Jorge said: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......
hansbeckert said: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?
Dean Williams said: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.
Jorge said:Picture is up bubba......what is your objection now...?
hansbeckert said:If you are interested in maximizing the quality of your negatives, you'll want the very last bit of detail and speed.
Mongo said: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.
Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....hansbeckert said:What picture?
Jorge said:Go look at the gallery you dim bulb....
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...hansbeckert said: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.
hansbeckert said: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?
Mongo said: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 said: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 said:I DON'T CARE. I choose Rodinal because I like how it looks, numbers be damned.
Jorge said: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...
hansbeckert said:I'm sorry for you. I really am.
David A. Goldfarb said:Here's the real Hans Beckert, as played by Peter Lorre:
hansbeckert said:Why not? Lorre was SO cool! Many people use made-up names. Mine is doubly so, since the character is fictional.
m. dowdall said: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
VoidoidRamone said: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 said: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.
Ed Sukach A quick analysis (unscientific): [I said:"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?
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?