• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Full-speed compensating developer

cbphoto

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
406
Location
NYC
Format
35mm RF
I've been using Rodinal and Tri-x for years, and I'm looking to experiment with some alternatives that will allow me to shoot a bit higher than 200. I usually rate around 200-400 depending on the subject, but I want to do more available light stuff.

I've read countless threads about Acufine, Microphen, and Diafine, and how they are able to provide the full shadow capabilities of Tri-x. My question is, which of the three, or any other (no matter how weird or exotic), will also have the most compensating effect and mimic the sharp grain pattern of Rodinal. In other words, I want the look of Rodinal but not the speed loss.

Thanks in advance.
 
Most developers used for their compensating effect are somewhat dilute. I found that shooting Panatomic-X at 64 and developing it in Edwal FG-7 at 1:15 with plain water (no extra SS) gave some compensation as well as high sharpness. Rodinal is too grainy with Tri-X for my taste. It's OK for 120 Tri-X if you don't enlarge too much. The current version of Tri-X is the best yet. It has good sharpness and pretty fine grain too. To get finer grain at that speed you can try TMY2. Some possibilities for Tri-X are: Microphen - undiluted, D-76 1:1 or 1:2 and Microdol-X 1:3. You can always shoot Tri-X at 200 to decrease contrast and improve shadow detail. X-tol at 1:1 with an EI of 200 might be good for you. The phenidone in X-tol will give you a little more speed and should bring up the shadow detail a little.
 
Actually, Tri-X in XTOL is really good at box speed if you meter right and your camera is in spec. There is no need to downrate the film at all. Contrast is good. Highlights are reasonably well controlled, and there is detail way down low if you choose to exploit it. TMY-2 will give better highlight separation at the very highest values, and that may be something you'd like to explore. Again, nothing more fancy in the way of developers than D-76 or XTOL is required to get the most from this film.

Tri-X in Diafine is another animal altogether, and for low light work it is just great. I've used no other developer that will give as much of a speed boost while still holding detail over a very wide brightness range. Rate the film at 1000 to 1250 for contrasty light or at 1600 in flat light and you are good to go. Can't beat it for that kind of work.
 
I would try dilute D-23. My initial trials with this have given very promising results that I hope to explore further. It both supports the low tones and compensates for high-falling tones. It is definitely acute and far from fine grained, kind of like Rodinal, but not a big mess of grain like you get with stand development. I tried it 1:3, though there are people on APUG that use it 1:7. I have also been told that it should have enough activity to work 1:15, though development times would, of course, be very long.
 
P.S. High dilutions of HC-110 (and probably most developers) also do just fine for what you want...though the D-23 really gave a different look.
 
D-23 at 1:7 Does Work


Metol + sodium sulfite + H2O in the correct
proportions makes D-23. Full speed + and very
good compensation. I use it at 1:7 with Acros 120;
500ml solution volume, 16 minutes with a few
inversion every 2 or 3 minutes.

Compensation is the result of local depletion and
bromide inhibited development. Dan
 
Rodinal CAn give you full box speed, if you extend the development time.
Of course, that will blast the highlights through the roof, but you can reduce the agitation to COMPENSATE for that.

Agitation for 10 seconds every third or every fifth minute does the trick.

This also reduces the occasional clumpiness of Rodinal, leaving the splendid, regular texture.

The easy way to find the development time is to expose a roll for Zone 5, and then develop strips at different times until you get the mid tone density you want. The rest of the tonal range will fall in line. A good starting point is 1.5 times your current development time.

Good luck !
 
df cardwell said:
Rodinal CAn give you full box speed, if you extend the development time.
Of course, that will blast the highlights through the roof, but you can reduce the agitation to COMPENSATE for that.
Click to expand...

What dilution are you using for this technique? 1:100? Or does this work at 1:50 as well? Also, does grain become more pronounced? This seems a lot like semi-stand development.
 
*********
Try Edwal FG-7, 1:15, no sulfite added.
 
I find tri-x to be around 200 speed (contrasty light) in most developers, but I can shoot it all day at 1000-1250, develop in diafine, and get very acceptable negatives. I've never tried the dilute D-23; perhaps I shall give that a try.
 
BetterSense said:
I find tri-x to be around 200 speed (contrasty light) in most developers, but I can shoot it all day at 1000-1250, develop in diafine, and get very acceptable negatives. I've never tried the dilute D-23; perhaps I shall give that a try.
Click to expand...
*******
Just be sure to use fresh D23, Better. Don't dilute D23 that has been replenished.
 
oistrakh said:
What dilution are you using for this technique? 1:100? Or does this work at 1:50 as well? Also, does grain become more pronounced? This seems a lot like semi-stand development.
Click to expand...

1+50 is optimal with most film. Grain is reduced. (it it very regular, and un-clumpy)

No point, with most films, for 1+100.
 
Diafine

Diafine works, and in my experience gives a similar grain to Rodinal if you process like dfcardwell suggests (with reduced agitation).

Attached image is a print from 35mm Tri-X at EI 1,000 in Diafine.

- Thomas
 

Attachments

  • Adrianna 01sm.jpg
    209 KB · Views: 299
Thanks, everyone! I'm going to give D-23 a try, as well as Diafine. It sounds like the D-23 can help retain that grittiness that I've been enjoying with Rodinal.
 
Can anyone explain to me how this works: Dead Link Removed ?

Sounds like trickery, but I'd be thrilled if it actually could accomplish the impossible.
 
Anyone doing D23 dilute 1:3 or 1:7 with TriX at 400? If so, what are the times and temps. Thanks.
 
cbphoto said:
Can anyone explain to me how this works: Dead Link Removed ?

Sounds like trickery, but I'd be thrilled if it actually could accomplish the impossible.
Click to expand...

Now you have me very curious about it.
 


My usual method is to develop for about 20 minutes at 1:50 with very infrequent agitation (like 5 inversions every 5 minutes). I do this because it is nearly impossible to blow a highlight this way. Are you saying that I may be getting maximum shadow density by doing this, and that using a "faster" developer like Diafine or Acufine will not improve my shadows? That would be good news (or bad....i'm not sure).
 

What he said. XTOL undiluted produces very fine grain at 400 ISO.

Steve
 
For Ball-Parking D-23 At the 1:7 Dilution

H. James Wolf said:
Anyone doing D23 dilute 1:3 or 1:7 with TriX at 400?
If so, what are the times and temps. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've not tested TriX. For ball-parking I'd try 72-F,
20 minutes, 3 or 4 inversions every 2 or 3 minutes.
If your solution volume is 500ml +/- some little you'll
have more than enough of the active ingredients to
do the job.

Surprisingly little of active ingredients will develop
one roll of film. Times though become very
protracted. My post 6 this thread also
covers this subject. Dan
 
My usual method is to develop for about 20 minutes at 1:50 with very infrequent agitation (like 5 inversions every 5 minutes). I do this because it is nearly impossible to blow a highlight this way. Are you saying that I may be getting maximum shadow density by doing this, and that using a "faster" developer like Diafine or Acufine will not improve my shadows? That would be good news (or bad....i'm not sure

There's a lot packed in here !

Is Diafine faster than Rodinal, or is Acufine ? It all depends on how you are measuring !

If you measure speed by Zone I density, Rodinal will never give you box speed. But it will, with your method, give you box speed with most films if you measure at Zone II, or Zone V.

If you want the most shadow information that you can possible get, use Xtol. The phenidone/ascorbate combination reveals more data than does D-76, or Microphen, or anything else. You can get half a stop more shadow speed with Xtol than with D-76, and between half a stop and a stop than with Acufine. Diafine and Rodinal are at least a full stop and more less efficient than Xtol.

You can combine a dilute Xtol with minimal agitation and get the most shadow speed possible, as well as - depending on the film - a long, compressed highlight. But, depending on the film, you may want the higher density in the highlights from Rodinal

Simple answer, for shadow details at the expense of brilliant and well separated bright highlights, go with Xtol. For a long range of printable and distinct highlights, Rodinal. Both will give lovely midtones.

It really is impossible to talk about this outside the context of your film, your subject, and how you print.

good luck !
 
Thanks, DF. The film is always Tri-x, the subject is always hot girls in expensive clothes, and the style is kind of "street" (I still don't know what that means). Lighting is all over the place - available or direct flash. I've never tried Xtol.

I recently gave up Imacon scanning and am now back to "real" printing on a Leica Valoy or my newly acquired Durst M301 w/ color head. So I have a lot of contrast options. My highlights with Rodinal are always very gray, but pulled up easily with a grade 3 or 3.5 filter.

I'm going to try Xtol on some night shots and see what happens. I bought some Diafine already, so I'll try that too. Have you tried this Xtol/Rodinal mix I've read about here? I'm not clear on exactly what that would give me in terms of tonality.
 
cbphoto said:
The film is always Tri-x, the subject is always hot girls in expensive clothes, and the style is kind of "street" (I still don't know what that means). Lighting is all over the place - available or direct flash
Click to expand...

Come on now.....Why use film with this type of photography? Seriously. Match your medium to your content. Shoot digital and be done with it. There is nothing film will add to this sort of "stuff".
 
BetterSense said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he uses film because he wants to.
Click to expand...

As do I in most cases...but you must know that I am just joshing.....as I often do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register