Yes, same exposure, exposed within a few seconds of each other. I generally expose at box speed.
All things taken into consideration, but it's still better than words...The two negatives cannot really be compared unless they were developed to the same contrast index. The negative on the right appears more contrasty. Scans are also difficult to interpret, especially on screen. Just some variables to look out for.
As for believing hype, I don't. I'm a huge skeptic by nature... if I'm not happy with a new developer, film, camera, I just won't use it, even if most swear by it. I want to try things myself to see what results I can get.
The difference on my screen is subtle indeed, and I'm not expecting anything more than a +/-5% difference in 'quality' anyways. But I'm picky, and equally curious, so I have to explore a bit before 'settling'. Thanks for the examples! It seems the XTOL is off the bat more striking because of the more apparent contrast, but it just seems to me that the pyro HD has better curves, giving the effect of less contrast even if it may not be the case. I guess these two frames were exposed the exact same way?
The only thing really proved in the examples is that there are different paths to essentially the same print.All things taken into consideration, but it's still better than words...
Absolutely.The ultimate test for me will have to be using the developer myself: with my subject matters, cameras, technique, etc...
looking forward to how you like it.This is interesting! I will try this out...
As for believing hype, I don't. I'm a huge skeptic by nature... if I'm not happy with a new developer, film, camera, I just won't use it, even if most swear by it. I want to try things myself to see what results I can get.
The ultimate test for me will have to be using the developer myself: with my subject matters, cameras, technique, etc...
Have you done this with Multigrade? Or know if the starting point for time/dilution would be a similar formula to the Ansco 130 and Dektol example you gave?looking forward to how you like it.
i like it becasue i don't have to have handfuls of developers and it streamlines everything.
I feel like the most hype these days is the 'stick to one developer!' kind! haha! I'm kidding. It is a logical decision.yep, hype is over rated .. hope my suggestions don't become part of the chorus of hype
Sorry, I guess I didnt mention this. Multigrade developer is what I was asking about!i have done this for negatives printed on multi grade paper
With regard to "snappy" I'll take a guess that that means "the negs looks more like slides in Rodinal than D76".-D-76 smoother grain, better tonality, better speed
-Rodinal, sharp as hell, grainy as hell, 'snappy' as hell, and about 1/3 stop slower in general (perhaps just under box speed if not right on) [I don't have a densitometer, but my zone one exposure did retain detail really well]
Very unlikely, your result is an outlier. It probably means the way you metered for the test it worked fine at 200, that's actually important to know. I find I can use FP4 nicely at EI250 in some situations but that doesn't make it a 250 speed film, just means it has some latitude.-FP4 is a 200 speed film in D-76 (Great news!) and about 150 in Rodinal.
The fog may have come from a variety of sources, age, flare...-FP4 Has a very clear base, Delta is quite a foggy film in both, HP5 is much foggier in Rod than in D-76 (about as foggy as the Deltas for the Rodinal and about as clear as the FP4 in either)
If you are looking at a positive to make that judgement I think that you'll find that the process of making a positive allows that with most any film.-Delta doesn't seem to 'shine' in Rodinal as much as the others do, but I must say, the effect is interesting and it's something I can see myself coming back to
To a certain extent you need to remember that at the beginning of your journey here there is a luck of the draw thing probably going on, over time you will be able to make printing easy with most any film. That said, FP4 has been one of the easiest films for me to work with.-FP4 is a dream to print for me. Love this film.
'Snappy' simply means more impact. Mostly due to Sharpness/edge contrast/grain. Whitest white and blackest blacks were printed the same. Snappy refers to everything in between. My snappy-meter is the excitement level reached in my brain when it sees something that stands out - and that doesn't necessarily mean it's better or even preferred overall.With regard to "snappy" I'll take a guess that that means "the negs looks more like slides in Rodinal than D76".
In a practical sense it simply sounds like you may have either overdeveloped the Rodinal negs or underdeveloped the D76 negs. Negatives developed to the same CI tend to have similar snappiness regardless of which developer is used.
I metered with the same meter, and used accurate cameras. What's the difference between usable latitude and true speed? I placed a section on zone I and got loads of detail at 100, and near black at 200 in the D-76. Wouldn't that mean speed? Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, what's the point of rating it at such a slow speed if it's only perhaps 1 stop away from 400 rather than 1 2/3 difference?Very unlikely, your result is an outlier. It probably means the way you metered for the test it worked fine at 200, that's actually important to know. I find I can use FP4 nicely at EI250 in some situations but that doesn't make it a 250 speed film, just means it has some latitude.
I thought my message was fairly clear, but it can be improved:The fog may have come from a variety of sources, age, flare...
Was there a difference in fog between D76 and Rodinal? HP5 and Delta 400?
Allows what? To shine? I say 'shine' also in a very unclear way. Deltas are known to be less grainy than traditional films, yet in the Rodinal, there was very little difference in amount of grain but a big difference in grain structure, and a very weird grain structure indeed. Don't know if clumpy is a good word to use. It felt kind of rough. I had included in my tests a large portion of empty wall space, with varying degrees of light upon it to see how the grain reacts at different exposures when it's 'lost in space'. The Delta was definitely not the winner in this situation, although interesting to say the least. The HP5 in Rodinal looked nothing like it. I actually really enjoy HP5 in Rodinal. The D-76/Delta Combo works great.If you are looking at a positive to make that judgement I think that you'll find that the process of making a positive allows that with most any film.
To a certain extent you need to remember that at the beginning of your journey here there is a luck of the draw thing probably going on, over time you will be able to make printing easy with most any film. That said, FP4 has been one of the easiest films for me to work with.
Film speeds typically have a safety factor built in on the underside, simply put if you underexpose a little there will typically still be shadow detail to print. Shooting FP4 at 200 is typically within the underexposure latitude range, you are simply using up the safety factor. There's overexposure latitude too.I metered with the same meter, and used accurate cameras. What's the difference between usable latitude and true speed? I placed a section on zone I and got loads of detail at 100, and near black at 200 in the D-76. Wouldn't that mean speed? Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, what's the point of rating it at such a slow speed if it's only perhaps 1 stop away from 400 rather than 1 2/3 difference?
Kodak D76 or Ilford ID11 are hard to beatI agree with you that it can be really easy to get caught up in the technicalities and forget about 'learning one inside out'. But before I settle on one, I would like to know a few more options. I would really like to explore (just a bit) and ask for advice on what I'm looking for. I've mentioned my criteria and now wondering if there are better options for me given my very little experience with various chemicals.
I am having fun with photography, and since I've fairly new to this, I find the search a whole lot of fun as well. I almost didn't try FP4 because I thought I didn't need it... well am I ever happy I used it! I'm not a pro photographer that will be running huge amounts of tests (yet).
If I find that I really like a new developer more than my HC-110, I will likely stick to it and learn that one inside out.
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?