- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,398
- Format
- Medium Format
I can't look away.
I'm so weak!
I think I'll go and try pushing a rope up a tree, more satisfying.
Hi Dimeshwhere have you been hiding, I looked around Toronto to find you last Autumn
trendland, Beutler is going in entirely the wrong direction, it's a low energy high definition developer.
Ian
I just thinking aboutt grain
with regards
You're right Lachlan, Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were listed as "for portraits in artificial light" the H&D speed was 700 in Daylight, 200 with Tungsten lighting. They state it cuts the need for retouching
The reason for these special lower gradation plates was simple, plate development times were typically short a 1960's Ilfor Formulae book list 4½ mins in ID-2, compared to 4 mins for FP4, times were even shorter in ID-36/PQ Universal. So it was was difficult to control contrast just through exposure and development, particularly as there were no light meters when first introduced sometime around 1930. Ilford's Soft Gradation Panchromatic plates were a third of a stop faster than regular Fine grain panchromatic plates when introduced.
In 1924 Ilford only listed two Panchromatic plates and they were a lot slower, by the time Soft Gradation Panchromatic was introduced speeds had significantly increases it would be approx 160 EI (1/3 stop faster than FP3/4).
Foma Retro 320 films needs to be compared first to their other films where it has significantly softer gradation to the two I've used Fomapan 100 & 200. Because their own data-sheets don't use a standard developer for all films it's hard to know what difference there really is. Their special developer must be quite an active MQ developer something like ID-2 or ID-36 because the development times are much shorter than for Microphen according to the Retro 320 data sheet. So Retro 320 must be very significantly softer than the 100 & 200.
If I didn't have too much film in stock I might try a couple of rolls, but it'll have to wait.
Ian
The developer is far too low in contrast for the film and it's not a fine grain developer, it's a High Definition developer best use with finer grained films..
Ian
Cheers for the injection of sanity into this thread... The PQU recommendation looks interesting. May give it a shot - if I do, will report back. 6-7m at 1+19 sound about right for starting point?
....
The new Foma developer is no need todevelopment - so I ask why?
with regards
I'll be right back
I'd neeed to check my 1970's notebook. Sounds about right though, PQU gives fine grain surprisingly, I tested it with FP4 about 30 years ago, there's a speed loss that,s why Foma list Microphen.
Ian
Hi Dimeshwhere have you been hiding, I looked around Toronto to find you last Autumn
Cheers - it's also amazingly low fog for film developing too I recall.
Ilford's data has something to the effect of 1 stop loss with FP4, 1/3 stop with HP5 & Delta 100 and 1 2/3 with Ortho+. No idea why FP4 & Ortho lose much more effective speed than HP5 & Delta 100 - all I can think of is that Delta 100 & Hp5 have a similar-ish curve to each other which is different from Fp4, but that almost certainly has nothing to do with it. Handy for those complaining about a lack of a slow, fine grain LF film though - Ortho+ hits the heady heights of EI25 in daylight...
I'm starting to worry that Retro 320 gives off hallucinogenic fumes.
That was fast
has anyone tested Retropan with D-76?
Regards
Marcelo
has anyone tested Retropan with D-76?
Regards
Marcelo
Extrapolating from the Microphen numbers and the available data from Ilford for ID-11 & Microphen, times for stock D-76/ID11 might be 15-20% longer than Microphen. From what I recall from elsewhere, the EI320 times reach approx 0.52 contrast index & the EI640 are in the 0.56 range. With the rest of their films, Foma regard 0.65-ish range as normal contrast. 12-20 mins with full strength D-76 at 20c might be sort of the right ballpark to equate to the Microphen times. Maybe even towards 30 mins. D76/ID11 shadow speed will generally be 2/3 stop slower than Microphen. Other than that, differences between D76 & Microphen are very small in the tonality department, everything else being equal.
The company isn't wrong about their product... I(m sure they use a standard to rate their products. Have you considered, its more about how you use it that makes the biggest difference?
Not everyone likes box speeds, or uses a particular developer to process. Push, pull, over expose/under develop, under expose/over develope... its all about YOU, not the film.
After all, its YOUR print in the end that will reflect your creativeness using a certain material, not the manufacturer. How do you want to interpret your image that bends the rules, but, it is very personal and unique to each photographer... not a scientific standard.
Now lets see some of your photos to show us how you like to use it?
PS; Trendland, where are you calling from? I have the feeling English is not your first language?
9,5 min. in D-76 stock Marcelo
but grain and tonals? ?.
with regards
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?