Metol in glycol now horrible brown

[gainer]

I think my latest scans are too smooth, but not sharp enough, which is probably saying the same thing two different ways. Either way, IMHO, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between these two developers. I'm not so concerned about the what as the why. It is generally accepted, I think, that the grain comes about differently in sulfite developers than in ascorbate ones. I think the difference here is not borax vs sulfite, but ascorbate vs sulfite.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In the samples, the large book 2nd to the right of the center, you can see text on the spine from the Microdol developer but not the experiment. You can almost read the text. This can be either contrast, sharpness or both! These are some of the elements that should be resolved in a test case like this.

A scan of the negative should be better than a scan of the print.

PE

 

[gainer]

I think I chose the wrong part of the bookcase. That book's spine is hardly readable from a foot away with my best reading glasses hanging on my nose. If we were testing color film, we might have a chance. None of the text on that spine is any smaller than that on "The Silver Chalice", but the color contrast is not suitable for BW film. A color-blind person could not read most of the titles on that part of the shelf.

I can tell no difference on my screen between the images of that book.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can see text in the Microdol sample, but not quite read it. I can see just vague markings on the other sample. Of course Costain's book is quite readable. BTW, I have a copy as well.

PE

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I find the Microdol has a bit more information too. Murry's scan manipulations match contrast pretty well, and the Microdol is definitely better there for me.

 

[gainer]

First you tell me a direct scan of the negative might show better what you want to see. I do the direct scan and present it, whereupon you refer to the scan of the enlarged analog print, doctored by Murray, to show what you want to see. I suggest you mix up a liter of the Phenidone-ascorbic acid-borax formula and compare it for yourself with whatever you want. My scanner is not what I would trust to resolve the grain directly and too much tinkering with contrast is required for the indirect comparison involving an analog print.

 

[gainer]

Now let us ply this game a bit differently. I will present two different images, each from direct scan of negative, and you tell me which is better.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, these are not as good as the other scans.

PE

 

[Kirk Keyes]

It's hard to scan negs well. I think I would try from the prints.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I was a bit apprehensive that Patrick might be upset I adjusted the contrast and re-present his results. I was mindful of PE's comment somewhere, that contrast affected apparent sharpness and kept that in mind as I did it.
I would have put my money on the PCBorax initially but with the levels equaled to the best I could with that program, it seemed the other way around - Microdol-X substitute had a teensy bit more apparent sharpness.
But, as Pat says, we're looking at detail in 3x5 feet enlargements of HP5+ from 35mm film!.
I'm amazed at both developers. I have mentioned the PCBorax to several people since I tried it some months ago (probably nearer a year) and now I know it's as good as I remembered it.
Nice going, Patrick.
Murray

 

[sanking]

With reference to the question posed by the OP, I think it is entirely possible that the small amount of water that is used to mix the metol for the Pyrocat-MC formula may shorten the life of the stock solution mixed in glycol somewhat compared to Pyrocat-HD mixed in glycol, where no water is used to mix the solution. I have a couple of control solutions of Pyrocat-HD and -MC mixed in glycol about four years ago and the -MC has darkened a lot over time while the -HD is still about the same color. I assume this to be from oxidation, though it may be some other reaction. However, even with the change in color the -MC is still working well. I just developed a step wedge with the four year old developer and it turned out fine.

As for comparing developers by scanning negatives this is a total waste of time in my opinion, unless you are scanning with a drum scanner that is capable of pulling all of the detail out of the negative. The consumer type flatbeds used by most persons for these comparisons are not capable of capturing much more than 40 lines per mm, less than half of the figure possible with many camera/lens/film/developer combinations. To quibble over results from such tests is pointless since the limitation to what is shown is the scanner, not the other links of the chain.

Sandy

 

[gainer]

I think I will leave it at Sandy's comment, at least until I can think of a better way to show what I was trying to show.

 

[sanking]

I think I will leave it at Sandy's comment, at least until I can think of a better way to show what I was trying to show.

And in addition to the fact that most consumer flatbed scanners do not come close to being able to resolve all of the detail in a well exposed and developed negative, there is also the issue that the way grain is rendered is very specific to the particular conditions of the test in terms of film type and developer, and even more specific to the scanner and operator methodology. Most of the consumer flatbeds are not even capable of grain discrimination.

Sandy King

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well guys, you may not see grain, but I have certainly been able to see sharpness differences between prints and negatives. I can see grain as well, but that is a different matter.

PE

 

[sanking]

Well guys, you may not see grain, but I have certainly been able to see sharpness differences between prints and negatives. I can see grain as well, but that is a different matter.

PE

What scanner are you using?

Sandy

 

[Photo Engineer]

Epson 4870 flatbed.

But then, I can see sharpness (or contrast) differences in the pictures Patrick has posted and I believe that Kirk has echoed this comment. It is there in the print and the negative scans.

PE

 

[sanking]

Epson 4870 flatbed.

But then, I can see sharpness (or contrast) differences in the pictures Patrick has posted and I believe that Kirk has echoed this comment. It is there in the print and the negative scans.

PE

PE,

First, my understanding is that Patrick first enlarged the negatives optically, then scanned. I see some validity in that approach since it bypasses the limitations of the scanner to some extent.

My point is that scanning a negative directly with a consumer flatbed scanner in an attempt to compare resolution/sharpness and/or grain is totally pointless. A scanner like the Epson 4870, which I have owned and used, is not capable of resolving even 40% of the detail in a film like Acros or Tmax-100, so if you are seeing differences in sharpness or grain from different film/developer combinations it is definitely due to something else other than the developer.

I am somewhat baffled as to how you could imagine that a flatbed scanner of the capability of the Epson 4870 would be capable of discriminating differences between developers. Professional type scanners that are capable of resolution 3X that of the 4870 (which is really about 35 lines per mm at best) come short of resolving all of the detail in high resolution films like Tmax-100 and Acros. And the difference in resolution that results from the developer itself is relatively minute, on a level of magnitudes less than that of the difference between the potential resolution of the film and the scanner resolution.


Sandy King

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sandy;

I "thought" that one of the pairs Patrick put up was a direct film scan. If so, then follow along with me....

I saw apparent sharpness or resolution differences between all posted examples of the experiment vs Microdol X particularly in the book second right of center.

Now, I am not disagreeing with you, but follow along again....

If the scan is of the resolution of the 4870 or lower, and we can see such differences in all scans, then I think we could conclude that there is truly a difference.

That is my sequence of logic in this and nothing more.

BTW, with my 4870 scanning at reasonably high resolution, I can make some pretty big prints such as 13x19 with good sharpness and good grain. In fact, I can magnify portions of the image and still retain good sharpness.

I have scanned 4x5 negatives and slides at 2400 DPI and then enlarged just a tiny fraction of that image and made prints. The scanner does have problems with some professional films with a matte back for retouching or with samples that are so fine grained and sharp that aliasing causes an apparent increase in grain or loss in sharpness.

PE

 

[sanking]

Ron,

I follow your logic, but it simply makes no sense to me. Not my intention to kick the 4870 since I owned one and made some good prints from it, but it simply is not capable of showing the fine discrimination you would see from developers, irrespective of what you thought you saw from Pat's scans. I own a professional level scanner that has more than 3X the resolution of the 4870 and even it could not show the fine differences in sharpness, grain or resolution that would result from the use of two pictorial type developers.

Pat's approach in optically enlarging the comparison negatives, and then scanning the highly magnified prints, is fundamentally much more sound than scanning with consumer type flatbeds. Now, it would be a different matter if one has a drum or professional flatbed that is capable of real resolution at or above the potential resolution of the camera/film/developer.

Sandy

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sandy;

I'm not disagreeing with you about the scanners. What I am saying is that if, with the given limits of the scanner, you see a difference, then there is "some sort of difference" whatever that may be. That is the issue. The Microdol example looks better on my monitor and it did to others.

The experiment looked very good, nonetheless and I am not faulting the method except that enlargement adds another set of optics and procedures to the mix, but there is an observable difference.

PE

 

[wogster]

Ron,

I follow your logic, but it simply makes no sense to me. Not my intention to kick the 4870 since I owned one and made some good prints from it, but it simply is not capable of showing the fine discrimination you would see from developers, irrespective of what you thought you saw from Pat's scans. I own a professional qualaity scanner that has more than 3X the resolution of the 4870 and even it could not show the fine differences in sharpness, grain or resolution that would result from the use of two pictorial type developers.

Pat's approach in optically enlarging the comparison negatives, and then scanning the highly magnified prints, is fundamentally much more sound than scanning with consumer type flatbeds. Now, it would be a different matter if one has a drum or professional flatbed that is capable of real resolution at or above the potential resolution of the camera/film/developer.

Sandy

There are really a lot of factors, with scanning, that you may not know. For one, how well did the user tune the scan, an automatic driver optimized scan usually ranges from horrible to mediocre, a user who hand tunes the scan with the settings, can get that to pretty good.

Other factors that come into play is how well has the scanner been optimized for focus, some scanners can be focused, some auto focus and some have fixed focus. The later group can sometimes be focused using bits of tape and paper on the bottom of the negative holder, or using an adjustable negative holder.

Another factor is whether the scanner is at native resolution, lots of scanners give huge resolution ranges, but optically are limited to 300-2400DPI. the driver uses interpolation to get the advertised big number resolution, and the algorithms used to do the interpolation range from reasonably good, to horribly awful.

 

[sanking]

Paul,

Thanks for your comments, but the fact of the matter is that I have a lot of experience with scanning and am quite aware of the factors you mention. In fact, my workflow these days is based primarily on scanning rather than direct optical printing, and I have compared scans with quite a number of consumer flatbeds and professional quality scanners, including Imacon as well as professional flatbeds such as EverSmart, and ColorGetter and Howtek drum scanners. The point I have been trying to make is that there is simply no comparison between the results one should expect from an Epson flatbed, even when used optimally, and a professional quality machine. Good films are capable of resolution at least 3X that of the potential of Epson flatbeds like the 4870, and there is no way of getting around that fact.


Sandy King

 

[gainer]

Well, I thought I could stay out, but here I am. I have for a long time bemoaned the fact that scanning one thing or another is the only way I can show certain things to fellow APUG members. I can make a print of any size that when viewed from the distance for proper perspective will not show grain. One can calculate the proper viewing distance of a print from the focal length of the lens that made the negative, the size of some object on the negative, and the size of the same object on the print being viewed. The proper viewing distance for each of the last two partial frames I sent is about 80 inches if the print or the size of the screen is 8x10. At that viewing distance, the differences of resolution between developers is invisible.

When I view at arm's length an 8x10 print of the area that I have been showing, three developers, Rodinal 1+25, Microsoft Expedient, and SPF-3, are terrible. When I back off to about 6 feet, they all look quite similar. Close up, the borax developer has Rodinal beaten in every way. But remember: the 8x10 print I'm looking at represents a 4.3X8 mm area of a 24x36 mm negative. I think that is about the size of a frame of my old Double 8 movie film. And we're looking at HP5+

 

[gainer]

Just for information, I used the vertical pixel count of the image I sent, 576, and the vertical dimension on the negative, 4.2 mm to arrive at 3400 ppi. Counting about 11 power optical magnification, the scanner only supplied about 400 ppi.

 

[sanking]

Well, I thought I could stay out, but here I am. I have for a long time bemoaned the fact that scanning one thing or another is the only way I can show certain things to fellow APUG members.

Unless one has a very high end scanner my opinion is that the only way to illustrate differences in sharpness and grain with film/developer combinations is to make very high magnification optical enlargements on paper of small parts of the negative, and then scan the prints. You don't need to scan the print at high resolution since even 600 dpi is far more resolution than would be in a 20x magnification of an optical print. It seems to me that if you area able to see any differences in sharpness or grain in the scan of the print with the various combinations the reason would definitely be due to the developer.


Sandy King