TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
I'm running mine on my Jobo in an Expert drum, and contact printing in Palladium.
hello !
interesting, i rate it iso 100 aswell, and use the same dev. but my development time is around 11 min.
i enlarge negs with a diffusor enlarger, my contrast IS maybe higher .
so i was wondering about your agitation. i agitate continuously for a min, then 2 agitations every other minute.
cheers.
chris
excellenti will try that, john.
havent made caffenol yet.
one more thing to try...
i disagree with you.
tri-x has a very specific look, as quite a few other films do.
here for example.I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?
View attachment 194850
I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?
n my opinion this is not tri-xI'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?
View attachment 194850
tonality, grain, therefore apparent sharpness , well.+1
The whole premise of this thread kinda baffles me.
But totally different subjects (and subject includes light, of course) how can one conclude that the films behave differently?here for example.
one is tri x, the other is fp4
its like night and day at least to my eyes..
same dev,
even without regarding the subject. both shots were done with the same lens, same camera, within a few hours, same day during a long walk.But totally different subjects (and subject includes light, of course) how can one conclude that the films behave differently?
One more example on this (and other) photo forum of a poster drawing conclusions (about film, developer, lens, but not yet camera body) from pictures taken of completely different scenes. See similar comment above by ic-racer.
I'd like to see some examples of these 'looks.' Do you mean the tint of the rebate and how the numbers are printed?
Maybe someone can help me. Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or the "Fomapan" look, or the "HP5" look, or is it the Ilford MG FB look or the Kentmere look, or is it the Dektol 1:3 look or the "Ilford Multigrade Liquid Developer 1:14" look? Perhaps the photographer printed it to look like his own work or others in a series?
View attachment 194850
Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?one is tri x, the other is fp4
its like night and day at least to my eyes..
the grainy obe is tri x, the one with no discernible grain fp4. first is gritty and steep, the second mushy, softer and wider range. are you making fun of me?Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?
sorry i misread you.Post #31, night or day? Tri-x or fp4?
i disagree with you.
tri-x has a very specific look, as quite a few other films do.
tx for your reply. you are summing it up nicely! (hope thats english)Part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions arises from the fact that when someone achieves a "look" they like with a film and their process, it is hard to determine how much of that "look" comes from the film, and how much comes from the myriad other variables that together formed the result.
Tri-X in combination with a particular developer and agitation scheme will respond differently than other films developed in the same or different developers agitated in the same or different ways. Some of those differences are malleable, while others are baked into the film.
The baked in differences relate to the spectral sensitivity of the film, the reciprocity failure response, the inherent grain (mostly), and the characteristic curve response (to a certain extent).
There isn't much you can do to match the spectral sensitivity and reciprocity failure response. What I think Chris is asking about are the more malleable variables - the grain and the characteristic curve response.
I don't use the foma products, so can't help. But if I was trying to do this, I'd look for plots of the respective characteristic curves with different developers and exposure indices, and try to adjust the variables to see if I could find a combination with the foma products that gives a similar shape to the curve that results from Chris' use of Tri-X the way he likes it.
It may be that it won't be possible to mimic both grain and characteristic curve - a grain increasing developer might skew the shape of the curve the wrong way. Or maybe they will work together to achieve both results. Some testing would be in order.
trendland. you didnt get my point.
i want the grain grit and contrast of tri x, and was wondering if somebody has experience with the foma films and different developers.
i neither wanted to discuss the existence of god, nor did i ask to be patronized
but thanks anyway.
cheers
Part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions arises from the fact that when someone achieves a "look" they like with a film and their process, it is hard to determine how much of that "look" comes from the film, and how much comes from the myriad other variables that together formed the result.
Tri-X in combination with a particular developer and agitation scheme will respond differently than other films developed in the same or different developers agitated in the same or different ways. Some of those differences are malleable, while others are baked into the film.
The baked in differences relate to the spectral sensitivity of the film, the reciprocity failure response, the inherent grain (mostly), and the characteristic curve response (to a certain extent).
There isn't much you can do to match the spectral sensitivity and reciprocity failure response. What I think Chris is asking about are the more malleable variables - the grain and the characteristic curve response.
I don't use the foma products, so can't help. But if I was trying to do this, I'd look for plots of the respective characteristic curves with different developers and exposure indices, and try to adjust the variables to see if I could find a combination with the foma products that gives a similar shape to the curve that results from Chris' use of Tri-X the way he likes it.
It may be that it won't be possible to mimic both grain and characteristic curve - a grain increasing developer might skew the shape of the curve the wrong way. Or maybe they will work together to achieve both results. Some testing would be in order.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?