GEVAERT G.33 'Soft Developer' Examples

[Kino]

Here are some neg scans from a roll of Ilford Pan F I just processed an hour ago; sorry if you don't like scans -- avert your pure eyes...

This film developer combo, 12 minutes with 15 seconds agitation per minute @ 70 degrees F, is rather nice in my opinion, but lives up to its "soft" name.

I need to print it to really evaluate it properly, but I think I prefer it to D76 so far...

Shot with a Ansco Karomat 35mm rangefinder camera, sporting a Schneider-Kreuznach, Karat Xenon 50mm, f2 using Sunny 16 rule judgment.

See chem section for formula if interested.

 

[rmartin]

They look good. Do you have scans from your scanner of a similar role developed in D76 or another standard developer? It is hard for me to judge how soft this role is since 35mm scans always seem harder and more contrasty to me.

 

[Kobin]

That's the tamest contrast I've seen from Pan F, but I have to agree they're softer than I like. I prefer Rodinal 1:100 with Pan F, and dealing with the contrast during printing if necessary. I've got some Pan F negs developed in Pyrocat HD but haven't printed them yet (I don't have a lot of luck scanning normally exposed negatives on my equipment). When I have the time, I'll compare the Rodinal negs to the Pcat ones. The later should be less contrasty, but w'll see.

K.

 

[Kino]

They look good. Do you have scans from your scanner of a similar role developed in D76 or another standard developer? It is hard for me to judge how soft this role is since 35mm scans always seem harder and more contrasty to me.

No, not at the moment. I will spool up a short load and fire it off to see how it compares as I get the time, but that is a good point you bring up.

Give me a few days...

 

[Kino]

That's the tamest contrast I've seen from Pan F, but I have to agree they're softer than I like. I prefer Rodinal 1:100 with Pan F, and dealing with the contrast during printing if necessary. I've got some Pan F negs developed in Pyrocat HD but haven't printed them yet (I don't have a lot of luck scanning normally exposed negatives on my equipment). When I have the time, I'll compare the Rodinal negs to the Pcat ones. The later should be less contrasty, but w'll see.

K.

I was looking for a full-bodied developer; one that allowed a long, straight line on the curve, with a lot of meat to print from in the shadows and I think a variant on this will be just what the doctor ordered.

I might have to fool around with the formula to slightly lower softness...

Haven't tried Pyrocat HD on Pan F yet, but it is worth a shot.

 

[Harry Lime]

Where did you get this developer or did you mix it from scratch?


Thanks

 

[Kino]

Mixed from scratch -- (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Is it me or I see some kind of "soft focus" effect in the highlights?

 

[Neanderman]

This film developer combo, 12 minutes with 15 seconds agitation per minute @ 70 degrees F, is rather nice in my opinion, but lives up to its "soft" name.

EI 50?

 

[Kino]

MHV, all bets are off, I just processed two rolls of 120 Arista Edu Ultra, 100 + 400 in this soup and the effect was not nearly as pronounced, so I went back and looked through my rangefinder into a strong light... guess what...

There is a definite haze in there; fungus? I don't know but know that the effects are drastically less pronounced as you can see below.

Yes, I know it is a different film PLUS it is a larger format, but let me spool up another roll and run it through my Minolta SRT to get the real skinny.

How stupid on my part...

On the other hand, I now know I have a "portrait camera" if I don't clean the lens.

Just keep moving on, nothing to see...

 

[Kino]

EI 50?

Yeah, for whatever that is worth now...

 

[Kino]

Here is another shot from inside the USAF Museum and a blowup of a section that transverses specular highlights and full shadow. (120 Arista Edu Ultra 400)
This neg was scanned @ 2400 dpi on a Epson 4990 flatbed with NO sharpening and NO density correction beyond what the scanner chooses as default.

It may not be such a loss after all, but it wasn't the "bottle of diffusion" it appeared to be from the first tests.

Shot with a Kiev 88 and 65mm f3.5 lens, exposure info not recorded, for those who might be interested...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ah, that explains it! But I really liked the effect, you should definitely cultivate that haze.

Can you elaborate a bit on what the developer does to the film? Is it overall reduction of contrast, or only highlight taming?

 

[Kino]

It it touted as a "soft" developer for extended detail in the shadows. The formula is still an MQ formula like D76, there is more metol than hydroquinone developing agent, so I am guessing that is what is supposed to bring up the shadows while the hq beats its head against the high density areas.

Others more knowledgeable in chemistry can chime in at any time...