14-1/4. I.e. 14 min, 15 seconds.
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, you're basically wanting to create a new version of the MDC?
MDC: 14.25 (what is .25 anyways).
14-1/4. I.e. 14 min, 15 seconds.
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, you're basically wanting to create a new version of the MDC?
So, what would be the process to vett the submitted data?
Your timer must be broken or you're developing at 50C because, 10 - 11 minutes for FP4 in D76 and 20C is about right.Well the MDC shows that development of FP4 in D76 at 1:1 and 20c should be 11 minutes. For the last 50 years or so, I have developed FP4 in D76 at 1:1 and 20c for 12.5 minutes and I'm not about to change that.
I don't get this whole discussion. To be precise: I do get that there may be errors and discrepancies in the MDC. What I don't get is the idea that a user-submitted-data site like filmdev is more accurate,
Your timer must be broken or you're developing at 50C because, 10 - 11 minutes for FP4 in D76 and 20C is about right.
Ilford datasheet says it is 15 minutes.
It says 11 minutes rated at 125. 15 minutes is rated at 200.
At least on filmdev there is a complete explanation, sample pictures, and you get to see who is claiming the time/temp/agitation figures. Plus comments at the end of every post.
You can test my idea here (so far only Ilford datasheet times for demonstration purposes): https://jouni.kapsi.fi/filmdev2/ - just type for example "hp xt 80" in to the search box and magic happens
I'll say it again. Sample pictures are totally useless in evaluating a negative if you don't know how the negative was scanned and how it was later processed, be it in a darkroom (type of paper, developer, contrast level, etc.) or on a computer (Lightroom, Photoshop et al.). The only way sample pictures would be relevant is if they were of the negative.
The who doesn't matter to me (although I did like the band when I was young).
Not directly version of MDC but more easier to use + reliable (source always mentioned).
Nice! I like how the search is extremely quick. Which makes me think the whole data has already been loaded into my computer. Which is fine, though.
Mentioning a source doesn't make the data reliable if you don't have ways to check how reliable your source is.
Ok - if you go to that direction;if you cannot trust manufacturer datasheets, then there is no way you can trust any user data at all. Yes I know datasheets might contain errors - but what is more reliable than for example Ilford as film company? I mean do we forget what it takes to make commercial film and maintain quality? As if they cannot determine developing times?
Not directly version of MDC but more easier to use + reliable (source always mentioned).
this is photography, not some crazy lab experiment hobby
THAT I would really be in favor of! Charge on!
I hate the term "starting times" or "starting points". One vague phrase more and I will fall fown "Adjust to your personal preferences".
No. Please just tell me how I can develop good negatives.
I will argue that 99.9% do not even undestand or aren't interest in "adjusting" or "finding their own EI". You need to give people the most succesful way. I mean this is photography, not some crazy lab experiment hobby FFS.
(says a guy who has been diving in the world of film characteristic analysis)
But photography is a lab experiment hobby. As soon as you take processing in your own hands instead of paying a "professional" to do it for you, you start experimenting. And if you do that, you owe it to yourself, at least, to understand enough about it to know how to make it better. If you play golf more than once a year, chances are you spend at least a little effort to try to lower your scores; if you develop your own film beyond shooting a couple rolls of HP5+ and buying a bottle of Df96 (which has exceptionally good instructions), you ought to be spending at least enough effort to know how to tell underexposed or underdeveloped from overexposed or overdeveloped.
No, everyone shooting film doesn't need to learn how to arrive at their personal EI for a given film/developer combination -- but they should learn how to add 10% to development time if the scanner shows a curve that's got no width to it.
people want the correct data the first time.
We don't always get what we want, though, do we?
This thread has multiple examples of film manufacturer data that's either just plain wrong (due to transcription errors, for instance) or completly missing (T-Max 400 in ID-68, for example). It's also full of people complaining that "close enough to print/scan" isn't good enough, while simultaneously acknowledging that your results and mine at the same time and temp, same batch film, same batch packaged liquid concentrate developer, might well differ significantly.
It's obviously not always this way, but I've never had grossly wrong developing information from any public source. Negatives that were a little denser than I wanted, a couple times, negatives thinner than I like, more frequently -- but never anything I couldn't pull the images out of with a little effort at either the scanner or enlarger.
In fact, I'd put to you that "the correct data" doesn't really exist. If I develop with your times, I may get negatives you'd consider unacceptable, and vice versa.
I say again. If someone is going to develop beyond a one-time "see if I like it" experiment, they need to learn how to do it.
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?