Hello Clemems,
Alright, I use Tmax 100 and 400, I paid 3,10 per film. My standard developer is XTol, purchased for 7,90 per 5l package. The way I use it - 1:1 - I can develop 50 films with it.
That's 0,27 Euros for one shot 6x6cm.
and I pay 0,18 for one shot with the Agfa Copex Rapid / Spur Modular UR New.
So even with a bit lower price for the 120 film, a huge price difference remains.
For the cost calculation you chose a relatively expensive FP4...
Because it has been my main film for a very long time.
And because it has been
the standard 120 film for decades (more popular than your TMX for example, higher sales numbers), a very very popular film.
Most photographers know this film and have used it.
Therefore this film is a good benchmark.
For the quality comparison you chose a relatively grainy FP4. You better compare results with an obvious choice, a state-of-the-art t-grain film like Tmax 100, Delta 100 or Acros. Comparing high-resolution films with traditional films shows that your test results are based on a comparison of apples and oranges.
I have compared Agfa Copex Rapid with
- FP4+ 120
- APX 100 120
- RPX 100 120.
Popular films with classic cubic crystals. Agfa CoRa 35mm surpassed all three films in 120 significantly.
Test results: With this film / developer in 35mm I achieve a picture quality even better than conventional (no T-Grain) films in 120 6x6.
That is what I said.
I have never said that CoRa 35mm is always better than all 120 films.
If you were satiesfied with the quality level of FP4+ etc. in 120, then you can now achieve a visible better quality with 35mm.
You can combine medium format quality (conventional films) with the advantages of the 35mm system.
With Delta 100 and TMX in 120 you can get a bit better quality than CoRa 35mm.
I have tested this as well.
From the datasheet:
..........
First of all: Your quotes are from the
wrong datasheet. Outdated. A former version of the developer.
I have always said I am referring to Spur Modular UR
New.
1. Light piping effect:
I am using PET films for more than 25 years now. I've
never got my first 4 frames ruined by light piping.
Loading film in a room with normal room light is without problems. Outside with bright sun turn your back to the sun, load the film in your body shape and it will be fine.
That is not rocket science.
2. PET film base:
Lot's of films from different manufacturers (most of the 120 films by the way) are coated on PET.
It has by far the best long term stability. Best material for archiving pictures. No problems at all with vinegar syndrom, which can effect triazetate films.
The clear base makes it much easier to jugde the negatives. And it is very good for reversal processing. Agfa CoRa works quite good in the Scala reversal process.
Professional Scala lab Photostudio 13 has calibrated the film for Scala processing.
There is no free lunch: Both film bases have their advantages and disadvantages.
But your fundamentalist bashing of PET-films in general......no comment necessary.
3. Storage:
In the right datasheet (not the wrong one you have quoted) there is
no recommendation of storing in a fridge.
Recommend is a normal cool storarge.
Cool storage of developers is absolutely normal and also recommended by all other developer manufacturers.
Further it is recommend to fill the developer in glas bottles for best long term storage.
Also absolutely normal. We are doing this with our standard developers as well, because we all know that storing in glas bottles is much better than storing in PE bottles, because PE is not completely gas-tight long term.
Most developer bottles are PE bottles, independant from the manufacturer.
So if you critizse Spur for using PE bottles, then you have to critizise Champion/Kodak, Ilford, Tetenal etc. as well.
PE bottles are industry standard.
Shelf life of Modular UR New in glas bottles is about 3 years, much better than most other standard developers stored in glas bottles.
4. Contrast and development times:
In contradiction to the nonsense you have written, changing the contrast is no problem with this developer.
In the datasheet development times, agitation and dilution for diffusor enlargers, condensor enlargers and mixed systems (condensor and diffusor) are listed.
It is very detailed information and much better than lots of other datasheets from other manufacturers.
If the development times in the datasheet are too long or short for your set-up, than you can get the optimal contrast easily by shortening or extending the development time. It is the same as with standard developers.
I have done it in my process to get optimal results for my enlarging system.
With changing the dilution relationsship between Part A1 and B you even have more possibilities.
More creative range. That is an advantage.
It is all easy. I know, because I have done it.
You don't know, because you have never used this developer.
5. Deionised water, tap water.
I have always used normal tap water with excellent results.
Even if I had to use deionised water it is not problem at all.
It costs almost nothing, is available in every drugstore and I get a canister for my used fixer free.
6. Uneven development: I have made very intensive tests in different conditions to evaluate that. With soft agitation as recommended I have always got a perfect even development of the whole frame.
Better and more even than with some conventional film / developer combinations (some are definitesly not free from such effects).
Absolutely no density variations at the sprocket holes. Not with one film in the Jobo 1510 tank, and not with two films in the Jobo 1520 tank.
I am extremely satiesfied with the results.
This film and developer is not for the average Joe, but it makes some experts happy.
Wrong. It is definitely not rocket science.
All you have to do is reading the instrction and following it. That's it.
Perhaps, like all other standard developers too, for best results you have to change the developing time a bit, depending on your enlarging system.
I know some beginners working with this film / developer combi and they have no problems at all.
If it works for you and some other guys, fine. But, please, don't evangelize,
Completely nonsense.
The discussion here started with questions about high resolving films.
I have adressed the questions of the OP and gave resolution figures from my test results.
I have reported from a 25 year experience with these films and developers.
You have bashed the higher resolving films and developers, whereas you have never used them.
You have no experinece with this material, but you are nevertheless permanently bashing them and attacking photographers, who are using them successfully, with a quite fundamentalistic attitude.
That is evangelizing.
don't compare apples with oranges and don't tell half the truth.
You are comparing apples with oranges and spreading misinformation with wrong quotation and perverting the facts.
Regards,
Henning