A comment by Ian in his post really resonated with me and reflects much wisdom. (Quote) "A lot is down to the talents of the printer, I'd say (...) In the case of the Kertesz work the papers really needed just weren't available to modern printers, and who ever printed from his negatives had no clue how to emulate them. The difference is AA only used Bromide papers while Kertesz's early prints were on long gone Warm tome papers and look stark and unnatural on Bromide (if you've seen earlier versions)"
I agree. A few years ago I saw a Kertesz exhibition in Melbourne, which was printed on modern ("gicle", the loathsome yuppie term for inkjet) paper. The work was crap. Lacking in tonality, without the sparkle of images on traditional papers, not even sharp. It was so bad, I was left with the suspicion that the exhibitors (a private gallery, which will remain unnamed) had copied the images from a book. No sales were made, I believe. The gallery is now closed.
The term 'retro' was dreamed up by a group of merketers. You will see such statements as 'silver rich' or that a film has a certain look. It's all mainly nonsense to sell an older technology film as something special.
If one believes that everything on the net is true then I have some prime real estate in south Florida. Contact me during the dry season.
Nah, pretty much any continuous-tone developer will work with any continuous-tone film. The exceptions would be obsolete formulas such as Kodak DK20, which contained a small amount of fixer (sodium thiosulphate). It causes dichroic fog with modern films.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/formula.php?FormulaID=136
My post was on the term 'retro' and not on quality of a specific film.
So Adox CHS II is blue sensitive? This is just weird. I don't get the remark about the delta/TMax films either.
Depends on the edition of the Darkroom Cookbook. The 1st edition was full of errors. Anchell uses the term 'classic' not 'retro.' Their meanings are not identical. Retro applies more to the look of the film while classic the type of emulsion. AFAIK there are no unsensitized films for the amateur market. There are a few cine intermediate films not intended for in camera use. I have a copy of the Darkroom Cookbook and found it so full of mistakes that I don't even use it anymore.
Look at the following ADOX publication. It shows the film is sensitive into the red region of the spectrum.
So Anchell's opinion that stand development produces dichroic fog in high speed films is not accurate?Modern films are less prone to dichroic fog due to the newer addenda used when making the emulsion.
PE
Please do. if even you did that before, an update would be nice.I would not rely on those classes at all as being descriptive of anything at all regarding film or paper emulsions. The fourth is a fantasy as all color emulsions are black and white emulsions.
I think I have described these classes elsewhere, but if not I can easily do so.
PE
So Anchell's opinion that stand development produces dichroic fog in high speed films is not accurate?
Please do. if even you did that before, an update would be nice.
Actually, I do not see a problem that each film would require a different developer to reveal its release characteristics. Especially since soon there will be only a few films left on the market. But would not it be good to know that a) there is a reference developer which is used during production (you said for Kodak it is still D-76) and b) that specific developers are most useful for certain films. Then it would be nice to know the film groups, too. I know (from reading Crawley) that developer creators aiming for commercial use strived to produce a "uiniversal" formula as much as possible, but there is no such constraint when one mixes a developer from scratch. Crawley was well aware from experience that there are film groups that respond differently to the same developer, but his groups are obsolete today. Oddly, you keep avoiding a direct answer to Anchel's statement about T-grain films. His group division may not be a correct one, but it guides within the context of his book to support his statement that T-grain films were marketed as a step forward, while not everybody accepted that. It is just his opinion, and I am asking for alternative ones, not that you reveal trade secrets. May I humbly remind that we are talking about a contemporary "cookbook"?Well, in point of fact, all Kodak films went through one developer (D76) for release. When I retired, there was some talk of changing to HC110, but the point is that all films are tested before sale for adherence to their main characteristics of speed, contrast, grain and sharpness. This means that all films, regardless of emulsion type have to go through one narrow funnel so to speak. With color, each component emulsion has to pass the same test before coating and then the films go through their respective color processes after coating for similar release tests.
The identical test regardless of emulsion type should tell us something about their response, right? If they responded differently, then each film would require a different developer to reveal its release characteristics. However, that being said, one must remember that speed, sharpness and grain are the triad of qualities that each developer / film combination is capable of. You can vary the developer or agitation to optimize any two of those three.
PE
With the exception of certain special purpose developers (such as the ones designed to permit pictorial work using high contrast, line oriented films) all developers will give useful results with all standard films.
Where there are differences between developers, they relate to one or more factors similar to the following:
1) how they balance the factors of speed, contrast, grain and sharpness;
2) how suitable they are for different types of processing - one-shot in small tanks, tray developing, rotary processing, deep tanks and replenishment, roller transport, etc.;
3) how stable they are and how easy they are to keep within tolerances in a high volume commercial environment;
4) how toxic they are to handle;
5) how easy they are to ship and mix;
6) how available their constituent components are;
7) how likely they are to cause certain problems in certain environments (e.g. dichroic fog and sheet films); and
7) how expensive they are to make and use.
You will note that with the exception of things like being prone to create dichroic fog with sheet films, there is nothing in that list that leads to a conclusion that any particular developer is unsuitable for any particular film.
Some developers might result in more grain than you might like. Other developers might result in lower sharpness and speed than you might like. Other developers might result in contrast that isn't suitable for your intended use, but in each case the differences are qualitative and in many cases subjective, rather than determinative and completely objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?