Highest Resolution Fine Grain Developer
-
A
- Thread starter FilmIs4Ever
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale NIKON FA Black Body
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya K/L 250mm f/4.5 L-A Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Anba Ikeda 4x5 Wooden Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Bessa L ltm 35mm camera
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale For sale 100 Print File 120-4HB negative preservers.
- Started by spoolman
Forum statistics
SPUR Omega X
SPUR HRX
JOBO Alpha
Finer Grain and much sharper than XTOL.
SPUR HRX
JOBO Alpha
Finer Grain and much sharper than XTOL.
I would like to add a comparison of Kodak developers.
In my opinion diluted more than 1:1 is not practical.
This is one of those cases where, how can I say this, "The question is off-topic with itself". A literal interpretation of the question doesn't really address the spirit of the question, in my opinion. But, there are many threads going into the literal grain-fineness of developers for people to look at if they are interested.
MattKing
Moderator
A better question might be something like: "Which developer best exploits the resolution capabilities of XYZ fine grain film".
TRUE
This is an old thread, and at the time it not addressed by clearing up what OP meant by resolution. In the strictest meaning resolution is the ability of a film and or lens to capture detail. A developer has no effect on resolution. On the other hand if OP was thinking about how sharp a print looks without regard to detail, apparent sharpness, then he is asking about what? The trade off between fine grain vs and acutance? That is a trick as fine grain developers of course reduce the size of grain, the more ragged edges look less sharp. As noted a good middle of the road developer like Xtol, D76, Clayton F76+, MCM 100, among others do a pretty good job of providing good acutance and fine grain. Then it what the film type. Tmax and Delta films use a different grain structure than Trix, HP5, Foma 100 and 400, Double X, the grain is smaller to begin with so a more acutance type developer will work well, Tmax Developer, DDX, Acufine, Rodinal. For sharpness a fine developer like Microdol X stock will be "less sharp" but once diluted say to 1:3 then it becomes more of an acutance developer.
Is this based on the size of tank required for say 120 film or other factors that make it impractical?
Thanks
pentaxuser
The risk of dev failures does not justify it. IMHO.
There is no saving in developer.
There is no saving in developer.
I don't think the talk of diluted developers here has anything to saving a few rubles on a film developer. It's more about making a solvent type developer less solvent, hence sharper looking grain. I have used many diluted developers without problem, but I always use a bigger tank and twice as much developer per-roll.
FX-21. See thread on this site.
I've been developing films in XTOL (and now XT-3) 1+2 for years and years (must be more than hundred rolls by now), never had a single issue.
I usually use demineralised water to mix it to get the most consistent results, so definitely not doing it to save money (the water costs just as much as the developer).
I like the grain structure better when diluted.
by your argument, using a high performing lens, stopping down to the optimal aperture, using good technique will only give minimal improvements over using a larger format.
yet it's worth doing, because if you combine those factors, and all give us 5-10% improvement in quality, the end result will be noticeably better than if we ignore them.
using a high performing developer is one more of those factors.
And that brings up another issue, what format, 35mm VS 4X5 VS 8X10, 8X10 lens with lower resolution as measured by LPM with have much detail than a higher resolution 35mm lens, given the same film and developer. And of course grain will be close to invisible to the naked eye. What would be the purpose of using Microdol X stock with Tmax 100 in 4X5 or even MF 6X9?
Yes, it's XT-3 now for me also. I use it replenished, but have a one liter size in a wine storage bag just for diluting. I use distilled water for all my developers now. I did use the town's treated and softened water for mixing. One day I filled a beaker and got a good whiff of chlorine. That was the last time I used the town water for developer making.
Karl, be aware that you are mixing a few terms that don't necessarily go together (resolution, sharpness, fine grain); for example, you can have a picture with more resolution but less sharpness. So, be clear about what your goal is. Is it resolution or sharpness?
To which, as seen here, people will claim that the correct answer is to use ABC film.
Do you use ABC film with ABC developer? The triangle above has been around for a long time and it hasn't changed. Of all the developers I have used, I think Xtol/XT-3 comes close to ticking all three points. I'm sure there are others, but of the developers purchased and homemade, those two come the closest for me.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
XTol and XT-3, for conventional, store bought developers.
Thanks for the answer There is no saving in developer if the saving in developer at 1+3 fails to develop the fílm but this is not something that I have heard of. In fact here is a video of a test at stock, 1+1, 1+2,and 1+3
pentaxuser
He says he doesn't see much difference, but note at 6:15, there is a conspicuous difference in the amount of shadow information in the 1:3 print VS the Stock print. I don't know how much of this is due to his approach to making the prints (adjusted contrast?) but there is a very obvious difference. If that difference is entirely due to choosing a 1:3 dilution, then I think that's noteworthy.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |