Regarding tabular grain films, we know based on John Sexton's involvement that D-76 was the test/release developer for Kodak's T-Max films. Similarly when it comes to Ilford's Delta films, Ilford still recommends ID-11. Fuji's Acros falls under the same general category.
XTOL was essentially the first (and last) solvent developer to "beat" the D-76-type when it comes to the overall balance of granularity/sharpness/speed, and the improvement is very slight.
Don't pay too much attention to Anchell when it comes to films/photochemistry/theory. His book is best used as a reference for accurate historical formulae.
For the record, I've developed Rollei Retro 80S in dilute homebrew Perceptol and probably got a true ISO40. Not box speed, has a pronounced S curve, but perfectly usable. Actually looks very nice. I wouldn't call Perceptol exotic. Given some testing, I'd bet that it gives good results in D76 too, but not at box speed.
Rodinal and many other developers may give excellent results with t-grain films. I was just addressing OPs assertion there are films which "behave badly" in D-76. General purpose t-grain films wouldn't fall into that category. Of course there might be some specific and/or special purpose films which don't work in a D-76 type developer, but I cannot think of a general purpose film which would fall into that category.
Today, there is a variety of film types and emulsion types. Film types can be single emulsion, mixed emulsion ( 2 or 3) or double coated emulsion (2 or 3). The emulsions can be single run, single run ammonia digest, double run or double run controlled. They can be further divided by being bromide or bromo/iodide, and the latter can be uniform or core shell. The grains may be Kgrain (klunkers of any size and shape), they may be cubic, octahedral, t-grain, triangular (Ilford Delta). The curves can be straight or bumpy, or may sag downward or bow upward (the latter two being characteristics of older emulsions). The older emulsions may be polydispersed and the newer ones may be monodispersed.
Manufacturers generally don't tell us any of the above.
There, did that help anyone?
My final statement will summarize - they all go through D76 or its analogs very well. They also tolerate Xtol and HC110.
PE
My final statement will summarize - they all go through D76 or its analogs very well. They also tolerate Xtol and HC110.
PE
My association is that I smile as I consider the mental image of all the neighbours wondering about what us photographers are "building in there" as we mix our "potions" and waive our hands in the dark magically over our creations.I am not a fan of Tom Waits, but what is your association about exactly, Matt? Is it about the repetitive nature of the song, or is it as in "I am getting suspicious of the true agenda of the original poster?"
I agree Ian. I keep mentioning that chart myself! I just hate to keep re-mentioning it. These developers work well for all films. The user should determine which two of these (speed, grain or sharpness) they wish to emphasize in any particular exposure.
PE
I am sorry, this chart is a deception. It does not say which films were included. Besides, the phrase starting with "factors" is such that no one can dispute the results. They will say you were unable to adhere to proper conditions. This chart looks like it was made to push XTOL over the older recipes.Do you mean this one??
View attachment 188457
I am sorry, this chart is a deception. It does not say which films were included. Besides, the phrase starting with "factors" is such that no one can dispute the results. They will say you were unable to adhere to proper conditions. This chart looks like it was made to push XTOL over the older recipes.
Agreed, Matt. In reality many of these differences are very slight. For example when it comes to emulsion speed, the total distance along the Kodak "slider" is a small fraction of a stop.
The charts for reference:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ilm-developer-characteristic-matrices.138642/
XTOL's slight edge in "DQE" (or basically the grain/speed/sharpness triad) over D-76 was documented by its formulators. It is the most up-to-date solvent developer we have at our disposal.
Well, of those available in Canada, which groups are those in:
1. Current Rollei Films, 80S, 400S, RPX series, ATP 1.1, Superpan
2. Current Adox films, i.e. Silvermax.
3. Current ORWO films, UN 54 and UN 74
4. Current assorted BW, like Ultrafine Extreme series
5. Bergger Pancro
6. Fujifilm Acros
There are more, only available in Europe.
As for D-76, I shall not be repeating Riuji Suzuki's article "75 years of D-76". There was also a related very long thread here that I personally enjoyed very much. If one reads the Jacobsons' book a little between the lines, they question the overabundance of formulas, which in their opinion can be reduced to a few, and that "fine-grain developers" of a certain kind are not really advantageous to even the films available in the 1970s. But this will drive us away from the subject of films.
It is true that today's films are less grainy (especially t-grain films, and in particular, Kodak's t-grain films) so it can be argued there is less need for solvent action in a developer. In that case, dilute the solvent developer, or use a non-solvent developer. With respect to Rodinal and graininess, all other things being equal it should be grainier than a stock or mildly diluted solvent developer. But this is a touchy subject.
Do you mean this one??
View attachment 188457
I am sorry, this chart is a deception. It does not say which films were included. Besides, the phrase starting with "factors" is such that no one can dispute the results. They will say you were unable to adhere to proper conditions. This chart looks like it was made to push XTOL over the older recipes.
It is true that today's films are less grainy (especially t-grain films, and in particular, Kodak's t-grain films) so it can be argued there is less need for solvent action in a developer. In that case, dilute the solvent developer, or use a non-solvent developer. With respect to Rodinal and graininess, all other things being equal it should be grainier than a stock or mildly diluted solvent developer. But this is a touchy subject.
That chart is generic based on film emulsion properties themselves and although the absolution results may vary, the relative results are as depicted in the chart. For anyone to dispute it, I would have to hear their test methods and see their data.
PE
I totally agree, that chart also matches many comparative tests I've done over the years with more than one film and Xtol ID11 (D76), Tmax,and HC110 developers. The differences in terms of sharpness and grain aren't really noticeable with 120 or LF but are quite obvious with 35mm, the differences in shadow detail etc are noticeable regardless of the format.
In one way it's a touch unfair on Microdol-X where Kodak recommended using down rating film speed by a full stop, the same as Ilford's Perceptol, it doesn't reflect the now common use of using these developers dilute, where there's a very slight (barely noticeable) increase in grain but significant increase in sharpness. It does highlight the down sides to HC110 in terms of overall loss of speed and increased grain compared to Xtol.
Back in the 1980's looking for a better developer to replace ID-11/D76 along with 2 other commercial photographer we tried HC110, it was before the release of Xtol, we were all quite unimpressed. Instead we moved to Adox Borax MQ (replenished) but the disadvantage was I had to mix up batches of developer and replenisher for the other two and later we'd moved to separate locations, It would have similar characteristics to Xtol on the Kodak comparison chart. Ironically it was commercially available as Fotokemia FR-2 but not distributed outside the Eastern Block.
Ian
I totally agree, that chart also matches many comparative tests I've done over the years with more than one film and Xtol ID11 (D76), Tmax,and HC110 developers. The differences in terms of sharpness and grain aren't really noticeable with 120 or LF but are quite obvious with 35mm, the differences in shadow detail etc are noticeable regardless of the format.
In one way it's a touch unfair on Microdol-X where Kodak recommended using down rating film speed by a full stop, the same as Ilford's Perceptol, it doesn't reflect the now common use of using these developers dilute, where there's a very slight (barely noticeable) increase in grain but significant increase in sharpness. It does highlight the down sides to HC110 in terms of overall loss of speed and increased grain compared to Xtol.
Back in the 1980's looking for a better developer to replace ID-11/D76 along with 2 other commercial photographer we tried HC110, it was before the release of Xtol, we were all quite unimpressed. Instead we moved to Adox Borax MQ (replenished) but the disadvantage was I had to mix up batches of developer and replenisher for the other two and later we'd moved to separate locations, It would have similar characteristics to Xtol on the Kodak comparison chart. Ironically it was commercially available as Fotokemia FR-2 but not distributed outside the Eastern Block.
Ian
These are brands of film and not types.
The Rollei and Ultrafine films are rebrands of other films. AFAIK Rollei does not manufacture any films.
Isn't bringing in a 16mm film into your argument kind of extreme? And where in the world does one get a double-X film today?making an 8x10 from 16mm double x - a solvent developer gives much less grain than rodinal for me so I'd say they are still invaluable.
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?