Mamiya 645 pro TL and Delta 3200

[Chris Lange]

sorry but a developer has no way of distinguishing silver crystal shape.

 

[StoneNYC]

sorry but a developer has no way of distinguishing silver crystal shape.

Now you're just defending your wrong a statement with BS, some developers handle different types of grain differently, DD-X and Tmax dev as an example were DESIGNED to handle t grain emulsions ... And I just proved to you this by reference and you still refute it... Kodak says tmax dev is also designed for t grain film... So...

 

[MattKing]

Stone:

Ah, semantics.

Possibly you would prefer the Ilford language for ID-11:

"ID-11 produces excellent results with all films and is ideal where a wide range of films and film speeds have been used."

In one way you are right. Ilford says this about DDX:

"In particular it ('DDX') is recommended for use with DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL film rates (sic) at EI 3200/36."


So if you are arguing that Ilford suggests DDX for Delta 3200 rated at EI 3200, you are correct.

The excerpt you quoted says nothing about the relative suitability of other developers for use with "T-grain" developers. It might, in fact, be taken as saying that DDX is slightly less suited for use with non Delta films.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Ah, semantics.

Possibly you would prefer the Ilford language for ID-11:

"ID-11 produces excellent results with all films and is ideal where a wide range of films and film speeds have been used."

In one way you are right. Ilford says this about DDX:

"In particular it ('DDX') is recommended for use with DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL film rates (sic) at EI 3200/36."


So if you are arguing that Ilford suggests DDX for Delta 3200 rated at EI 3200, you are correct.

The excerpt you quoted says nothing about the relative suitability of other developers for use with "T-grain" developers. It might, in fact, be taken as saying that DDX is slightly less suited for use with non Delta films.

It is inference ... ALL delta films are T grain films... And only the delta line are t-grain films, therefore all delta films are t-grain and all ilford t-grain films are delta...

 

[MattKing]

Now you're just defending your wrong a statement with BS, some developers handle different types of grain differently, DD-X and Tmax dev as an example were DESIGNED to handle t grain emulsions ... And I just proved to you this by reference and you still refute it... Kodak says tmax dev is also designed for t grain film... So...

Sorry Stone:

Kodak's primary developer recommendations (see f4016 and f4043) for TMax 100 and TMax 400 are exactly the same: T-Max, T-Max RS, X-Tol, X-Tol (1+1), D-76, D-76 (1+1), or Duraflo RT, with no preference between those choices. There is also a partial recommendation (due to speed loss) for HC-110 (B), Microdol-X and Microdol-X (1+3).

All currently available major developers were either originally designed with T-grain films being considered, or have been adjusted to perform well with T-grain films. To not do so would be folly.

Developers do differ, but those differences are subtle and essentially differences of preference, not absolute suitability.

If you like what DDX does for you, I'll support you 100% in your decision to use it. It is an excellent choice.

As is ID-11/D-76.

As an example, in contra-distinction, HC-110 (B) or Microdol-X would not be as excellent a choice with T-Max 400 if your goal was to maximize speed. If a small loss in effective speed does not concern you, then HC-110 (B) or Microdol would also be an excellent choice with T-Max 400

 

[StoneNYC]

Sorry Stone:

Kodak's primary developer recommendations (see f4016 and f4043) for TMax 100 and TMax 400 are exactly the same: T-Max, T-Max RS, X-Tol, X-Tol (1+1), D-76, D-76 (1+1), or Duraflo RT, with no preference between those choices. There is also a partial recommendation (due to speed loss) for HC-110 (B), Microdol-X and Microdol-X (1+3).

All currently available major developers were either originally designed with T-grain films being considered, or have been adjusted to perform well with T-grain films. To not do so would be folly.

Developers do differ, but those differences are subtle and essentially differences of preference, not absolute suitability.

If you like what DDX does for you, I'll support you 100% in your decision to use it. It is an excellent choice.

As is ID-11/D-76.

As an example, in contra-distinction, HC-110 (B) or Microdol-X would not be as excellent a choice with T-Max 400 if your goal was to maximize speed. If a small loss in effective speed does not concern you, then HC-110 (B) or Microdol would also be an excellent choice with T-Max 400

Everywhere I've ever read has said that tmax developer and DD-X were specifically designed to work with t grain films... And it said so on the ilford website (I didn't look up kodak because I don't use it) but I can't reference every place I read that of course, thought quoting the ilford site would be good enough.

(PS I just opened this app on my phone and realized I never sent this, from last night when I typed it... So not sure what's been written since, this may be old news, I won't know till I send it and can look... Hah! Technology for the win!).

 

[Chris Lange]

Now you're just defending your wrong a statement with BS, some developers handle different types of grain differently, DD-X and Tmax dev as an example were DESIGNED to handle t grain emulsions ... And I just proved to you this by reference and you still refute it... Kodak says tmax dev is also designed for t grain film... So...

Everywhere I've ever read has said that tmax developer and DD-X were specifically designed to work with t grain films... And it said so on the ilford website (I didn't look up kodak because I don't use it) but I can't reference every place I read that of course, thought quoting the ilford site would be good enough.

(PS I just opened this app on my phone and realized I never sent this, from last night when I typed it... So not sure what's been written since, this may be old news, I won't know till I send it and can look... Hah! Technology for the win!).

You aren't allowed to make statements like this without having any clue as to the science/chemistry behind the actual development process, which you have no interest in learning because you are also Jim Morrison.

You are aware that Xtol and DD-X are extraordinarily similar in makeup, right? Both active ingredients are Phenidone and Hydroquinone. TMax developer also uses the same...Sprint Standard is also PQ, even though everyone thinks of it as D76 in a bottle.

What they have in common is also their development via solvent action. Ever wonder why modern films look -especially- smooth when developed in these chemicals? It's because, in a nutshell, solvent developers soften the edges of grain in the negative, giving the appearance of a smoother image. D76 is a solvent developer too, I may add. Rodinal is not, thus its reputation for giving increased grain.

Hell, Acufine, is PQ based and is regarded by many as being not ideal for use with D3200...

Do you honestly mean to tell me that a mixture of chemicals in solution can intelligently decide whether a grain is triangular, hexagonal,cubic, or tabular? I have news for you, pal, T-grain doesn't mean jacks**t, Kodak's T-grain (tabular) are differently shaped than Ilford's Delta "Core-Shell" grains, which are differently shaped than Fuji's "Super fine-E Grain".

Instead of quoting marketing literature and the top line of a tech-pub, maybe some actual research would benefit you.

Now if we've finished our little pissing contest, I'd like to see what Rubyfalls' comes up with from his 645.

 

[StoneNYC]

You aren't allowed to make statements like this without having any clue as to the science/chemistry behind the actual development process, which you have no interest in learning because you are also Jim Morrison.

You are aware that Xtol and DD-X are extraordinarily similar in makeup, right? Both active ingredients are Phenidone and Hydroquinone. TMax developer also uses the same...Sprint Standard is also PQ, even though everyone thinks of it as D76 in a bottle.

What they have in common is also their development via solvent action. Ever wonder why modern films look -especially- smooth when developed in these chemicals? It's because, in a nutshell, solvent developers soften the edges of grain in the negative, giving the appearance of a smoother image. D76 is a solvent developer too, I may add. Rodinal is not, thus its reputation for giving increased grain.

Hell, Acufine, is PQ based and is regarded by many as being not ideal for use with D3200...

Do you honestly mean to tell me that a mixture of chemicals in solution can intelligently decide whether a grain is triangular, hexagonal,cubic, or tabular? I have news for you, pal, T-grain doesn't mean jacks**t, Kodak's T-grain (tabular) are differently shaped than Ilford's Delta "Core-Shell" grains, which are differently shaped than Fuji's "Super fine-E Grain".

Instead of quoting marketing literature and the top line of a tech-pub, maybe some actual research would benefit you.

Now if we've finished our little pissing contest, I'd like to see what Rubyfalls' comes up with from his 645.

It's not even worth it...

You're right oh all knowing one... Your logic is undeniable, you know more than the companies that creat them, you're able to scientifically prove that their marketing are all lies and propaganda with your giant brain of unfathomable knowledge...

 

[Chris Lange]

You're misconstruing this. The point is that at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter which developer you use out of a group of very similarly formulated developers. And yes, I do know more than the marketing literature because I'm not in need of being marketed to because I took the time to actually learn what's going on behind the scenes. Tech sheets frequently use marketing literature as their front page...ever wonder why ilford chemicals always mention ilford films first? Dd-x points out Delta films initially? Don't be naive.

 

[MattKing]

Everywhere I've ever read has said that tmax developer and DD-X were specifically designed to work with t grain films... And it said so on the ilford website (I didn't look up kodak because I don't use it) but I can't reference every place I read that of course, thought quoting the ilford site would be good enough.

(PS I just opened this app on my phone and realized I never sent this, from last night when I typed it... So not sure what's been written since, this may be old news, I won't know till I send it and can look... Hah! Technology for the win!).

Stone:

All general purpose commercial developers designed since the advent of "T-grain" films were designed to work well with T-grain films.

And all general purpose commercial developers that were in existence prior to the advent of "T-grain" films have been modified (where necessary) to work well with "T-grain" films.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

All general purpose commercial developers designed since the advent of "T-grain" films were designed to work well with T-grain films.

And all general purpose commercial developers that were in existence prior to the advent of "T-grain" films have been modified (where necessary) to work well with "T-grain" films.

Fine, but that's what the documentation says, that DD-X was ESPECIALLY good for Delta... I dunno, whatever it's not worth it anymore, whatever I say is wrong no matter what.

 

[MattKing]

... I dunno, whatever it's not worth it anymore, whatever I say is wrong no matter what.

Now this statement is indeed, wrong.

Because there is lots of "rightness" in lots of what you say.

And with all your posts, not surprisingly, there are significant numbers of times when you are completely right.

When you do do "WRONG" however, you do it with energy!

 

[StoneNYC]

Now this statement is indeed, wrong.

Because there is lots of "rightness" in lots of what you say.

And with all your posts, not surprisingly, there are significant numbers of times when you are completely right.

When you do do "WRONG" however, you do it with energy!

Haha! well at least I have enthusiasm

 

[rubyfalls]

I don't know, but I am enjoying this. And learning a lot. Or having a fantasy learning sequence montage where one goes from duh to ta-da during the course of 'Brown-Eyed Girl.' Hard to tell the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Lange]

I don't know, but I am enjoying this. And learning a lot. Or having a fantasy learning sequence montage where one goes from duh to ta-da during the course of 'Brown-Eyed Girl.' Hard to tell the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If APUG had a "like" button for posts, I would use it on this.

 

[Xmas]

Or having a fantasy learning sequence montage where one goes from duh to ta-da during the course of 'Brown-Eyed Girl.'

It is good to have a happy customer.
If you uprate films by extend dev time and expose with data you want to look good pushed into the toe of the film curve it will either be more difficult to print or it will look like a low key print - latter is more subjective.
You can reflect that Ansell Adams who normally had good light and a solid tripod used a variant of Stoecklers 2nd bath and D23 sometimes.
google Barry Thorton for a latter day thought
If a post soak in Borax helps with shadows it saves on fun times wet printing cause split grade burn and dodging real fun
Id not like to comment on the Tgrain v dev options cept for the history that the first Tgrain was a surveillance film for uniform two platforms but needed a paired developer before it could be used for more normal pics.
But even the later T grain films do need a lot longer in the fix bath cause the hypo sure can tell they are T grain crystals so after 3 mins in fix lift lid of tank and inspect until no longer milky then fix for the same time again, fixing is temperature dependent too.
If you don't fix and wash proper you will be in Brown Winsor soup later.
Dead Link Removed

 

[rubyfalls]

I'd really like to learn more about the two-step developing process -- or two developers. Any good references would be much appreciated.

I now have 5 rolls of D3200 exposed at 1600 and ready for the DD-X spa treatment. I'll be developing tonight and will share whatever isn't horribly embarrassing as soon as I can. Thanks again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rubyfalls]

I am happy with the D3200.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gone]

Wow. Thought I was on the site w/ the p in the first word there for a while :}

 

[rubyfalls]

Wow. Thought I was on the site w/ the p in the first word there for a while :}

Peabay? Pacebook? I'm confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

Dead Link Removed
You could try the 2nd bath with your current developer 3 minutes post bath.
But your shots look nice already... even if Ansell used one...

 

[Dinesh]

Peabay? Pacebook? I'm confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Photo.net

 

[rubyfalls]

Photo.net

Is this a bad place? I only go here, so I don't know what that site is like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk