A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

[removed account4]

it stinks going against the grain.
here the grain on apug is to make a print
the old fashioned way and people push and push and push
and naysay that a print that scans well cant print well ...
personally i dont see much of a difference, unless you are talking some
dense contact printing technique that requires meat on the bonz
or excessively contrasty sallt print negatives...
sure it is suggested to make denser film for cold light and thinner for condenser
but it isnt a requirement.
ive never seen the op's film but it is pretty much ready made for a skan
i m sure it will work for whatever process he sinks his teeth into
when his dark room constraints are different and he can spread out.
a lot of people who respond to threads have years of experience
dedicated spaces, no worries, $$for paper and chems &c...

keep doing what you are doing stone, dont let the turkeys (like me) get you down
shoot and process .. and keep going forward ...
chances are when you get the urge to print, you willl be a old hand at processing and tweaking
and probably wont want to wet print your olde film ( i know i dont )
so when you coat your own or whatever you have that much more exp, ...

going against the grain sux, but you willbe that much better afterwards
just dont dwell too much on the stuff that doesnt really matter
cause, it really doesnt matter

 

[markbarendt]

it stinks going against the grain.
...
so when you coat your own or whatever you have that much more exp, ...

going against the grain sux, but you willbe that much better afterwards
just dont dwell too much on the stuff that doesnt really matter
cause, it really doesnt matter

You make good points John.

I find that I rarely go back to old negs too. That is very freeing.

I'd like to see Stone move ahead too.

In his current situation making good generic negatives is a worthwhile goal.

Right now though push/pull, +/-, exposure dead on, and all those tweaks border on irrelevant because of the digital back end.

Stone's (now dashed) expectation that the same negative would somehow fall perfectly right onto the paper though is a bit of a stretch.

More than anything else I wanted him to understand that printing well takes some effort.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

More than anything else I wanted him to understand that printing well takes some effort.

Like anything else...

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm just tired and beat down.

Everything is manipulation to an extent.

I expect to make some practice prints before getting the right overall exposure, but I don't expect to spend hours dodging and burning.

Well Ilfsol 3 is horrible as a rotary process... Even my HP5+ inversion images in Ilfsol 3 are finer grained than my TMX rotary images in Ilfsol 3... (Except GAF film that was expired in the 60's which always seems to be finer grained than anything including TMY-2 and TMX... Which just baffles me...).

I hate throwing bottles in the trash of chemicals.... It's such a waste, but it will go bad before I use it again.

Moving on...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Stone,

Don't beat yourself up.

You could look at this whole thing from the flip side of the coin and take a very simplistic approach. Darkroom printing and film photography is not exactly rocket science. But it is like chess. A minute to learn, a lifetime to master.

It is entirely possible to expose a piece of film just as Kodak and Ilford say in their manuals, and develop it in a generic developer according to their instructions. Then you can take that negative into the darkroom and make a print at some arbitrary Grade 3 contrast filtration on multigrade paper, and then develop it in Kodak/Ilford standard print developers, and you will get a print. It might be too bright, it might be too dark, but you will get a print. To begin that really is all you need to know.

With time, you will come to find out that you will want to improve how your print looks, with respect to contrast, tonality, size, certain areas might not look right to you while others do - in the same print, and so on. As you go along, you learn tricks for how to correct all of them. Some are very simple to correct, and others take a lot more practice.
But you know what? It's all fun, and if I were you I would absolutely RELISH the opportunity to be able to learn photography darkroom work as a new way of practicing photography. It is an incredible opportunity for you to take another step and become even better at what you do.

From what I've seen so far you are not a bad photographer at all. You just have to figure out what's important to you, and then focus on it and try to perfect it.

It takes time, but again, it's a really good time! It's a hell of a good time, especially if you have some good music going, and maybe some of your favorite libation at hand.

Cheer up, man. This is a wonderful opportunity for you to grow, just like all other darkroom workers once had. Give it time, be patient, and have fun!

- TB

I'm just tired and beat down.

Everything is manipulation to an extent.

I expect to make some practice prints before getting the right overall exposure, but I don't expect to spend hours dodging and burning.

Well Ilfsol 3 is horrible as a rotary process... Even my HP5+ inversion images in Ilfsol 3 are finer grained than my TMX rotary images in Ilfsol 3... (Except GAF film that was expired in the 60's which always seems to be finer grained than anything including TMY-2 and TMX... Which just baffles me...).

I hate throwing bottles in the trash of chemicals.... It's such a waste, but it will go bad before I use it again.

Moving on...

 

[Xmas]

I'm just tired and beat down.

Everything is manipulation to an extent.

I expect to make some practice prints before getting the right overall exposure, but I don't expect to spend hours dodging and burning.

Well Ilfsol 3 is horrible as a rotary process... Even my HP5+ inversion images in Ilfsol 3 are finer grained than my TMX rotary images in Ilfsol 3... (Except GAF film that was expired in the 60's which always seems to be finer grained than anything including TMY-2 and TMX... Which just baffles me...).

I hate throwing bottles in the trash of chemicals.... It's such a waste, but it will go bad before I use it again.

Moving on...

Continuous agitation was very likely to get you

more apparent grain
reduced edge effect

But all you need to do is ignore the grain.

You should have been told all three of these things, but the cure is stop looking at pixels.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

Don't beat yourself up.

You could look at this whole thing from the flip side of the coin and take a very simplistic approach. Darkroom printing and film photography is not exactly rocket science. But it is like chess. A minute to learn, a lifetime to master.

It is entirely possible to expose a piece of film just as Kodak and Ilford say in their manuals, and develop it in a generic developer according to their instructions. Then you can take that negative into the darkroom and make a print at some arbitrary Grade 3 contrast filtration on multigrade paper, and then develop it in Kodak/Ilford standard print developers, and you will get a print. It might be too bright, it might be too dark, but you will get a print. To begin that really is all you need to know.

With time, you will come to find out that you will want to improve how your print looks, with respect to contrast, tonality, size, certain areas might not look right to you while others do - in the same print, and so on. As you go along, you learn tricks for how to correct all of them. Some are very simple to correct, and others take a lot more practice.
But you know what? It's all fun, and if I were you I would absolutely RELISH the opportunity to be able to learn photography darkroom work as a new way of practicing photography. It is an incredible opportunity for you to take another step and become even better at what you do.

From what I've seen so far you are not a bad photographer at all. You just have to figure out what's important to you, and then focus on it and try to perfect it.

It takes time, but again, it's a really good time! It's a hell of a good time, especially if you have some good music going, and maybe some of your favorite libation at hand.

Cheer up, man. This is a wonderful opportunity for you to grow, just like all other darkroom workers once had. Give it time, be patient, and have fun!

- TB

Thank you as always Thomas (or do you prefer Tom?) you always have wisdom to share

Now off to purge and sell more gear...

I'll shoot more 4x5's the end of the week. And hopefully develop this weekend. (In DD-X).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you as always Thomas (or do you prefer Tom?) you always have wisdom to share

Now off to purge and sell more gear...

I'll shoot more 4x5's the end of the week. And hopefully develop this weekend. (In DD-X).

My mom always called me Thomas, and it wasn't until I moved to the US that people wanted to start calling me Tom.
That's an American habit I could never understand, but I really appreciate you asking! Very kind of you.
Thomas, if you don't mind.

I'm doing what you're doing, Stone. I'm getting rid of stuff I don't use. I'm keeping my Blad, the Zero pinhole, Leica, Canon EOS3, and that's it. Maybe the 5x7 can stay, but that's a major distraction for me.

Shooting is good! I'll be doing some printing this weekend. The last five days I've been ill with the flu, so it's nice to come out of it and feeling a bit more alive.
Hope you get some nice weather!

 

[Truzi]

Stone, I'd not toss the chemicals. Just because you are learning rotary doesn't mean you can't do inversion too. You'll just have to take more pictures to use up the chemicals before they go bad

If you must use the Jobo because of 4x5, just cork it and use inversion - it may use more developer than necessary this way, but at least it's not entirely going to waste.

 

[Chris Lange]

^^^ yes.

I frequently process two different loads of film at once, 3-4 rolls in my paterson multi, and a few rolls on the CPP2, means I get my pushing and normal processing done simultaneously.

 

[StoneNYC]

My mom always called me Thomas, and it wasn't until I moved to the US that people wanted to start calling me Tom.
That's an American habit I could never understand, but I really appreciate you asking! Very kind of you.
Thomas, if you don't mind.

I'm doing what you're doing, Stone. I'm getting rid of stuff I don't use. I'm keeping my Blad, the Zero pinhole, Leica, Canon EOS3, and that's it. Maybe the 5x7 can stay, but that's a major distraction for me.

Shooting is good! I'll be doing some printing this weekend. The last five days I've been ill with the flu, so it's nice to come out of it and feeling a bit more alive.
Hope you get some nice weather!

Feel better, and keep at least 1 LF please... Lol

I like 5x7 but mostly for using a 6x17 pano back

 

[StoneNYC]

^^^ yes.

I frequently process two different loads of film at once, 3-4 rolls in my paterson multi, and a few rolls on the CPP2, means I get my pushing and normal processing done simultaneously.

No wonder you have to spend so much time in the darkroom printing ...

 

[Chris Lange]

No wonder you have to spend so much time in the darkroom printing ...

actually I think this is why

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

actually I think this is why

Nice darkroom, Chris! If you had seen my man cave you would chuckle.

 

[StoneNYC]

actually I think this is why

Image doesn't show up

 

[Chris Lange]

actually I think this is why

...

 

[cjbecker]

actually I think this is why

Agree with Thomas, looks good and mine in embarrassing compared to yours. It is effective though.

 

[Dinesh]

actually I think this is why

It can't be a proper darkroom without a washer, dryer and multiple bags of hockey equipment.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm just tired and beat down.

Everything is manipulation to an extent.

I expect to make some practice prints before getting the right overall exposure, but I don't expect to spend hours dodging and burning.

Well Ilfsol 3 is horrible as a rotary process... Even my HP5+ inversion images in Ilfsol 3 are finer grained than my TMX rotary images in Ilfsol 3... (Except GAF film that was expired in the 60's which always seems to be finer grained than anything including TMY-2 and TMX... Which just baffles me...).

I hate throwing bottles in the trash of chemicals.... It's such a waste, but it will go bad before I use it again.

Moving on...

Is the contrast the same as the inversion processed ones?

I have never used Ilfosol but as long as I ad just the times for similar contrast I really can't tell a difference between my rotary and inversion processed negatives, using normal developers (D76 and T-Max in my case - I throw that in because I do use Diafine but not in rotary, and I wouldn't expect Rodinal style edge effects as we have already hashed out here.)

Especially if you don't use a pre-soak rotary times will usually need to be a bit less for the same contrast. If you don't adjust the time for similar contrast the contrastier rotary developed negatives will be somewhat over developed and likely to show more grain.

 

[cjbecker]

It can't be a proper darkroom without a washer, dryer and multiple bags of hockey equipment.

Or without the furnace/central air unit, Freezer, hot water heater, water softener and water pressure tank.

 

[StoneNYC]

Not sure my phone will display this large enough, if it doesn't I'll have to borrow my GF's laptop later tonight to post a better larger image.


Both in ilfsol 3 same lens, shot etc, except one stop change for film speed differences... Rotary

GAF 200 aerial



TMY-2

 

[CatLABS]

Looks like the TMY is a much longer exposure.

 

[StoneNYC]

Looks like the TMY is a much longer exposure.

Not MUCH longer, one stop longer...

 

[MattKing]

The TMY looks more to me like scanner aliasing than film grain.

But that doesn't do Stone much good, if he has to rely on that scanner to get what he needs.

 

[CatLABS]

Not MUCH longer, one stop longer...

So one has motion blur (moving subject and camera shake) and one has less. what are we looking at?