Good Developer for Acros and Neopan

[Zathras]

Mike,

Dead Link Removed

Let me know if you have questions.

Ryuji,

Thank you very much.

Mike

 

[Ryuji]

The problem you see with DS-10 and many films of box speed 100 or slower is very distorted sensitometric curves, loss of speed, and often with low density. The developer is adjusted to develop slowly, with suitably adjusted level of solvency, so that the developed silver grains consist of compact filaments rather than widely spanning filaments typical of coarse grain developers. However, this strategy doesn't work well with the way slower emulsions are made.

One way to make DS-10 work "better" with slow film is to dilute 1+2 and use at 25C or higher temperature. But I generally find slow t-grain films to work better with developers of DS-12 type, and that's why I recommend two developers for different kinds of films.

Incidentally, Dickerson and Zawadzki published an interesting article on PT a few months ago. The article was about the myth of the "best developer." Their messages was that the best developer depends on what you mean by best. They also pointed out that each developer has its character, and the "direction" of the character is rather invariant with films, although this is a generalized statement from the data for two unidentified films.

I generally agree with them. One thing I like to add in the context of DS-10 is that, when I made DS-10, I chose to make it work best with 400-speed films and didn't care how it fails with slow films. Commercial film developers cannot do this way.

 

[Zathras]

A very interesting site

Mike,

Dead Link Removed

Let me know if you have questions.

No questions, but I really appreciate what you have done. Thanks for all the great information.

Mike

 

[Ryuji]

You're welcome.

Every time I see a good question in discussion it also helps me to revise or clarify the pages I have up there.

 

[bjorke]

Acros: Rodinal 1::100, semi-stand developmeent for 1.5-2 hours, rate it at close to ISO 200

Neopan: Rodinal 1::50 (F09/R09, 1::40), standard times for ISO 800 - I usually scan it, the quality is excellent for such a purpose (heck, Meyerowitz and Winogrand always pushed TriX to 1200, for years -- and their prints look great).

I've actually moved back to Kodak since it's more readily available in 220 size. But Neopan is a great film, I still shoot it in 35mm

 

[skahde]

The problem you see with DS-10 and many films of box speed 100 or slower is very distorted sensitometric curves, loss of speed, and often with low density.

Having used DS-10 for several years now I'd like to add that this is not true for Ilford Delta 100 which works very well in DS-10 1+1 with about 50 ASA at G = 0.57, straight curve, fine grain and very good sharpness. Thank you for publishing this very useful formula, Ryuji!

To get back on topic: I also like Neopan 400 with it.

best

Stefan

 

[Ryuji]

Stefan,

Do you care to share your processing time for D100?

D100 is not my standby films so if you allow me to pass your data to others, it would be appreciated.

I do use Delta 400 in DS-10 and works very well, just like Neopan 400. Delta 400 is a tad coarser but also a fraction of a stop faster than Neopan 400. Both have good accutance.

 

[skahde]

Stefan,
Do you care to share your processing time for D100?

I would gladly share it but the data is from a Durst Filmetta and is not comparable to anything including Jobo ATL, CPE or the alike (a friend and I did some side-by-side tests in both systems). Therefore, sharing the data may in the long run cause more confusion than it may help anyone out there.

The Filmetta introduces more agitation than anything I found so far, some times differ a lot from the ATL, some processes don't work at all e.g. Delta 100 in plain old D76 1+1 (sic!, severe speed loss! And I tried really hard to get it working).

If you are still interested I will send you the data by PM.

best

Stefan

 

[gbenaim]

I will third RODINAL for Acros. I have a 20x24 print from a 6x6 neg w beautiful tonality and no grain! I couldn't believe it, but I guess it's true what they say: Rod doesn't enlarge grain, it just doesn't dissolve it. It's also very good for night photos, as you get the no reciproc during first 2 mins of acros and Rod's great compensating development.

 

[Ryuji]

Stefan,

Thanks, I understand that confusing details may be better saved for well informed users of the specific device.


Tonality of Acros. The most frequent complaints I hear about Acros is tonality and possibly limited retail channels. Well, I always tell them. If you want gentle S-shape curve, expose at EI of 32 to 50 and give 20% less development time. Acros at one stop pull gives beautiful tonality.

A couple of examples:
http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Pt1/feb06-07s.jpg.html
http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Pt2/feb06-01.jpg.html
http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Pt1/Crosstalk.html
http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Uncategorized/Into+The+Midnight+Fog--Nov+2005.jpg.html
http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Uncategorized/Shoe+Repair-1200.jpg.html

Ok, enough. These are scans from toned prints. Scanning and monitor presentation ruined half the good quality but so what, I would say.

For comparison, here's the classic tonality of Plus-X developed in DS-10 1+1, scanned in the same way.

http://www.silvergrain.org/g2/v/Uncategorized/Hungry+I-broken+cocktail+glass+1200.jpg.html

 

[kjsphoto]

I personally like to use Rodinal for both films.

Acros 100 I rate at 32
Neopan 400 I rate at 200.