Comprehensive Study of Current C-41, B&W, E-6, & RA-4 Products

[FilmIs4Ever]

Right, now that I've enhanced slightly your knowledge, as per your request (although this is something you could have easily found yourself, had you spent time reading the manufacturers' website) may I voice an opinion?

I think you are a dilettante, and that you have neither the stamina, nor even the sense of a realistic horizon in your testing. You will never complete this project, ever, because you will abandon it after a few attempts.
QUOTE]

While I appreciate your finding lists from Kodak and Fuji and Ilford, I already have their films.

I'm concerned about testing all OTHER films available, which aren't as clear-cut as Kodak/Fuji.

I'm not going to complete this project? No, probably not since all I am getting is negative criticizm.

My purpose isn't establishing ALL developers made. There are literally thousands out there. That absolutely would be an impossible test.

Testing all manufactured films though? Not so difficult. Quite doable. I have all of the equipment at my disposal except for the MTF charts (which is, by the way, what I am currently researching). I have a studio, lights, suitable cameras, interchangeable 120 film backs, MY OWN C-41 machine, a reputable slide processor, my own B&W darkroom, and you think I am going to fail? I am going to have twice as hard a time with everyone posting something negative in their responses, but you aren't going to dissuade or prevent me from running this test. Some of you guys on here are really friggin' depressing, and by not helping me in my attempts to survey the range of available B&W film developers, you are further complicating the difficulties I face in narrowing down the list of B&W developers.

I've gotten lot of flack for testing Agfa products. They may not be available even when I get around to shooting this test (probalby not until Spring of next year), but I have heard there is still a sizeable surplus, and the more stocks I test, the more knowledge everyone gains.

Frankly, I can't believe no one trusts the validity of such a test. The actual photography is mind-numbingly easy. Processing not that much more difficult. The hard part is actually coming up with the money to buy all the film and chemistry and performing various iterations of pushing and pulling different stocks. It will also be very time consuming to conduct such a test.

There are certain avenues of testing that will have to be somehow limited or constrained. Without imput, it does become impossible to do a test including EVERY developer.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

My purpose isn't establishing ALL developers made. There are literally thousands out there. That absolutely would be an impossible test.

Testing all manufactured films though? Not so difficult. Quite doable. I have all of the equipment at my disposal except for the MTF charts (which is, by the way, what I am currently researching). I have a studio, lights, suitable cameras, interchangeable 120 film backs, MY OWN C-41 machine, a reputable slide processor, my own B&W darkroom, and you think I am going to fail? I am going to have twice as hard a time with everyone posting something negative in their responses, but you aren't going to dissuade or prevent me from running this test. Some of you guys on here are really friggin' depressing, and by not helping me in my attempts to survey the range of available B&W film developers, you are further complicating the difficulties I face in narrowing down the list of B&W developers.

I've gotten lot of flack for testing Agfa products. They may not be available even when I get around to shooting this test (probalby not until Spring of next year), but I have heard there is still a sizeable surplus, and the more stocks I test, the more knowledge everyone gains.

Frankly, I can't believe no one trusts the validity of such a test. The actual photography is mind-numbingly easy. Processing not that much more difficult. The hard part is actually coming up with the money to buy all the film and chemistry and performing various iterations of pushing and pulling different stocks. It will also be very time consuming to conduct such a test.

There are certain avenues of testing that will have to be somehow limited or constrained. Without imput, it does become impossible to do a test including EVERY developer.

OK, you're not as crazy as I thought, so what I would suggest is that you start looking for threads in APUG about Efke, Adox, Foma, Bergger, Forte, Arista, Maco, and Rollei films. These are the main contenders in the rebranding game.

See for instance:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If you email Freestyle, you will be surprised to find that they are generally forthright in telling you which manufacturer makes which Arista product. Given that all Arista films and papers are rebranded, I would simply write them off your list.

Real second-tier manufacturers include Foma (Czech), Slavich (Russia), Efke (Croatia), the now defunct Forte (Hungary), and the Lucky/Shanghai/Shantou (China) guys.

Fotoimpex is going to be a player to be reckoned with. They have acquired the Agfa film and paper formulas, and the beta paper I received from them was peachy. Right now they sell products under the ADOX brand which come mainly from European sources, some of which are rebranded. Send an email to Mirko Boeddecker (www.fotoimpex.de) to unravel the products if you need. Mirko also hangs on APUG under the name "ADOX FOTOIMPEX" and provides lots of useful information.

Maco and Rollei are weird joes. On the one hand, they are mostly packagers/brander, but on the other hand they bring to the market "new" products (like films from Agfa-Gevaert that had little use but were tweaked for the consumer. Their recent Tech Pan clone seems to be an example of this). Again, go to their web pages, look at their products, and CONTACT THEM. Do your homework before blaming the APUG people for not feeding you all the information.

As for developer, you have two choices: on the one hand, D-76, as it said to be the developer for which all films (except specialty ones) behave well. On the other hand, pick up the ISO film standard (Google...) and you will find the formula for a standard developer which is used to determine ISO speed.

As far as "vanilla developers" go, this is it. There is also XTOL, which is in the same class as D-76, but it's more recent, and it might be harder to find starting times.

If you want to know everything about film developers to make an informed choice, go read the Film Developing Cookbook, it's one of the best resource. After that, go to your local library or most likely a university library, and find a copy of Grant Haist's "Modern Film Processing" a 1500+ two-tome book detailing all the gory details of film production. Technically speaking, it's an introductory text. You will find a lot of useful and rather current information about developers. In fact, if you read both the Cookbook and Haist, you will find that there is a lot of overlap.

I've listed all the developers from Kodak and Ilford. You might want to look at those sold at Photographer's Formulary, as they represent a very popular set of "alternative" developers.

Now that should get you started...

 

[RobC]

and remember that each film format will behave differently so tests should be done for 35mm 120 4x5 etc.
And since most people don't have rotary processors but a a fair few do, tests should be done for both rotary and hand processing and for sheet film also tray processing.

 

[srs5694]

I'm not going to complete this project? No, probably not since all I am getting is negative criticizm.

By and large, you've been getting constructive criticism and suggestions for how to tweak your procedure. You might want to consider that your attitude is putting off people who really would like to help you.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

After all the time I spent typing my reply to your thread last night, I'm wondering how it got converted to "negative criticizm" in your head? ;-)
Best of luck on the project,
Jed

 

[Photo Engineer]

and remember that each film format will behave differently so tests should be done for 35mm 120 4x5 etc.
And since most people don't have rotary processors but a a fair few do, tests should be done for both rotary and hand processing and for sheet film also tray processing.

This is not entirely true. Sorry.

The tests as outlined will show the relative differences which are entirely valid and so although you are correct that 35mm and 120 are different in many ways, 35 to 35 with the same film and process will show their relative merits. Of course, micro and macro contrast will impinge on the results and therefore it is best to test 35mm vs 35mm and 4x5 against 35mm in a limited number of comparisons to show what effect the micro vs macro will have.

Rotary and hand processing again are different, but the relative differences between the same film in rotary vs rotary are valid, and as above rotary vs hand will show the difference induced by process.

PE

 

[RobC]

What you say is correct but that is not what I meant.
Most people looking at these results are going to want to know how long they need to develop their film to get the quoted results. Hand processing, rotary processing and tray processing will all have different times. Therefore, to be immediately useable by someone looking at the results, those numbers need to be accurately tested. Otherwise you are looking at approx adjustments for different processing methods in which case you may just as well look up the dev times in the massive dev chart.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rob;

The relative differences in time among the various methods will be usable as a starting point, but in general I use the same times for tank, reel and drum and get the same results. This is particularly true of color film, say C41, where I use 3' 15" at 100 F for all methods and they all work. Same thing for B&W. But, I always use a pre-wet which is a 'leveling' step in film development that most people ignore.

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I would like to post a question. Since most people have variances in metering equipment, metering technique, inaccuracies in shutter speeds in their camera, and invariably will have thermometers that measure chemistry temperature with variance - isn't the point academic? What good will it do in the real world?
- Thomas

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thomas;

You are correct. However, if you repeat yourself time and again, you will get good quality. If you are sloppy in lab technique, then the differences will show up. And, any differences in comparison tests will still be valid relative to each other. This is what we found at EK.

PE

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Well, I wouldn't be using metering, per se, I'd be using lights that were of a known light output (within a given percentage of error) and would then find the correct actual speed of the films to give proper exposure using ND filters. I forget what the gamma of an 18% grey card is off the top of my head, but with proper processing techniques (using a calibrated thermometer), filtered water, it's possible to get damned close to the actual value. F/stops are, to my understanding, very accurate with prime lenses, so I am going to trust that F/8 is really F/8 on the primes I'll be using. That is about the only assumption I am going to take in testing. Even there it is possible to actually determine the F/stop as a function of the diameter of the aperture opening to the measured focal length of the lens.

I guess it is a valid point that my results will probalby be far different than most of the posters that seem to be involved here. I don't use unfiltered water with God-knows what in it, uncalibrated light meters, uncalibrated thermometers, and non-certified labs. . .

I honestly can't believe that some of you who have posted don't see the benefits of having an optimal test with calibrated equipment as being something that you can derive useful information.

That is like saying "Well, this particular lens test is of no use to me because I never clean my lens and the dust on my lens makes it completely different than your dusted, factory-fresh lens of the same design." Are some of you people who have responded really serious about what you are saying? Some of the things posted here bespeak a fundamental ignorance of scientific testing, error percentage calculations (I plan to include error percentages, as no test, no matter how accurate and precise, can EVER be free of all error), and the scientific method of eliminating variables. Just because I do not wear a lab coat and work at a laboratory does not automatically eliminate my ability to eliminate variables and therefore produce useful, accurate results.

The only thing I am doing different than a scientific study is choosing to include real-world tests of films (i.e. having a measure of practical use by using a model in addition to shooting just charts) in addition to the standard MTF charts. If anything, this makes the study more sound rather than less sound.

But again, I am seeking imput as to what B&W developers to include. I believe there are only one or two posts that have actually addressed this. All I personally care to test are D-76 and HC-110. It makes the testing substantially cheaper if I only have two B&W developers to work with, but it eliminates a lot of opportunity to do useful comparisons of developers and allows this constant unproven speculation as to the "best" B&W developer to continue.

Someone posted about an ISO standard developer. I have never heard or seen anything about this. I have done internet searches without success in finding its formula. I would have thought D-76 would be the standard here, as it is described as giving the finest grain without speed loss.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Karl;

The relative differences between your tests are what are most important. Never forget that.

An 18% gray card doesn't have a gamma because it is a single point. Gamma is a dD/dLogE ratio.

There is, IIRC and ANSI standard which contains Elon and Ascorbic Acid. It is a one shot developer, and would be totally useless here. But, I'm not sure, just that this developer is some sort of industry standard that is not commercially used.

PE

 

[RobC]

filmis4ever,
Can you explain to me what you mean by "actual ISO value" of a film?
How do you think a film manufaturer arrives at an ISO value for their films?
Why do you think some film manufacturers quote EI values for their film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rob;

I know. Actually, ISO and EI are not all that different. They just describe a different part of the scale of the film.

PE

 

[RobC]

I know you know but the question wasn't directed at you.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rob;

Karl attended one of my workshops and in it I describe how to derive ISO or ASA empirically. So, I know that he knows how to do it, unless he was asleep in that session.

PE

 

[RobC]

So what is being done here? Trying to determine the "actual ISO value" suggests the manufacturers can't do it for themselves. Anything we determine for ourselves is our own EI and using the ISO standard crtieria to see what figure we get for ourselves is a pointless exercise or at best purely academic. It has no value to the world at large since we already know what the manufacturers ISO is and we only use that as a starting point for our own tests to work out our personal EI.

I just don't see the value of it as a marketable excercise. For personal use by the tester or as a purely academic learning exercise for the tester then sure it has some value, but for the world at large I think not.

And any serious amateur and up will do their own testing anyway, regardless of some unverified published results from an enthusiast.

I'm not being negative here. Purely realistic.

So go ahead with the tests for your own personal satisfaction but don't expect anyone to accept them as accurate. Afterall, we all think the manufacturers can't get it right with their millions of pounds of research funding through the years, so why should we think your results will be any more accurate