ORWO 100 developed cut in half - developed in HC-110 and Rodinal (1:50)

So, I made some test shots inside my house with ORWO 100 at EI 100. Cut film in half. Developed one half in HC-110(B) 7.5 minutes. Developed the other half in Rodinal (1:50), 16 minutes - both at 20 degrees C

Looked at the film in my microscope and then took picture through the microscope with digital camera.
Hee's the Rodinal shot:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here's the HC-110 shot:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The grain is certainly more apparent in the Rodinal image. I think I can convince myself there's a wee bit more edge sharpness as well.

I also developed some ORWO 100 in Diafine...and I gotta tell ya, looking at all these negatives side-by-side, it's a graphic explanation why I need high-contrast filters to print negatives developed in Diafine. The HC-110 image taken in the microscope is a little on the light side, but the HC-110 negatives looked quite nice, as did the Rodinal ones. Haven't gotten around to printing them yet - I have to commandeer the hall bathroom for that!

Quite interesting experiment, but a few questions.
16 min. in 1:50 Rodinal seems a bit too long for ISO 100.
Why you need high contrast when printing your negs from Diafine ?

My negatives souped in Diafine are typically quite low contrast and to get what I think is a normal looking print, I usually need to use high contrast filters when printing. Now last year I shot a waterfall scene that had both deep shadows AND bright sunlit areas and the Diafine seemed to do well with that sort of scene which was printed using a filter just a half-step below normal (2).

As for the Rodinal time, I think I plucked that off the internet. On the light table, the HC-110(b) and Rodinal look quite similar in terms of contrast.

Jerry

One more quick question about Diafine. How dense are your negs from it ? I never used Diafine, but I am using two bath developing all the time. If you in need of high contrast filters for printing it means your neg is flat. Two reasons for that: or you heavily overrated your film or badly under develop it. Diafine is one brew, which is improving the film speed and giving well define negatives which should be easily printed with #2 filter.
What light metering are you using ?

Metering:
I used a gray card which compared well to an incident meter. Used a couple of different meters to make sure one was not off.
film was shot at metered speed, one stop over and one stop under.

Speed bump with Diafine:
well I do get a speed bump with Diafine and Tri-X (typically EI 800), but I'm not so sure I can say that about ORWO.

The negative density appears the same on Diafine, Rodinal, and HC-110, but that's not measured - just my eyeball.
It's not just this one test - I've used Diafine for quite some time and almost always must bump up the contrast when printing.

I think there's a place in my darkroom for Diafine - just not with this film. It has its utility when I have several rolls of
different film and I don't wanna diddle with a number of different developments.

I've read, and been told, that the compensating nature of Diafine will tend to make "flat" negatives.
In my previously mentioned waterfall scene, I needed some flattening and got it. The print is spectacular.
But for day to day use, I think I'd be inclined to use HC-110(B) - at least with the ORWO.

Hope this helps YMMV
Jerry

JerryWo said:

I think there's a place in my darkroom for Diafine - just not with this film. It has its utility when I have several rolls of
different film and I don't wanna diddle with a number of different developments.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, what I gonna say now but I don't like the sound of that statement. It is not right not to fight for the highest quality of your negatives every time. Two bath developers were invented to give automatic development to people not really interested in technicalities. In the past. When b&w photography was a mainstream. It was then the equivalent of today's digital; quick and easy. Nowadays guys like we, shooting film, should have different approach. I don't have densitometer and use the same way to determinate my negs; print on #2.5 . If I have to go 1 lower or higher I consider that a screw up, (Unless I am developing for it), and adjustments are made.
If your negs appear of the same density from all your developers and yet they need much different filtering while printing for the print to look proper, especially for Diafine, next time you develop in it shorten the firts bath time by 20% and extend the second bath time by 20 %. That will increase the contrast of the negative.

Thanks for the tips

Jerry

Good luck.
I am glad, that you are actually wet printing. This is seldom nowadays. People shoot film and only scan it.
How big you can go with your negatives before picture will loose a good definition ?

Years ago, I shot nothing but medium format, Tri-X (box speed) and D-76. Prints were stunning.
Fast forward 25+ years, I decided that a MF enlarger was too big for the hall bathroom that I was gonna commandeer on a part-time basis. So I opted for 35mm. See the attached link of a scanned 8 x 10 PRINT of mine.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The tech data is wrong - we were all wondering what "Ultrafine Extreme ASA100" was...and some of us thought it was ORWO 100. So that photo is labeled (wrongly) with the tag UN54 (Orwo 100). It is Ultrafine Extreme 100 souped in DIAFINE. In this instance, with the tough lighting & shadows, the compensating nature of DIAFINE did a nice job. Grain? not much, the print was "creamy".

On that same roll, bright sunshine shots of the UN building from Roosevelt Island were very flat - oddly so.

I really don't even have any paper larger than 8 x 10, so I'm not sure I have the answer to your question. With modest cropping, I suppose I can still make a pretty good 8 x 10's at least with the right film & developer. Definition? Don't really know. Some museum prints look pretty good a few paces away, but when you get your nose up to them - it's different. I'm spoiled by my MF years.

Indeed, I find the most charm in small photos such as 3 1/2" x 5". Maybe, because of their size, they force one to really look at them, but I am really smitten by small photos. There is no link between my love of small photos and the fact that I wear tri-focals...............
Jerry

:=)
Well, there should be no problem with 8X10. I thought... more.
I am maybe a bit in luck having space for bigger enlarger and can go to 16x20 from 35mm frame. Just I do that only to see how well the lens and my processing work. Usually I print full frame on 8x10 paper.
I know Ultrafine Extreme 100. This film reacts very good to HC110. Too bad I can't see your picture in the gallery, I am not paying customer. With HC110 you can also get very good compensating action if you add one extra bath between developer and shortstop. Could be just a water, but I am using light solution of borax. (20 Mules) For 3-4 minutes, stand.