Moved by Moderator from a purely analog thread found here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilfosol-3.175163/
As I'm recovering from a health issue, I've been digging through Photrio archives and playing with new to me chemistry. NB23's Ilfosol comments in this thread and elsewhere made an intriguing proposition, so I bought a bottle.
Here's a high-end 6,300x4,200px (26MP equivalent) scan of HP5+ in Ilfosol 1+9 developed "by the book". Indeed, Ilfosol 3 feels somewhat Rodinal-ish in how tight and crisp the grain looks.
My conclusion is that your workflow dictates, or rather limits, your choice of a developer. Cannot speak for folks who wet print, I don't have that luxury. But those of us who scan prior to printing digitally, we must think about our approach to the complicated topic of sharpening. The demosaiced output from a Bayer sensor usually benefits from some sharpening, and not a single digital camera or a RAW convertor have sharpening disabled by default. But when you're digitizing negatives, even a slightest application of sharpening leads to unnatural looking "wormy" grain. That's why I've been shooting primarily Delta films and developing in Xtol, this gave me ability to digitally make natural looking prints that looked similar to wet prints. I see why someone wouldn't be happy with HP5+ in Ilfosol 3 or Rodinal because this combination is often described as "sandpaper" online. I blame sharpening or the mythical "grain aliasing" (which in itself is a complex topic).
However, things change once you cross a certain resolution threshold. Switching to a 60mp pixel-shifting sensor with a high-end macro lens allowed me to make scans that are 9,000 pixels wide. Turning off sharpening and downsampling to 5,000-6,000 pixels produces naturally looking, tight and pleasant grain without "worms". Basically, high-res no-sharpening scanning makes developers like Ilfosol shine even on HP5+. In the end, high-res scanning gives the hybrid shooters the same choice of smooth-vs-sharp as wet printers have enjoyed, and Ilfosol 3 is a fantastic developer to get that crispness when you need it.
Side comment: I do not know what scanning resolution makes this possible. In my case the jump was quite drastic from a 26MP APS-C sensor with OK macro lens to a 60MP sensor with an excellent macro lens chosen via the recommendation of https://www.closeuphotography.com/
FWIW my 35mm B&W scans improved somewhat when I replaced a 16MP Bayer sensor with a 24MP X-Trans sensor
Here's a high-end 6,300x4,200px (26MP equivalent) scan of HP5+ in Ilfosol 1+9 developed "by the book". Indeed, Ilfosol 3 feels somewhat Rodinal-ish in how tight and crisp the grain looks.
Turning off sharpening and downsampling to 5,000-6,000 pixels produces naturally looking, tight and pleasant grain without "worms".
@Raghu Kuvempunagar Even better. I use high-magnification loupes to examine negatives on a light table. Analog pixel peeping, if you will
Moved by Moderator from a purely analog thread found here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilfosol-3.175163/
As I'm recovering from a health issue, I've been digging through Photrio archives and playing with new to me chemistry. NB23's Ilfosol comments in this thread and elsewhere made an intriguing proposition, so I bought a bottle.
Here's a high-end 6,300x4,200px (26MP equivalent) scan of HP5+ in Ilfosol 1+9 developed "by the book". Indeed, Ilfosol 3 feels somewhat Rodinal-ish in how tight and crisp the grain looks.
My conclusion is that your workflow dictates, or rather limits, your choice of a developer. Cannot speak for folks who wet print, I don't have that luxury. But those of us who scan prior to printing digitally, we must think about our approach to the complicated topic of sharpening. The demosaiced output from a Bayer sensor usually benefits from some sharpening, and not a single digital camera or a RAW convertor have sharpening disabled by default. But when you're digitizing negatives, even a slightest application of sharpening leads to unnatural looking "wormy" grain. That's why I've been shooting primarily Delta films and developing in Xtol, this gave me ability to digitally make natural looking prints that looked similar to wet prints. I see why someone wouldn't be happy with HP5+ in Ilfosol 3 or Rodinal because this combination is often described as "sandpaper" online. I blame sharpening or the mythical "grain aliasing" (which in itself is a complex topic).
However, things change once you cross a certain resolution threshold. Switching to a 60mp pixel-shifting sensor with a high-end macro lens allowed me to make scans that are 9,000 pixels wide. Turning off sharpening and downsampling to 5,000-6,000 pixels produces naturally looking, tight and pleasant grain without "worms". Basically, high-res no-sharpening scanning makes developers like Ilfosol shine even on HP5+. In the end, high-res scanning gives the hybrid shooters the same choice of smooth-vs-sharp as wet printers have enjoyed, and Ilfosol 3 is a fantastic developer to get that crispness when you need it.
Side comment: I do not know what scanning resolution makes this possible. In my case the jump was quite drastic from a 26MP APS-C sensor with OK macro lens to a 60MP sensor with an excellent macro lens chosen via the recommendation of https://www.closeuphotography.com/
@Empyreus hm... interesting. I remember seeing the announcement but never got around to play with it. Should be a fun experiment!
Quick update. I continue to be impressed by Ilfosol 3. I just tried developing Delta 100 in it and the results are spectacular. The grain is extremely regular and tight. This developer changed my relationship with grain, a 180 degree transformation!
Full-sized scan of Delta 100
Sorry it's not one of those crisp & sharp images on a tripod, it was shot wide-open at f/1.4, but it does demonstrate excellent grain structure.
I am quite tempted to leave Xtol behind, at least for 35mm.
Quick update. I continue to be impressed by Ilfosol 3. I just tried developing Delta 100 in it and the results are spectacular. The grain is extremely regular and tight. This developer changed my relationship with grain, a 180 degree transformation!
Full-sized scan of Delta 100
Sorry it's not one of those crisp & sharp images on a tripod, it was shot wide-open at f/1.4, but it does demonstrate excellent grain structure.
I am quite tempted to leave Xtol behind, at least for 35mm.
Quick update. I continue to be impressed by Ilfosol 3. I just tried developing Delta 100 in it and the results are spectacular. The grain is extremely regular and tight. This developer changed my relationship with grain, a 180 degree transformation!
Full-sized scan of Delta 100
Sorry it's not one of those crisp & sharp images on a tripod, it was shot wide-open at f/1.4, but it does demonstrate excellent grain structure.
I am quite tempted to leave Xtol behind, at least for 35mm.
@Empyreus happy to help.
@Empyreus Probably the difference is explained by both the equipment and the process. Prior to switching to a high-res rig, I have been scanning with a Fuji 26MP sensor, almost the same as in your xt20, with a modest Rokinon 100mm macro. Here's the result: 18MP scan of Delta 100 in Xtol. The corners are smeared a bit due to mediocre optics, and grain is almost invisible due to limited resolution and gentle sharpening.
I use very little sharpening, no more than 10 in Lightroom (the default is 40). Also, I am quite careful with image gamma. My latest workflow for B&W actually involves Negmaster flat profile: I apply that profile in Lightroom, then open the image in Photoshop, adjust white+black points, slight gamma tweak, B&W conversion on top, and that's pretty much it. Here's the 18MP scan of FP4+ in ID-11.
As you can see, the grain is almost invisible on both film+dev combinations. Additional resolution helps bringing it out, but frankly 24MP should be enough for all online mediums and for decently sized prints, say 11x14".
TL;DR I blame sharpening.
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?