Ilfords equivalents?

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2012

StoneNYC said:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=63&t=Film+Developers

That's where I read that Ilfsol 3 was the match for FP4...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I think what Ilford is saying is that Ilfosol is somewhat better with slower films than with faster films.

That is simply "a characteristic of the developer" rather than a "preferred pairing" with a film.

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
Mark: Just poor wording on my part.

...

Don't sweat it. I'm sure Ilfosol 3 is a fine developer.

I suffer from that affliction too.

I agree on the don't sweat it advice, there are more important things to worry about.

After four years of developing now I believe that it doesn't matter much until someone can fill in the blanks in this statement; "I use "_________" in "________" and I just wish it made things "_________".

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

markbarendt said:
I suffer from that affliction too.

I agree on the don't sweat it advice, there are more important things to worry about.

After four years of developing now I believe that it doesn't matter much until someone can fill in the blanks in this statement; "I use "_________" in "________" and I just wish it made things "_________".

I use "Pan F+" in "Ilfsol 3" and I just wish it made things "look exactly like Technical Pan"

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2012

StoneNYC said:
I use "Pan F+" in "Ilfsol 3" and I just wish it made things "look exactly like Technical Pan"

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

So does "look exactly like Technical Pan" mean sharper, smoother, less contrasty, better separation in the shadows/highlights, less grain.... ?

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

markbarendt said:
So does "look exactly like Technical Pan" mean sharper, smoother, less contrasty, better separation in the shadows/highlights, less grain.... ?

Yup

Except contrast, I like a bit of contrast, but fine grain is fun

Pan F+ does a great job, it's my favorite film but I wanted to be a pest.

I should have replaced "Pan F+" with "Delta 3200" hahaha!!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

ChristopherCoy · Dec 28, 2012

I wish there was a definitive database of comparative images that showed all these differences that you all mention - grain, contrast, etc.

I remember switching from D76 to XTOL, and seeing the difference in the negatives - but I couldn't tell you what they were. It was one of those "I know it when I see it" moments.

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
I wish there was a definitive database of comparative images that showed all these differences that you all mention - grain, contrast, etc.

I remember switching from D76 to XTOL, and seeing the difference in the negatives - but I couldn't tell you what they were. It was one of those "I know it when I see it" moments.

I made the same move and had the same reaction, again with DD-X, again with WD2D+.

The problem with a data base like that is that the print rarely (read that as almost never) shows the whole film curve. For example HC-110 creates an upswept curve, long toe and then straight. XTol creates and s shape with a shorter toe but a shoulder up top. The HC-110 negative can be exposed a bit extra to get the print off the toe and the XTol negative a bit less to keep the print off the shoulder, in the end the prints at two paces may look identical.

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

markbarendt said:
I made the same move and had the same reaction, again with DD-X, again with WD2D+.

The problem with a data base like that is that the print rarely (read that as almost never) shows the whole film curve. For example HC-110 creates an upswept curve, long toe and then straight. XTol creates and s shape with a shorter toe but a shoulder up top. The HC-110 negative can be exposed a bit extra to get the print off the toe and the XTol negative a bit less to keep the print off the shoulder, in the end the prints at two paces may look identical.

Where do I go to learn curves because I've never underwood this stuff even in trigonometry class the whole curve / sin wave thing doesn't translate to my brain as anything useable..

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Where do I go to learn curves because I've never underwood this stuff even in trigonometry class the whole curve / sin wave thing doesn't translate to my brain as anything useable..

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

As Michael says Ansel is a great place to start. Understanding where the zones fall helps. Understanding that we regularly leave a quarter to a half of the info on the negative unprinted is another help. This is a concept that took me quite a while to really get.

The bigger take away is that you can manipulate your results with any film significantly.

Print something, then ask yourself what would make it better, apply that to your next shot and print again, do that a lot.

StoneNYC · Dec 29, 2012

markbarendt said:
As Michael says Ansel is a great place to start. Understanding where the zones fall helps. Understanding that we regularly leave a quarter to a half of the info on the negative unprinted is another help. This is a concept that took me quite a while to really get.

The bigger take away is that you can manipulate your results with any film significantly.

Print something, then ask yourself what would make it better, apply that to your next shot and print again, do that a lot.

I can't, and don't, print optically...

I have no access to dark room enlargers of any kind...

I scan everything...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

albada · Dec 29, 2012

StoneNYC said:
I can't, and don't, print optically...
I have no access to dark room enlargers of any kind...
I scan everything...

I'm in the same situation that you are: No darkroom, so everything must be scanned.
But I find that I can look at the monitor and gauge what happened, and expose and/or develop differently next time.

Mark Overton

markbarendt · Dec 29, 2012

StoneNYC said:
I can't, and don't, print optically...

I have no access to dark room enlargers of any kind...

I scan everything...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

So what?

I can't "see" the curve in the enlarger either, all I can see is the result.

albada said:
I'm in the same situation that you are: No darkroom, so everything must be scanned.
But I find that I can look at the monitor and gauge what happened, and expose and/or develop differently next time.

Mark Overton

Mark has it right.

There is an old adage/story/parable where a photographer's client is impressed with an example but then asks the photographer "can you do that again?"

To best do what Mark suggests simply requires consistent methods of shooting, processing, and proofing as you experiment with the changes to your system. Only allow one change to the process at a time. (Turn off all automatic corrections. And yes things will probably start to look worse until you sort out your issues. I speak from experience.)

Metaphorically, if you allow the system to adjust by itself because you aren't consistently controlling developer temperature (allowing contrast to fall where it may) or you let exposure float because you are using a Holga instead of an RZ your ability to see the differences in developers or film curves is highly compromised.

If your system is floating around on its own (autocorrecting) you're not seeing what really happened in the camera or what the film or developer is capable of.

ChristopherCoy · Dec 29, 2012

markbarendt said:
Metaphorically, if you allow the system to adjust by itself because you aren't consistently controlling developer temperature (allowing contrast to fall where it may) or you let exposure float because you are using a Holga instead of an RZ your ability to see the differences in developers or film curves is highly compromised.

Yeah, that pretty much does it in for me! The only temperature control is the central a/c in the house, and room temperature is usually around 70-73 degrees. And there's certainly no consistency in my cameras right now! Anything with a shutter is fair game.

markbarendt · Dec 29, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
Yeah, that pretty much does it in for me! The only temperature control is the central a/c in the house, and room temperature is usually around 70-73 degrees. And there's certainly no consistency in my cameras right now! Anything with a shutter is fair game.

Well you are just going to learn different things.

Shooting "loose" just means you are going to need to adjust more when printing. That's a fair choice.

StoneNYC · Dec 29, 2012

I said that because people kept referencing printing techniques to which I can not relate is all, I was letting people know that I try and focus more on exposure and development stuff than adjusting later in the print as I don't print, I do scan but I prefer to keep the image fairly "RAW" and not really fiddle with the adjustment on the computer, it's my way of keeping things pure even if I COULD adjust in the printing, I think it would be easy to start relying on adjusting the sliders on the computer instead of being correctly exposed and developed in the first place.

EDIT: and because Ansel did a lot more in the darkroom, these comments aren't AS helpful, however I will pick up a copy one of these days, everyone talks about it I might as well read the damn thing. (Can't resist saying this...Maybe I'll buy the digital copy for my iPad hehe...)

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

markbarendt · Dec 29, 2012

StoneNYC said:
and because Ansel did a lot more in the darkroom, these comments aren't AS helpful, however I will pick up a copy one of these days, everyone talks about it I might as well read the damn thing. (Can't resist saying this...Maybe I'll buy the digital copy for my iPad hehe...)

You might be surprised Stone.

The theoretical target for Ansel's Zone System was a straight print on grade 2 paper, not the VC paper that is most popular today.

What Ansel did and taught in "The Negative" is essentially the same thing you are attempting; simply using his camera, filters, film choices, ..., and adjustments to film development to get a result that printed easily and as straight as possible on grade 2 paper.

Think of it this way; your scanner = grade 2 paper.

Sure Ansel did adjust his printing, but that is covered in a completely different book.

Rafal Lukawiecki · Dec 29, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
I've done something like this. I needed to test these things for myself since nobody agrees on anything, and I don't trust anybody else's conclusions anyway .

Obviously not every developer and film, but the developers did include XTOL, D-76, DDX, Perceptol, PMK, TFX-2 etc, various dilutions etc, with several films. Contrast was fixed. This is the only way to effectively compare things like graininess, speed, curve shape etc. I made enlargements of matched densities to check relative graininess. I don't have the equipment etc to do objective RMS granularity and acutance measurements so everything was visual. Graininess is not hard to compare. Acutance is quite a bit more difficult.

Michael, I'd be interested to see your conclusions. Have you already shared this, perhaps?

Rafal Lukawiecki · Dec 30, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
I haven't posted any of it. It's well over 100 pages of H&D curves and prints.

I suppose it would take too much time to edit it all into a report, well, more like a book, it seems. Still, I think it would be of interest to others, and I, to hear your conclusions. Chris Johnson of "Practical Zone System" ed 4 looked at quite a few films and developers, some 80 combinations in total, and his short summary was insightful, even if a bit too light on detail.

albada · Dec 30, 2012

Michael R 1974 said:
It would certainly be fun to publish it somehow - in full detail since that was the point. I don't like summaries!

Corporate copy machines have a scan-to-pdf feature. You put the pages in the scanner's hopper, enter your email-address, and the machine scans everything into a pdf file and emails it to you. That would be a quick way to get everything into electronic form.

Mark Overton

Rafal Lukawiecki · Dec 31, 2012

Michael, if I lived closer to you, I'd be happy to assist next summer. If you decide to do it, let me know, maybe I could help somehow, after all.

ChristopherCoy · Jan 2, 2013

So this is what I decided to go with.

And with that, let the 52 roll project commense!

StoneNYC · Jan 2, 2013

ChristopherCoy said:
So this is what I decided to go with.

View attachment 62070

And with that, let the 52 roll project commense!

I've been using DD-X recently and seem to like the results. I haven't used Ilfsol 3 with Acros but I don't think I liked it with DD-X I'll have to compare later.

I took the 1L and put half into a 500ml glass bottle filled to the brim with no air bubbles... So half is stored, then if I had a 250ml bottle I would use that with the same procedure, that way it would severely slow the degradation if the developer that you aren't using.

Good luck!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

ChristopherCoy · Jan 2, 2013

Well I thought I was on to something when I learned that Ilfostop was odorless... And then I got to the fixer. So much for that quick bit of excitement.

Terry Christian · Jan 2, 2013

Stone: I've had DD-X last quite a long time, so I wouldn't go crazy with trying to preseve it. Most bottled liquid chemicals will last quite a good long time. Ilford's spec sheet says 6 months once opened, but mine lasted until I used it up.

CCoy: That's because it's citric acid and not acetic. Arista (Freestyle) makes a supposedly odorless fixer. I'm about to start using Formulary's TF-5. According to PE, TF-4 and TF-5 are nearly odorless. They're available from their own website, or from Freestyle.

markbarendt · Jan 2, 2013

TF5 rocks!

Ilfords equivalents?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency