I can see your point of view perfectly. As a "thinker" my process is to do and then analyse and from the reading I have done I understand that printing is a world unto its own ... as I love "process" then the learning itself attracts me very much. For me to now what characteristics I want to attain in printing, I will only discover that by doing. Thanks for your comment and especially that related to friends.I'm not assuming you wouldn't consider it. And you should consider it. My point is just that because a very experienced photographer prefers developer A over B, does not mean that you will. You'll find an equally experienced photographer that prefers the opposite. They all have their reasons -- and they are all legitimate for them. That's why I suggested thinking about what characteristics you want in a developer. It's much like buying a car -- depends. What do you want in a car? Besides friends, of course!
Yes, expense, well..... The first book I ever read on photography started with the sentence: Welcome to the most expensive hobby in the world.In my experience (printing, densitometer) Fomabrom variant 111 is as good as I'll need, and as good as Ilford MGIV (haven't tried V/classic).
But Fomaspeed "velvet" is inferior to Ilfospeed RC deluxe (44/Pearl): lower Dmax, whites slightly grey.
@hoganlia: Fomaspeed may be OK for learning, but make sure you try some Ilfospeed, and your eyes tell you if the difference (if you see a difference) is worth the extra cost.
Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege ofYes (just for completeness as TS states to be new to the printing hobby: Ilfospeed was Ilford's RC paper a loooong time ago) Ilford Multigrade DeLuxe paper definitely is the superior product of the two. So if you want top quality and can spare the cash then go with Ilford.
If not or you want to keep the cost as low as you can, don't rule out Fomaspeed Variant as it's still good value for money and will certainly produce good prints.
But you should definitely see for yourself, as bernard_L says!
I did notice that Foma papers are a bit more sensitive to safelight, you need an absolute red light for it because any other light will fog the paper within minutes. And then you won't be able to get pure whites in your prints.
A number of comments have more or less convinced me of that already. As a negative developer I am fairly careful about not over stocking... using Rodinal helps!Don't buy what you might not use.
Delay... well I am a super slow starter at anything... but I do know when I am "ready" and then I dive straight in.On the other hand, don't delay getting started because you are unsure whether you can use up an entire container.
It is better to buy slightly more than you can end up using in a reasonable time, and therefore end up having to discard a small portion of a bottle, than it is to buy too little and end up regularly running out when you want to print.
You won't be able to accurately gage this until you have enough printing experience to know how much and how frequently you are going to print.
One advantage of packaged powder chemicals is that you can buy two, mix up one, and leave the other on a shelf for a very long time without worrying about it going "bad". Then when you finish the first batch, you can mix the second and, at relative leisure, order a replacement to take its place on the storage shelf.
Unopened containers of liquid chemicals can also be handled this way, but they don't last quite as long when on the shelf.
Buzz-01 said:
I did notice that Foma papers are a bit more sensitive to safelight, you need an absolute red light for it because any other light will fog the paper within minutes. And then you won't be able to get pure whites in your prints.
Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege of
More importantly, all your highlight separation will have gone down the drain long before that point. As you said, it needs a red safelight. Some testing doesn't hurt, either...
Great... thans Buzz... and especially for the "safe light" advice. I was going to buy a second-hand one, so I think you have really helped me aviod a potential problem I had no knowlege of
Now that was interesting.. thanks a lot@hoganlia You might want to see this thread; I made the test with Foma paper because I knew it was more sensitive to safelight in the red-orange spectrum.
There you have a link to the Kodak method for safelight testing. And remember also the remark by koraks.Crappy LEDs, nice safelight
Some time ago a coworker gave me a RGB LED strip salvaged from the dumpster. I saw an opportunity to improve the safe lighting of my darkroom, two 15W red tungsten bulbs, overall quite dim, just enough to find one's way around. I thought RGB opened the possibility of a combined...www.photrio.com
Still in-topic, but different point. Do not waste time trying different paper developers. Apart from maybe some exotic and costly developers which I did not try, they all perform the same when paper is developed to completion (generally 2min). That statement does not include warm-tone papers in warm-tone developers, but you are not there yet.
The paper size idea is great. 5x7 for "playing" (hahaha) and then test out how a fewe look on larger pints.I currently use some red LED car taillight bulbs, but you could also try those cheap battery powered red bike rear LED lights. Then perform a safelight test like bernard_L says and explains in his topic, that will tell you if and for how long you're safe to handle your paper in the red light of your darkroom.
With my current bulbs, I can leave the Ilford paper out for over 20 minutes with no issues, Fomaspeed a little shorter (but still > 12 minutes or so IIRC).
And bernard_L is right; just get a general purpose paper developer and start with that. I've switched from Adotol Konstant to Kodak Polymax-T and now to Fomatol LQN only because of local availability, all three give more or less the same end result. Not worth the trouble of wanting to try them all!
Regarding the paper, what you can also consider is buying a box of let's say 100pcs 5x7" but also a smaller envelope of say 10 or 25 sheets in 7x9½" or 8x10" in the exact same paper type (brand/finish). That allows you to also make a few larger prints if you like, without the need to order some more paper and wait for it to arrive.
Ofcourse you'd also need the trays to acommodate that paper size, but up to 8x10" they're not that expensive.
Between the different sizes of the exact same brand and finish (eg MG RC DeLuxe Pearl) you can use the smaller box for your test strips too and when you're ready to make a larger print, you can only use the larger sheets just for the final print.
Yes there can be minor differences in exposure time between different batches of the exact same paper, but especially when you're just starting out, the differences are close enough to allow you to save a little on paper this way and still get some good enlargements. Just some food for thought.
Now that's a good saying to strive by!
Personally I'd start with RC paper and don't start out on Fiber paper like Fomabrom just yet. The handling is different in that it takes much longer to wash and dry fiber papers, it doesn't allow for quick processing / quick learning like RC Paper. It just makes much more sense to use RC first as it is cheaper and way faster in processing (washing/drying).
Dry-down is also less in RC papers IMO, making it much easier to go from test strip to final print without the need to completely dry your test strips. (I usually fully dry them anyway so I can write notes on them).
Also RC paper dries absolutely flat, where FB papers tend to curl like crazy, making you frustrated over how to get them flattened...
If you want the best possible quality then just start with the Ilford Multigrade RC DeLuxe, as most people find its performance very close to FB paper. But with the convenience and processing speed of RC paper.
A number of comments have more or less convinced me of that already. As a negative developer I am fairly careful about not over stocking... using Rodinal helps!
Thanks!
If youd like to have low to no odour, I can recommend Fotospeed odourless stop bath and odourless fixer. Both works for film and paper
A link to the incredibly boring, but really effective Kodak Safelight Test: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-A-Guide-to-Darkroom-Illumination-K-4.pdf
Adonal is simply a development of Rodinal, a little less grain for 35mm grainy films... I've grown to like it. I have both Adonal and Rodinal and the shelf-life is outstanding, so it seems. I do quite a bit of stand developing and Rodinal shines at that.I love Adox Rodinal it's so easy, makes brilliant negatives, not to soft not to hard. Cheap, easy, long lasting....... My personal paper developer is Ilford Bromophen, I've also used a lot of Dektol over the years.
Considering your location in the EU, I suspect that Adox and Foma (another great old company) should be able to meet your needs.
Ilford and Kodak products should be filling the shelves soon.
Printing is essential to my workflow.
Not wishing to turn this into a competition between manufacturers but for 5 euros you get what appears to be 1L of developer.
What wasn't clear was how much this ís diluted, if at all, to make a working stock but there was no mention of it being diluted
On the other hand you can buy 5L of Ilford Multigrade developer which is diluted 1+9 so that 50L of working solution
You'd spend 250 Euros for the same amount of Adox
Yes I do not know how much it would cost to buy a 5L of Ilford Multigrade Develop in Spain but I cannot believe it would be as much as 250 Euros
It might be worth checking Ilford prices in Spain. From Fotoimpex the price appears to be about 58. 45 euros
pentaxuser
I almost always recommend Ansco 130
Photographer's Formulary Ansco 130 kit might be on the Euro Amazon site
So quite comparable to many other, less arcane paper developers.once mixed, last years, and is not to dependent on precise temperatures in use
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?