Favorite developer for Plus X Pan?

[df cardwell]

Plus X

1968 ~ 1978

Shot it 2 ways.

Normal, Rodinal

Pushed to 500, in D-76 1+1

Wonderful stuff.

 

[df cardwell]

Plus-X has the same curve, but has been consistently improved.
Essential nature, unchanged.

 

[DLawson]

What the hell is "post processing"?

Paint or stain. Depends on the look you want and what the post is made of.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Paint or stain. Depends on the look you want and what the post is made of.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Steve

 

[bdial]

Paint or stain. Depends on the look you want and what the post is made of.

Oh, I thought it was toning or something. Thanks for setting us straight.

 

[cooltouch]

What the hell is "post processing"?

Heh. Sorry, forgot this was APUG. I don't have a wet darkroom anymore. So I do my image enhancements with image processing software instead of an enlarger with burning and dodging techniques. I find I waste a helluva lot less paper this way.

 

[cooltouch]

Something digital shooter do to save an otherwise bad image. I do not see why it was needed to be done since we a looking at a scanned negative.

Actually, it wasn't scanned -- it was duped. I can't afford a dedicated film scanner that has the capability to maximize the resolution of film, so I've rigged up a slide duplicator to use with my DSLR. It also has a film stage, so I can shoot dupes of negatives (or unmounted slides), and then reverse the negatives in my image processing software.

I get substantially better copies of my images using my duplicator rig than I do with a scanner. However, even my 10mp DSLR is not able to fully resolve all the detail that my 35mm slides and negatives have. But it's the best I can do for now.

But as to why I did some slight post-processing, it was because I saw the image that was being veiled by the media's shortcomings. So I bought it to the fore.

Just so's ya know.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The last images you posted in this thread show the one drawback of D-76. Did you notice that there was an area of the image of the back of the station wagon that was oddly blurred? Sure, the blurred area was rectangular and about the same dimensions of the obscured license plate. I'm certain though, that the blurring was an artifact of development. D-76 is not nearly exotic enough for me. That very lack of exoticness is also the reason why the developer selectively scrambles the grain on your negative.

If I were you, I'd go to Photographers Formulary and order the most expensive dry chemical that develops film, spend a couple of months perfecting a formula that actually works, write an article about it that includes hundreds of pages of test data, defend your new formula against all scoffers... and then drop it favor of

D-76. D-76 is a great developer that has been around for 30+ years for a good reason. It works well with Kodak film.

 

[cooltouch]

The last images you posted in this thread show the one drawback of D-76. Did you notice that there was an area of the image of the back of the station wagon that was oddly blurred? Sure, the blurred area was rectangular and about the same dimensions of the obscured license plate. I'm certain though, that the blurring was an artifact of development. D-76 is not nearly exotic enough for me. That very lack of exoticness is also the reason why the developer selectively scrambles the grain on your negative.

If I were you, I'd go to Photographers Formulary and order the most expensive dry chemical that develops film, spend a couple of months perfecting a formula that actually works, write an article about it that includes hundreds of pages of test data, defend your new formula against all scoffers... and then drop it favor of

D-76. D-76 is a great developer that has been around for 30+ years for a good reason. It works well with Kodak film.

:rolleyes: