A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[StoneNYC]

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.

Thanks Thomas, I'll have to give it some thought, no more purchases till I can kill the leftovers of my larger trial and error stocks, so when it's not important I just use up whatever dev is left, when it's important I use the one I know works.

Also Noel, I know how to do stand and have perfected that too, but often am only allowed 1 hour of kitchen time from start to cleanup so it's a mad rush just to get it all done. Also I don't like stand and how my negs look most of the time, except for FOMA100 but it and don't see eye to eye on other issues.

Thanks.

 

[eddie]

Stone- You really should take a course, or a workshop. You're not gonna get anywhere jumping around as you do, believing some of what you read, not believing other things you read. There's no substitute for learning from others more accomplished, experienced, and knowledgeable, in a hands-on manner. Claiming finances are the issue is just an excuse. The $300 you plunked down on 50 sheets of film would have gone a long way towards tuition. At some point, you'll need to decide whether you aspire to more, and make the sacrifices necessary to get there.

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone- You really should take a course, or a workshop. You're not gonna get anywhere jumping around as you do, believing some of what you read, not believing other things you read. There's no substitute for learning from others more accomplished, experienced, and knowledgeable, in a hands-on manner. Claiming finances are the issue is just an excuse. The $300 you plunked down on 50 sheets of film would have gone a long way towards tuition. At some point, you'll need to decide whether you aspire to more, and make the sacrifices necessary to get there.

It's not the tuition it's the time commitment, I've taken classes before and failed out because I missed too many classes because I had to work....

 

[eddie]

It's not the tuition it's the time commitment, I've taken classes before and failed out because I missed too many classes because I had to work....

I understand, but it's still just an excuse. Everyone, here, who decided they wanted to hone this craft has made sacrifices to do so. Be it finances, jobs, relationships, housing, we've all made compromises in the pursuit of our photography. You just have to decide where your priorities lie...
I think, based on the amount of responses you get (to your posts) that most everyone wants you to succeed. I think most everyone sees your enthusiasm. You're constantly given good advice, by far more experienced people, which you reject. I also think it's why your threads drag on for pages (and often devolve into harshness)- people get frustrated by the circles your threads go in, usually morphing into an entirely different subject.
You need to decide what you want to accomplish, and then do what it takes to get there.

 

[el wacho]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Why_Don.27t_You.2FYes_But

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's not the tuition it's the time commitment, I've taken classes before and failed out because I missed too many classes because I had to work....

That is an excuse.
Excuses are not accepted.
Only reasons are accepted.
Reasons are still excuses.

You have no one to blame but yourself. Get your priorities right.

 

[Xmas]

I understand, but it's still just an excuse. Everyone, here, who decided they wanted to hone this craft has made sacrifices to do so. Be it finances, jobs, relationships, housing, we've all made compromises in the pursuit of our photography. You just have to decide where your priorities lie...
I think, based on the amount of responses you get (to your posts) that most everyone wants you to succeed. I think most everyone sees your enthusiasm. You're constantly given good advice, by far more experienced people, which you reject. I also think it's why your threads drag on for pages (and often devolve into harshness)- people get frustrated by the circles your threads go in, usually morphing into an entirely different subject.
You need to decide what you want to accomplish, and then do what it takes to get there.

Im a statistion can I suggest a correction

replace
everyone
by
everyone minus one

 

[eddie]

I did write most everyone. I'd like to think no one is petty enough to hope someone fails. Personally, I'd like to see all the advice sink into Stone's brain, he starts to really learn this stuff, and his work start to fetch Gursky-like prices.

 

[KenS]

The definitive answer to the "sharpest" developer might be better answered through a series of 'tests' of rolls of film of an identical scene (using the one tripod mounted camera/lens at the appropriate f-stop/shutter speed and then developing in a number of different developers..... then...... making prints of identical magnification with a POINT LIGHT SOURCE enlarger.

In my working days, my duties included printing negatives from exposures (to paper) with both scanning and transmission electron microscopes. A Durst 138S (and for those of you who may not be familiar with point-source light printing... the enlarger lens is ALWAYS used 'wide open' while 'brightness' is controlled by the voltage applied to the lamp).

When properly focussed... and using the proper exposure time/voltage to the lamp, the point-light source exposure might better provide for the viewer to observe the edge individual "grain-space" edge, which is probably the most accurate means of 'quick and dirty' determination of which film/developer combination will provide a more real, rather than subjective answer, to the 'sharpness' combination you seek.

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

Personally, I'd like to see all the advice sink into Stone's brain, ...

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

 

[StoneNYC]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Why_Don.27t_You.2FYes_But

I am position #2

I'm not the healthiest, but I'm not the worst

 

[StoneNYC]

The definitive answer to the "sharpest" developer might be better answered through a series of 'tests' of rolls of film of an identical scene (using the one tripod mounted camera/lens at the appropriate f-stop/shutter speed and then developing in a number of different developers..... then...... making prints of identical magnification with a POINT LIGHT SOURCE enlarger.

In my working days, my duties included printing negatives from exposures (to paper) with both scanning and transmission electron microscopes. A Durst 138S (and for those of you who may not be familiar with point-source light printing... the enlarger lens is ALWAYS used 'wide open' while 'brightness' is controlled by the voltage applied to the lamp).

When properly focussed... and using the proper exposure time/voltage to the lamp, the point-light source exposure might better provide for the viewer to observe the edge individual "grain-space" edge, which is probably the most accurate means of 'quick and dirty' determination of which film/developer combination will provide a more real, rather than subjective answer, to the 'sharpness' combination you seek.

Ken

Thanks ken,

By the way the idea of controlling the light sources brightness always seemed to make the most sense and I never understood why this wasn't a more common way to create a photograph.

 

[Chris Lange]

In the studio environment, it is a very common method. Too bright, notch the pack down a click or two. Too dark, turn the A master up. Stay at the same F/ and shutter , adjust the light to suit your image/composition.

 

[eddie]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

True, but eventually you hope the horse gets thirsty enough to drink...

 

[Rudeofus]

By the way the idea of controlling the light sources brightness always seemed to make the most sense and I never understood why this wasn't a more common way to create a photograph.

There are several reasons why one doesn't want to dim light bulbs in an enlarger: first, it's hard to get the same dynamic range that a lens offers you between F/4 and F/32. Second, if you dim a light bulb you change its temperature ---> its light spectrum ----> the balance between green and blue light ---> paper grade. Not good. Third, stopping down a lens one or two stops improves its sharpness in most cases, especially older designs. So no, you really don't want to dim an enlarger lamp, I have no idea why Durst ever did that, and the Durst Laborator 138 that I use on a weekly basis works with lenses that have variable apertures.

Now we are 33 pages into a thread, that started with mushy negatives from rotary processing, carried us through the virtues and the impossibility of home brew developers, some flames and deleted postings, and the suggestion that a workshop will help you make sharper negatives. Well, I don't think you need a workshop for that, but since you insist on rotary processing, you will have to walk the extra mile or two to get the results you've been looking for:

• Try to understand what happens if you dilute a developer. HC-110 is a great and risk free developer to test this, because there are published dev times for many different dilutions, and you won't lose precious shots if you pick the wrong dilution.
• Once you have tested for yourself what HC-110 can really do for you, you can try modifying it by adding different compounds. This is sort of home brewing, but you don't have to get the whole range of compounds, just one or two at the beginning. Let's start with Sodium Carbonate which is non-toxic, doesn't smell, and can be bought everywhere. Take the HC-110 dilution that gave you the best results in your previous test series, and start adding a few grams per liter Sodium Carbonate, and see how this influences your results. Add more if you don't see a difference. If you add a bit too much, you will get some fog but the negs should be still printable and scanable. Nothing will be lost, the test is more or less risk free as far as your negs are concerned, and the results should speak for themselves.

You can take this process from there as far as you are willing to go, but even these two steps should set you in the right direction and may solve your initial problem.

 

[nworth]

I scan my negatives, if only to catalog them. But I also sometimes make inkjet prints. The modern, high-end inkjet printers are excellent, and the available software can often make a print from a scan look much better than the scan really is. Most of my color printing is now inkjet, and I have made several large exhibition prints that way. Black and white is more difficult, although modern printers do a pretty fair job. I can usually (but not always) make a better black and white print in the darkroom than in the lightroom. RA-4 prints from scans are still prints from scans, although the equipment is capable of pretty decent work. The scans are at about 2800 dpi on most machines, which gives adequate (but not exquisite) definition. But most of the prints use automatic corrections, which are usually inadequate to really high quality prints. Even with scanning, you have to work to get a good print, usually almost as hard as you do in the darkroom. Most inkjet proofs are really terrible, and inkjet prints seem to deteriorate rapidly when put in plastic sleeves. Most important from the standpoint of the arguments you get here is that inkjet prints look very different from darkroom prints. Most of the supposedly technical arguments are really just an expression of preference for the look of the print.

 

[nworth]

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.

Outstanding advice from someone who has the experience and portfolio to back it up.

 

[cliveh]

There are several reasons why one doesn't want to dim light bulbs in an enlarger: first, it's hard to get the same dynamic range that a lens offers you between F/4 and F/32. Second, if you dim a light bulb you change its temperature ---> its light spectrum ----> the balance between green and blue light ---> paper grade. Not good. Third, stopping down a lens one or two stops improves its sharpness in most cases, especially older designs. So no, you really don't want to dim an enlarger lamp, I have no idea why Durst ever did that, and the Durst Laborator 138 that I use on a weekly basis works with lenses that have variable apertures.

I understand what you are saying and the reasons behind it and I have never used a point source enlarger. However, I would like to bet this form of enlargement has some unique advantages from a pure physics point of view.

 

[eddie]

... the suggestion that a workshop will help you make sharper negatives.

I didn't say a workshop would help him make sharper negatives. It would help him become a better photographer. His fairly constant jumping around between formats, films, developers, and techniques, rather than perfecting simple combinations is inhibiting his progress. Rather than do what's necessary to improve, he searches for silver bullets. A workshop would get him started in wet printing (and, hopefully, let him see there's a difference between how a negative scans, and how it prints). It would also show him there are no silver bullets.
It is not uncommon for him to ask/comment about film/developer combinations in the gallery, when gallery posts are scans, which in no way resemble prints. He's gone so far as to express interest in an Omega D5, because he heard it was better than his D2, which he has never even used.
Whenever he's told how to make real progress, he comes up with excuses... "no money"... "no time"... The truth is, people with the passion find both the time and the money.

 

[Rudeofus]

Rather than do what's necessary to improve, he searches for silver bullets.

This may be true for a few of his threads, but this one thread in particular seems to focus on one very specific issue that arises from the constraints he has to work under. The way I interpret his postings he has no intention of starting a full time career as photographic artist at the moment.

 

[eddie]

What I gleaned, from his posts, is he was happy with his results when doing inversions. His MOD54 broke, and he got a JOBO reel. He's switching to rotary for those reasons. Now he's not happy with the results. Seems to me the simple solution is to replace the MOD54.His reasoning doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Rudeofus]

Rudi, the entire discussion in this thread concerning edge effects has been a giant red herring concerning a non-issue. Rotary processing of sheet film is a false constraint from an image structure perspective, unless he's making 40"x50" prints.

I do 40"x50" enlargements only for dev testing purposes, in fact I rarely go over 18x24cm with actual prints, but I positively see clear differences between 400 ISO films and different developers, even without scientific comparison tests like the ones you suggested. Given how most high acutance developers work, I am not surprised that Stone sees less sharpness with rotary processing. Now the first advice I would give anybody who complains about lack of sharpness would be "don't use a rotary processor for heaven's sake", but Stone made it quite clear that inversion tanks are not an option at the moment.

I had parents who ran interference with every ambition I ever developed as a kid towards the field of chemistry, to the point where I gave up pursuing this field professionally. I can fully understand the conditions under which Stone has to live right now, and given that his acting career didn't turn out all that great I suspect his parents treat his current photographic ambitions with a fair amount of hostility. Been there, done that, sans the foray into acting.

In my postings here in this thread I sketched out a path how he could improve the sharpness of his negs without rocking the boat too much at home. Let's see what he does ...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

True, but eventually you hope the horse gets thirsty enough to drink...

Some horses just walk around in circles so they never find the water.

 

[StoneNYC]

I do 40"x50" enlargements only for dev testing purposes, in fact I rarely go over 18x24cm with actual prints, but I positively see clear differences between 400 ISO films and different developers, even without scientific comparison tests like the ones you suggested. Given how most high acutance developers work, I am not surprised that Stone sees less sharpness with rotary processing. Now the first advice I would give anybody who complains about lack of sharpness would be "don't use a rotary processor for heaven's sake", but Stone made it quite clear that inversion tanks are not an option at the moment.

I had parents who ran interference with every ambition I ever developed as a kid towards the field of chemistry, to the point where I gave up pursuing this field professionally. I can fully understand the conditions under which Stone has to live right now, and given that his acting career didn't turn out all that great I suspect his parents treat his current photographic ambitions with a fair amount of hostility. Been there, done that, sans the foray into acting.

In my postings here in this thread I sketched out a path how he could improve the sharpness of his negs without rocking the boat too much at home. Let's see what he does ...

Thank you, at least someone understands. And thanks for the advice.