Leica Fotografie article on film developers

[hansbeckert]

Please see:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The developer is only as good as the person using it. If you dont think is not that good, that is your opinion, just dont try to force your opinion on us. You probably just did not know how to use Rodinal. That is much more likely than saying is not good in face of evidence to the contrary.

as you were told before, give it a rest......

The article was posted because I doubt that any of you have seen a similar survey. It is really quite useful. This was not intended to be a put-down of Rodinal...but in the test Rodinal does not stand out on the postive side in any way. It happens to be no better than any, and worse than many, on most films. It does not appear to be a good match with fast films at all.

 

[Jorge]

All I know is 35mm what my eyes tell me. Tell ya what, I'll get some Rodinal this weekend and run some tests too. OK?

Nope, I would rather you go away, and I get the feeling a lot of people agree with me, judging by the response to your incesant tirade.....

 

[Jorge]

Picture is up bubba......what is your objection now...?

 

[hansbeckert]

Sorry Hans, but I can't see how speed has anything at all to do with the quality of a negative. As for detail, that can be a blessing or a curse depending on the subject. From what I've read here you've equated it with quality when it is simply a characteristic. Maximum detail can be very useful in many respects while detrimental in others. Point is, neither speed or detail are what make a quality negative, speed being the least. People who use Rodinal regularly will already know that it is not a speed developer. If it produces the detail they want, then it is at the least all they need. More importantly if it gives them exactly the look they want, then nothing is better.

I see your point, but given that many who use 35mm in the documentary style want the very best image quality they can get (since the negative is so damned small) and find themselves always needing more speed will not find Rodinal to be the best choice. Of course speed is important. The difference between Rodinal and Acutol on most films is 2/3 to 1 full stop, and that can make or break an image.

 

[hansbeckert]

Picture is up bubba......what is your objection now...?

What picture?

 

[Mongo]

If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed.

I personally have never been able to see the quality of my negatives improve based on the speed the developer provides. Knowing the speed I will get with a given combination of film and developer allows me to meter accordingly. That improves the quality of my negatives.

 

[hansbeckert]

I personally have never been able to see the quality of my negatives improve based on the speed the developer provides. Knowing the speed I will get with a given combination of film and developer allows me to meter accordingly. That improves the quality of my negatives.

Well, when you're using 1/250 instead of 1/125, or 1/500 instead of 1/250 it matters a lot! Do you do sports work? Long lens work?

 

[Jorge]

What picture?

Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....

 

[hansbeckert]

Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....

I'm new here. Do you mean this?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, it looks horribly grainy to me. Sorry, that hardly looks like something I'd want to get from my film and developer. I'll try to add one to this thread.

This image was made a couple of weeks ago. I used HP5 Plus and devloped it in Acutol. Taken with the 560mm f/6,8 Leitz Telyt. High school football match.

 

[Jorge]

I'm new here. Do you mean this?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, it looks horribly grainy to me. Sorry, that hardly looks like something I'd want to get from my film and developer. I'll try to add one to this thread.

This image was made a couple of weeks ago. I used HP5 Plus and devloped it in Acutol. Taken with the 560mm f/6,8 Leitz Telyt. High school football match.

LOL....you would say that...I know you are new here, sadly you found this site to make yourself as obnoxious as you do in the Ilford and other forums you visit. The difference is that here we have this little feature called the ignore list, once you are in it, as the name implies, it just ignores your posts. I get the feeling that you are making into a lot of lists.....for sure you are now in mine...later bubba, dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

 

[Mongo]

Well, when you're using 1/250 instead of 1/125, or 1/500 instead of 1/250 it matters a lot! Do you do sports work? Long lens work?

I have done both in the past, yes. And when I've done those, I chose my film and developer appropriately. I take it that your claim of Acutol being better because it's faster is now modified to Acutol being better if you're shooting sports or using a long lens because it's faster...no?

When I shoot 35mm or 120 landscapes from a tripod, or when I shoot on the streets, I use Rodinal because I love the way it looks. (If I'm shooting large format for contact printing, Pyrocat-HD is my favored developer.) Before you chide me for my unwillingness to see how much better Acutol is...know that I tried Acutol, Rodinal, and a host of other developers...and I chose Rodinal. I chose Rodinal because it gets me the results that I want. I won't claim that Rodinal is "the best", because no developer is the best. But what I will claim is that Rodinal gets me what I want better than any other developer I've tried. Acutol didn't give me results I was looking for.

These things are matters of taste and opinion, not fact. No amount of argument, no amount of data, and no amount of repetition of claims of superiority will make me believe that I will be happier with Acutol than I am with Rodinal. I've tried them both, and for my personal vision, Rodinal gives me what I want. Maybe the grain's more evident...maybe the resolution is lower...maybe I have to shoot at lower shutter speeds...maybe a demon in hell sings my praises every time I unscrew the cap on a bottle of Rodinal...but I don't care. I like the way my 35mm and 120 shots look with Rodinal more than with the other developers I've tried, Acutol included.

 

[hansbeckert]

I have done both in the past, yes. And when I've done those, I chose my film and developer appropriately. I take it that your claim of Acutol being better because it's faster is now modified to Acutol being better if you're shooting sports or using a long lens because it's faster...no?

When I shoot 35mm or 120 landscapes from a tripod, or when I shoot on the streets, I use Rodinal because I love the way it looks. (If I'm shooting large format for contact printing, Pyrocat-HD is my favored developer.) Before you chide me for my unwillingness to see how much better Acutol is...know that I tried Acutol, Rodinal, and a host of other developers...and I chose Rodinal. I chose Rodinal because it gets me the results that I want. I won't claim that Rodinal is "the best", because no developer is the best. But what I will claim is that Rodinal gets me what I want better than any other developer I've tried. Acutol didn't give me results I was looking for.

These things are matters of taste and opinion, not fact. No amount of argument, no amount of data, and no amount of repetition of claims of superiority will make me believe that I will be happier with Acutol than I am with Rodinal. I've tried them both, and for my personal vision, Rodinal gives me what I want. Maybe the grain's more evident...maybe the resolution is lower...maybe I have to shoot at lower shutter speeds...maybe a demon in hell sings my praises every time I unscrew the cap on a bottle of Rodinal...but I don't care. I like the way my 35mm and 120 shots look with Rodinal more than with the other developers I've tried, Acutol included.

Of course, developers change their characteristics with dilution. What you may have found is that with the dilution you used, you prefer Rodinal. And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer to a greater degree than Rodinal: better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion. It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol, but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed. It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there.

 

[Mongo]

And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer to a greater degree than Rodinal: better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion. It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol, but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed. It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there.

I get the feeling that you've either never studied debate, or that you are intentionally throwing up false arguments. In either case, I will have the last word as far as I'm concerned, as I'm going to write this reply and then I am going to immediately place you on my Ignore list. Congratulations...you'll be the very first. (And I'll probably be the last person on APUG to put you on my ignore list.)

"And I DO claim that Acutol offers ALL the things I want in a developer " Note: it offers all of the things that YOU want.

"better speed, better tonality (less compression of mid-tones), finer grain, better sharpness. Those ARE indisputable, because I've conducted the tests. Those are NOT a matter of opinion." Note: these are things that YOU want. Measure them all you want...call them indisputable...I don't care. I tried Acutol in lots of dilutions with lots of films, and I found it characterless.

"It is still reasonable for someone to PREFER Rodinal to Acutol" Note: In my experience, it's not only reasonable, but common. Not that that matters much...I'm just rubbing your face in the fact that lots of people use Rodinal and for some strange reason you can't accept that fact.

"but that does not make Rodinal better in the objective measures I listed." Note: and now we come to the crux of the problem. You've found some things that are measurable, and you can measure that they are "better", so you infer that the developer is therefore better. As my previous post stated, and you so inconveniently ignored, I DON'T CARE. I choose Rodinal because I like how it looks, numbers be damned.

"It has nothing to do with sports work alone, but the extra speed sure comes in handy there." Note: YOU are the one who used sports work and long lenses as reasons why speed makes Acutol "better", not me. If you're arguing that this point is moot, then you're arguing with yourself.

And now, welcome to my Ignore list. <click>

 

[hansbeckert]

I DON'T CARE. I choose Rodinal because I like how it looks, numbers be damned.

Obviously, the information in this article would be useful to those who DO care. Many, many do care. I'm sorry for you. I really am.

 

[lee]

much better now on the ignore list. what a wonderful thing it is.

lee\c

 

[modafoto]

I think I will join you guys with my glass of glennmorangie with a dash of rodinal....hhmmm-mmmmm.....So the jug I was sending Tony will just have a tiny bit less...

I will be joining too!

 

[modafoto]

I'm sorry for you. I really am.

That comment is another reason for putting you away.

 

[m. dowdall]

Here's the real Hans Beckert, as played by Peter Lorre:

Thanks David. I remember when he posted that as a picture of himself on the google forum. Thought it strange that some one would choose that particular character to represent himself.

Michael

 

[hansbeckert]

Why not? Lorre was SO cool! Many people use made-up names. Mine is doubly so, since the character is fictional.

 

[m. dowdall]

Why not? Lorre was SO cool! Many people use made-up names. Mine is doubly so, since the character is fictional.

I agree, Lorre was cool. He was a great actor too. How else could he so effectively play such a sick and despicable character that was reviled by his community? So of all the pictures of Peter Lorre that are out there, why did you pick this one?

Michael

 

[hansbeckert]

I agree, Lorre was cool. He was a great actor too. How else could he so effectively play such a sick and despicable character that was reviled by his community? So of all the pictures of Peter Lorre that are out there, why did you pick this one?

Michael

Ugarte? Joel Cairo? Mr. Moto? I like all of his characters. I'm small too, and I can do a really good impersonation of his voice.

I found that one first, so I chose it. Looking just now, I found a pic of Moto:

http://www.rareserials.com/moto.jpg

I also found Ugarte:

http://www.gonemovies.com/www/Drama/Drama/CasablancaRickUgarte.htm

Anyway, I thought Hans Beckert would be a real stumper for most people.

 

[VoidoidRamone]

Lorre is a great actor, but the fact that you picked a picture of him when he played a role as a child-murderer is a little... wierd. -Grant

 

[hansbeckert]

Lorre is a great actor, but the fact that you picked a picture of him when he played a role as a child-murderer is a little... wierd. -Grant

It's just a fictional character, nothing more. The film M is fantastic, if you've never seen it. What's really incredible is the revolutionary use of sound, which was new then.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Obviously, the information in this article would be useful to those who DO care. Many, many do care. I'm sorry for you. I really am.

Ah!!! FINALLY the true "hansbeckert" emerges!! One word suffices: "Supercilious".
A Philosophy major who cannot begin to understand an alternative point of view!

A quick analysis (unscientific): "There are many who do care". True.
- Did someone give you the divine authority to determine those that do and those that don't?

"I feel sorry for you." - If this were the truth, it would indicate a major "turn" in your attitude towards others. Plain and simple - I don't believe you - you DON'T.
A weak - and infuriating attempt to establish superiority over someone else. Pathetic.

This message did it for me. Sayonara - and enjoy your life.

 

[hansbeckert]

"There are many who do care".[/I] True.
- Did someone give you the divine authority to determine those that do and those that don't?

What do you mean? Those who do care are free to use the information.