarding the photographic process, and ignoring the most important part of the medium as an art form. Use the anxiety you have about your spot in life right now to influence your photography. Nothing is better than a hard spot in life to mainline some energy into your art making endeavors. Instead of running away from your problems with photography, use it to beat them into submission. Go read Nausea by Sartre, or Notes From Underground.

Shooting film everyday doesn't mean shit to an artist if they're not examining an ongoing thought or idea through the process of making photographs. I shoot film practically every day too, but sometimes it's just snapshots of stuff around my house. Big fuckin' deal.

Lambda style? No. It's either a Lambda, or not. A Lambda can expose b/w fiber paper, in addition to RA4, and at higher DPI than other laser/digital exposure units.

You've obviously only been looking at crappy inkjet prints, because good prints from good scans or good digital photographic files on good cotton-rag or baryta paper blow the everloving fuck out of any c-print I've ever seen in terms of overall image quality. Show me a color print you've had made with RA-4 on nice 310GSM baryta paper recently, I'd love to see it. I know, and have worked with multiple photographers very, very, closely who sell their inkjet prints regularly for 3k to 5k dollars, often more. Having handled the work first hand, I can tell you, those prints are no slouch.

How does an inkjet print lack soul but a LED exposed print has it? The whole "soul" crock of shit is only applicable to hand made prints IMO, and at that it's a word I hear more often used by the kind of Lomography apologists that think a shitty negative with tons of dust on it is "more real" than a clean print.

Silverfast? Learn it if you're serious about scanning your work. I did. It's not about compensating the negative, it's about getting the full range of information so you can manipulate the negative in PS/LR as you would in the darkroom. Oh wait, you can't because don't know PS or LR. Money? FFS if you're the starving artist you claim to be I'm surprised you haven't pirated every creative software known to man. I know I seriously contemplated it but never actually did when I was in school.

Good, you have a medium, fast b/w film choice, and a chrome. Use only one of them for a month. HP5 does well during the day, and at night, so it shouldn't give you any problems. Also, I just saw you put in a PM about 20 rolls of Neopan 400...

Guess what? I do and teach! That's right! I teach weekly black and white courses in Brooklyn! For fun! In the evening!

Christ, we're all just monkeys anyway.

 

[CatLABS]

Wow...

You obviously don't know anything about me or my habits...

i doubt that its anyones business...

I shoot film almost EVERY DAY....

I spend hours at a time wandering and shooting with my 4x5 and come back with only 3 images because each image took an hour to compose. Because I'm careful and contemplative about my imagery.

Then you should have no problem applying your self to some form of formal education in a field you are so passionate about.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm sorry to hear that your career is so overwhelming, Stone, I really am. I'm legitimately not saying these things to you with malicious intentions, but you seem to be veritably stuck in a rut regarding the photographic process, and ignoring the most important part of the medium as an art form. Use the anxiety you have about your spot in life right now to influence your photography. Nothing is better than a hard spot in life to mainline some energy into your art making endeavors. Instead of running away from your problems with photography, use it to beat them into submission. Go read Nausea by Sartre, or Notes From Underground.

Shooting film everyday doesn't mean shit to an artist if they're not examining an ongoing thought or idea through the process of making photographs. I shoot film practically every day too, but sometimes it's just snapshots of stuff around my house. Big fuckin' deal.

Lambda style? No. It's either a Lambda, or not. A Lambda can expose b/w fiber paper, in addition to RA4, and at higher DPI than other laser/digital exposure units.

You've obviously only been looking at crappy inkjet prints, because good prints from good scans or good digital photographic files on good cotton-rag or baryta paper blow the everloving fuck out of any c-print I've ever seen in terms of overall image quality. Show me a color print you've had made with RA-4 on nice 310GSM baryta paper recently, I'd love to see it. I know, and have worked with multiple photographers very, very, closely who sell their inkjet prints regularly for 3k to 5k dollars, often more. Having handled the work first hand, I can tell you, those prints are no slouch.

How does an inkjet print lack soul but a LED exposed print has it? The whole "soul" crock of shit is only applicable to hand made prints IMO, and at that it's a word I hear more often used by the kind of Lomography apologists that think a shitty negative with tons of dust on it is "more real" than a clean print.

Silverfast? Learn it if you're serious about scanning your work. I did. It's not about compensating the negative, it's about getting the full range of information so you can manipulate the negative in PS/LR as you would in the darkroom. Oh wait, you can't because don't know PS or LR. Money? FFS if you're the starving artist you claim to be I'm surprised you haven't pirated every creative software known to man. I know I seriously contemplated it but never actually did when I was in school.

Good, you have a medium, fast b/w film choice, and a chrome. Use only one of them for a month. HP5 does well during the day, and at night, so it shouldn't give you any problems. Also, I just saw you put in a PM about 20 rolls of Neopan 400...

Guess what? I do and teach! That's right! I teach weekly black and white courses in Brooklyn! For fun! In the evening!

Christ, we're all just monkeys anyway.

Chris, why don't you become a subscriber first and actually look at my work before you to spouting about how good or bad it is...

Also this is a film only forum, stop discussing ink jet info (and I didn't say the look wasn't sharp, I said the ink fades in the sun...).

I use Dwayne's photo to optically print, ask them which version they use, what I care about is how the silver and dyes look on the print, which is different than ink.

My love of Neopan400 is beyond anything else.... It's dreamy, equaled only by Acros100 and PanF+

And that film I already have dialed in, it's just not made anymore, but when I want that look without fuss, I'll use it till it's gone, and it doesn't exist in 4x5 sadly or we really REALLY wouldn't be having this discussion. All the films which I don't seem to have to fiddle with and just work seem to be the ones that either don't transcend formats, or are no longer made... Or are ridiculously expensive....So I have settled on what makes sense in the long run.

Please don't make any more comments till you've become a subscriber and actually seen my work.

 

[CatLABS]

All the films which I don't seem to have to fiddle with and just work seem to be the ones that either don't transcend formats, or are no longer made... Or are ridiculously expensive....So I have settled on what makes sense in the long run.

This seems contrary to the DDx project..?

 

[Chris Lange]

I was a subscriber until this year, but guess what, I'm a poor artist, too.

I've also seen your tumblr, your etsy, and your instagram. Believe me, I don't devote the amount of time to writing posts like those above without being aware of what the work we are discussing looks like.

Last word on the inkjet prints: They're still fade free, and those that I have at home have been in direct sunlight for hours a day for the past 4-5 years.

 

[StoneNYC]

I was a subscriber until this year, but guess what, I'm a poor artist, too.

I've also seen your tumblr, your etsy, and your instagram. Believe me, I don't devote the amount of time to writing posts like those above without being aware of what the work we are discussing looks like.

Last word on the inkjet prints: They're still fade free, and those that I have at home have been in direct sunlight for hours a day for the past 4-5 years.

Sorry, my mistake on the whole seeing my work thing.

Thanks for following

And also, well I don't know maybe you use pigment ink? Which I said was the exception.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Stone, I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for in your materials, but rather in technique.

If you want that perceived nail sharp edge in dark/bright adjacencies on your negatives, also known as 'edge effects' you shouldn't be doing rotary processing.
You are far better off diluting your Rodinal and extend your developing time and agitation intervals. Rodinal is as good as anything with respect to creating edge effects.
Otherwise, the liquid developer I linked to a long time ago in this thread TFX-2 from Photographers' Formulary (not pyro, not powder, and sharp as hell) will probably be your best bet. That along with the new FX-39 that ADOX is shipping to Freestyle, a Geoffrey Crawley developer previously sold by Paterson as FX-39. They stopped and ADOX picked it up and are now making it.

Other than that, I sort of want to echo what many others here are urging you to do - shoot more and stop worrying so much about the chemistry and materials. I really hope you will. I've been through the whole developer and film stock rigamarole that you're currently going through years ago, and the worst part of that, besides not really learning anything about my chosen films and developers, is that when I print old negatives I have a very hard time due to how inconsistent the negatives are. That inconsistency is a definite side effect of being much too focused on the materials themselves. I get much farther when I simply focus on the photographs. Nobody walks up to my work when I show it and say, wow you must have used Tri-X and Rodinal for this photograph. No, instead they tell me that they are drawn to the subject matter or that the photograph is beautifully printed. At least for me there's a lesson in there that I hope we can all benefit from.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for in your materials, but rather in technique.

If you want that perceived nail sharp edge in dark/bright adjacencies on your negatives, also known as 'edge effects' you shouldn't be doing rotary processing.
You are far better off diluting your Rodinal and extend your developing time and agitation intervals. Rodinal is as good as anything with respect to creating edge effects.
Otherwise, the liquid developer I linked to a long time ago in this thread TFX-2 from Photographers' Formulary (not pyro, not powder, and sharp as hell) will probably be your best bet. That along with the new FX-39 that ADOX is shipping to Freestyle, a Geoffrey Crawley developer previously sold by Paterson as FX-39. They stopped and ADOX picked it up and are now making it.

Other than that, I sort of want to echo what many others here are urging you to do - shoot more and stop worrying so much about the chemistry and materials. I really hope you will. I've been through the whole developer and film stock rigamarole that you're currently going through years ago, and the worst part of that, besides not really learning anything about my chosen films and developers, is that when I print old negatives I have a very hard time due to how inconsistent the negatives are. That inconsistency is a definite side effect of being much too focused on the materials themselves. I get much farther when I simply focus on the photographs. Nobody walks up to my work when I show it and say, wow you must have used Tri-X and Rodinal for this photograph. No, instead they tell me that they are drawn to the subject matter or that the photograph is beautifully printed. At least for me there's a lesson in there that I hope we can all benefit from.

I often appreciate your advice more than most Thomas.

If I had to choose between TFX-2 and FX-39 which should I give a try? I do like Adox but I thought the FX-39 WASN'T a developer good for rotary but it could be? It did intrigue me when I saw Mirko's post about it.

 

[Xmas]

I kind of agree, I appreciate someone standing up for me on the "personal attacks" but I don't recall anything THAT terrible lol.

Well. Let's just simmer I guess, let's get back on topic, in theory, if I were to mess with mixing developers, is there anything I could add to my favorite developer (Rodinal) in order to enhance the edges in rotary while not having to mix an entire batch?

What I mean is, I could simply dilute some kind of specific powder chemical into a dropper bottle, which I would then add drops to a regular working solution bottle of Rodinal developer each round that would enhance the edges when I do rotary processing? Smaller bottles of liquid chemistry that I would add to a pre-mixed bottle would be an acceptable compromise (but non-pyro of course).

Man I'm gonna get flack for this question....

Hi Stone

Not from me Stone
But please stop using rotary and use full stand that will probably be enough to

Improve sharpness
Improve grain

All you need to do is pour in the Rodinal 1+100 at your normal temperature, invert a few times, set the alarm for the full interval and surf the web. There needs to be some room at the top of the tank to allow a flow of water. But don't bang the tank there is a hazard the tank may be damaged and it is unnecessary, a web rumor...

When the alarm goes off pour out Rodinal. it is preferable if the room temperature in close to the processing temperature to minimize any convection of the liquid.

Note the improvements will be small but that all there is with Rodinal, you may have a different perception as you are well picky...

If you want to 'go bald headed at' it you could try 1+150 for 50% longer.

If you want more sharpness when you pour out the Rodinal use a Borax bath like Ansell some times used I know you don't like powders but Borax may be in your parents house as a laundry aid... level teaspoon of Borax in 1 litre stir until dissolved, pour it in at the same temp as the developer dont invert or rotate just leave 5 minutes, pour out and resume your normal stop and hypo regieme.

Note I handle borax as a toxin, but if you get a fungal foot infection a borax bath helps.

You could try both of these together i.e 1+150 and Borax post bath

I use the latter when I think my shadows would have sufficient silver, but it should also improve the edge effect.

Id be interested in you trying any of these and reporting.

Noel

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I have tried FX-39 with TMax 400 and Tri-X and it's mighty sharp. Gives very grainy negatives though, as expected. Can't both eat the cake and expect to keep it.
It gives basically full emulsion speed.
TFX-2 I haven't personally tried, but it's another alternative to consider for sharpness. Whether it works with rotary development or not, well there's only one good way to find out - try it. TFX-2 is available now, FX39 is not.