Negative developer considerations with the intent of big enlargements

[ChrisBCS]

So if you are developing MF negatives that you intend to make large prints of, and you want to squeeze every last drop of detail out of them, so they can be viewed relatively close without noticing significant grain, what would your considerations be for developer?

Assume you've already used a very fine grain film like Delta 100 or Pan F 50.

Are you wanting a developer that minimizes grain size for a true increase in resolution? Does this come at the complete sacrifice of acutance? IE, choosing using an acutance developer (FX-39) versus the finest grain developer you can get your hands on (XTOL?). Or do you still try to balance them somehow?

 

[Ian Grant]

Pan F in Xtol.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

Whatever developer you are most familiar. Sturdy tripod, correct focus and aperture.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pyrocat-HD.

 

[destroya]

perceptol 1+3 with pan F works well for me.

 

[Ian Grant]

Pyrocat-HD.

I suggested Xtol as the OP can get hold of it. In practice I switched from Rodinal and Xtol to Pyrocat HD just over a decade ago. That combination Delta 100 and occasionally Pan F in Pyrocat suits me for MF work.

However a friend (Bill Spears - a member here) uses Pan F in Perceptol 1+2 for his MF work and the quality is really outstanding, it's by far the best you'll get from any current film/developer combination, the only reason I don't use this combination is I use MF hand held as I mostly alongside my 5x4 or 10x8 cameras.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've done side by side comparisons with xtol 1+1 and pyrocat. In enlarged prints from 35mm negatives (HP5), Pyrocat-HD developed negative showed slightly less grain.... and this is back when I didn't need glasses!

 

[Slixtiesix]

Another vote for Perceptol, my developer of choice!

 

[ChrisBCS]

Thanks everyone. So far, between this thread, it seems to be a battle between XTOL and Perceptol. For some reason I had read somewhere that XTOL had the finest grain available from a quantitative perspective. Perhaps that was just nothing more than hearsay?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would use XTOL - best available balance of fine grain and sharpness.

I use replenished XTOL.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

How about Rodinal? Someone above mentioned it. Rodinal 1:50 was well-known as a fine-grain developer. Depending on the amount of agitation, you get some compensating character. I still use Rodinal with my remaining stock of Panatomic-X. Regardless, Pan-F is superb, but I wish I had more Panatomic. Cheers,

 

[revdoc]

It's been my experience that film choice is far more important than developer, and in that context, Pan F might not be the best choice. Were grain the major factor, I'd go for TMX, which seems (to me, anyway) to have the least grain of films currently available.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Ultimately you are going to be the final arbiter of what works for you. Personally, if I am going to print big, I want the grain to be as sharp as I can get it regardless of the size of it. In large prints, the sharpness of the grain is almost more important than the sharpness of the neg! If you are concerned about nose prints on the glass, that is what you should be worried about. What that means to you is just that you want to avoid developers that are highly solvent. Stick with acutance developers. Nothing worse than a mushy big print. I have seen a few in my time, by photographers that should have known better.

I don't know if that helps you, but I hope it has.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've done side by side comparisons with xtol 1+1 and pyrocat. In enlarged prints from 35mm negatives (HP5), Pyrocat-HD developed negative showed slightly less grain.... and this is back when I didn't need glasses!

I disagree somewhat regarding Pyrocat. While Pyrocat-HD gives slightly finer grain than a non-staining acutance formula, it isn't a fine grain developer. If OP wants a balance of fine grain and acutance I would not suggest this type of developer. I do agree diluted Perceptol (1+2 or 1+3) works extremely well in general.

Michael, like Andrew I use Pyrocat HD with all film formats and have to agree with him that there may be slightly less grain than Xtol, in real terms they are close enough to be on a par, but what you have with Pyrocat is s slight increase in acutance as well, it's the staining that helps give less apparent graininess, and the combination of fine grain and acutance (micro-contrast) is far better than an Acutance developer like FX-39.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

Read what Patrick Robert James says above and DON'T take it with a grain of salt or silver. What he says is exactly what I have found to be true through my own experience. A while back I was traveling with my wife and came upon a parked/displayed steam locomotive engine. It was the old 1223 from the Pere Marquette line and it was parked in Grand Haven, Mi.. I had two of my favorite cameras along, plus my super heavy duty Bogen tripod. I setup for the shot and used both cameras from the same location. Everything was exactly the same except for one thing and that was the film. The Kodak Monitor had HP5+ and the Zeiss Super Ikonta C had FP4+. I processed the film in Xtol Replenished and did everything exactly the same. I set my D2 enlarger with my very good Vivitar 100mm VHE lens for a print size close to 20X24 and used a sheet of Ilford Multigade 11X14 for a tight crop of the front of the locomotive. When I wet printed the two best shots from each camera I was really surprised as to which one really stood out as the best of the two. I thought it might be just me, but I quizzed several family members and they all said the same. Yup, that HP5+ shot was the one that caught everybody's eye as to being a better print. Now you might say it's because I used different cameras, but I know for a fact that the Zeiss lens I used with FP4+ is actually a tad better in the sharpness department so that's not the difference. I also shot them both at between f8-11 , which is good for each in the sharpness/DOF area. The FP4+ print up close didn't look un-sharp, but didn't seem to have that micro contrast/micro detail look to it. I was a little stumped and curious at the same time. What was the reason I wondered? It has to be the grain in the image itself causing the difference of apparent sharpness. Could I see the grain in the HP5+ print? Even in a section of clear whitish sky I could see no apparent grain up close, but still there seemed to be more detail in what few clouds were there. I guess it makes sense, but from a guy that always believed slower was better, it's a hard pill to swallow. This was from 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 negatives so 35mm might be a hole different ballgame.

 

[mgb74]

You asked about developer for a large print, but never defined what that means to you. 16x20 is a large print for me, but for many it's not. Also, you specify MF, but that could be anywhere from 6x4.5 to 6x9. My point is that a 20x24 from a 6x4.5 negative is a significantly greater enlargement than a 16x20 from a 6x9.

FWIW, I just enlarged a 35mm negative (tmax 100 in D-76) to 11x14 and was surprised how "acceptable" the grain was. That equates to a pretty big print from MF.

+1 on avoiding a big mushy print.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Worrying about using a particular developer is a bit of a red herring. Concentrate on camera vibration and accurate focusing. These two things do more to effect resolution than anything else.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Thank you everyone. For big, I'm referring to the 36"+ department (I REALLY like big prints, it's one of my endgames).

They would by coming from 6 x 6 exposures.

Other than the obvious answer of making better prints through a large format, this thread is giving me excellent things to think about.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you everyone. For big, I'm referring to the 36"+ department (I REALLY like big prints, it's one of my endgames).

They would by coming from 6 x 6 exposures.

Other than the obvious answer of making better prints through a large format, this thread is giving me excellent things to think about.

Yes, the hints here will allow you to do a little experimentation to find your "sweet spot" for the size print you want. 6X6 with a very good lens, camera free of vibration (mirror up type thing) and a heavy. stable tripod ought to get you there or at least very close to there.

 

[M Carter]

Thank you everyone. For big, I'm referring to the 36"+ department (I REALLY like big prints, it's one of my endgames).

They would by coming from 6 x 6 exposures.

Other than the obvious answer of making better prints through a large format, this thread is giving me excellent things to think about.

As a guy who likes doing big prints, I'd say your a major focus should be enlarger alignment and lens testing. I finally gave in and got a versalign parallel (actually my. awesome Mrs. put one under the xmas tree) and man, it's a lovely thing to have. That, a DIY besalign lens board, and one of the micromega style grain focusers to double check everything at the baseboard and you can really get some snappy prints. (I'm amazed at how few people seem to test their shooting lenses for optimal apertures as well).

 

[John Wiegerink]

As a guy who likes doing big prints, I'd say your a major focus should be enlarger alignment and lens testing. I finally gave in and got a versalign parallel (actually my. awesome Mrs. put one under the xmas tree) and man, it's a lovely thing to have. That, a DIY besalign lens board, and one of the micromega style grain focusers to double check everything at the baseboard and you can really get some snappy prints. (I'm amazed at how few people seem to test their shooting lenses for optimal apertures as well).

I think the optimal lens aperture thing really only comes into play when you start going big, bigger and biggest as to enlargements. When you take a 6X6 to beyond 16X20 you start to find your weak links in the chain. You take a 6X6cm negative up to only 6X8" print and the lens has to be pretty bad to show much. I built my own laser align tool for my enlarger and it works just fine. The nice thing about doing things like aligning your enlarger, making sure you have a very good enlarging lens, flat negative/carrier and optimum aperture stuff is you eliminate much of the guess work when you do run into a problem since you can check those things off your list right away and concentrate looking someplace else for the gremlin.

 

[Arklatexian]

So if you are developing MF negatives that you intend to make large prints of, and you want to squeeze every last drop of detail out of them, so they can be viewed relatively close without noticing significant grain, what would your considerations be for developer?

Assume you've already used a very fine grain film like Delta 100 or Pan F 50.

Are you wanting a developer that minimizes grain size for a true increase in resolution? Does this come at the complete sacrifice of acutance? IE, choosing using an acutance developer (FX-39) versus the finest grain developer you can get your hands on (XTOL?). Or do you still try to balance them somehow?

While I won't attempt to answer your question, you might make it easier to answer if you told us what you mean by "large" prints. There are people who think 8x10 prints from 35mm negatives are "large prints"". Others would consider 16 x 20 prints from 35mm negatives (yes, it's possible to do) as "large" prints. I am sure you get my point.......Regards!

 

[John Wiegerink]

While I won't attempt to answer your question, you might make it easier to answer if you told us what you mean by "large" prints. There are people who think 8x10 prints from 35mm negatives are "large prints"". Others would consider 16 x 20 prints from 35mm negatives (yes, it's possible to do) as "large" prints. I am sure you get my point.......Regards!

He did! He wants to go at least 24"x36" from a 2 1/4" square negative

 

[Alan Johnson]

I'm making 10x enlargements from Delta 100 developed in Pyrocat HD but am intending to see if can get finer grain from homebrew 510 Pyro.

 

[ChrisBCS]

As a guy who likes doing big prints, I'd say your a major focus should be enlarger alignment and lens testing. I finally gave in and got a versalign parallel (actually my. awesome Mrs. put one under the xmas tree) and man, it's a lovely thing to have. That, a DIY besalign lens board, and one of the micromega style grain focusers to double check everything at the baseboard and you can really get some snappy prints. (I'm amazed at how few people seem to test their shooting lenses for optimal apertures as well).

Thank you. I know this question reveals my lack of enlarger printing experience, but how do you account for paper thickness after such high level grain focusing on your easel? Test paper of the same caliper?