Hey, it was not Diafine. That was just the file name in EpsonScan that I never change (I'm lazy). It was definitely Rodinal. I developed that just 3 days ago. I love this combination.
damonff, that is a beautiful portrait but the title says something about diafine, not rodinal. Some folk think diafine is great for TP but then others praise rodinal for the same film. Could it have been diafine?
damonff, that is a beautiful portrait but the title says something about diafine, not rodinal. Some folk think diafine is great for TP but then others praise rodinal for the same film. Could it have been diafine?
I just never seen it quite as mushy as with this, however that also could be because it's so fine-grained, that said the images of tech pan that were developed in DD-X don't look that mushy at all and look much finer.
Anyway everyone's right in that it could just be the scanner and I won't know about the grain and less I look under a microscope, the irony is that in a sense sometimes especially with the newer films they are actually designed to be better at scanning them printing and so is scanner might actually get a higher resolution image than printing. This was not me who originally stated this but someone else I'm just pulling information from what I've read.
Stone,
You need an incredible scanner to surpass what you get with something like a Leitz enlarger.
I can say, with confidence, that an Epson flatbed scanner does not reveal what the grain looks like. It just doesn't. There isn't even close to the amount of resolution you need to do that.
Even so, if you plan on continuing to scan your film, and you're getting results like this with a film you have experimented very little with, I would state two things:
1. If you're not liking the results, just sell the film you have and buy more of the stuff you do like.
2. Maybe try a different method? Rodinal 1+300 is what my dad used and got some beautiful prints from. One attached here for reference. Printed in my darkroom ten years ago.
WOW that's beautiful!
It's also high in contrast which I like but I was attempting to restrain using the technidol.
Anyway question, what EI was that shot on? And what's the times for 1:300 or 1+300 (not that it matters at such dilutions. Lol
Why don't you do a tiny little test and see what dev time suits your work flow?
Thanks on behalf of my father. That's a vineyard in Alsace, France, by the way.
If you want less contrast develop less time! It's one of the very basic principles of photography in the darkroom.
I have no idea what his developing times for TP was, regretfully, but pretty sure he exposed at EI 25. Why don't you do a tiny little test and see what dev time suits your work flow?
and get some fresh tech pan developer from the formulary !
Thanks, mostly because I only have 10 or less rolls to experiment with, and would rather not waste them all experimenting lol.
I thought it was slightly different?
Also, since the image itself came out exposed properly and developed relatively correct, wouldn't that tell me that the technidol was working fine?
Stone, did you use stop bath with the tech pan? Sometimes that causes the effect. If you send me an out take negative I can look at it under the microscope. It's hard to tell from the scans what the issue is. Scanning 35mm on a consumer flat bed scanner is never going to yield results worth the effort.
I've still got some 120 tech pan, I use it when a scene requires an N+1 type of contrast. I process it in c-41 developer. Technidol never gave me even development with 120 size Tech pan.
Thanks, mostly because I only have 10 or less rolls to experiment with, and would rather not waste them all experimenting lol.
It would be a shame to sell this and not use it. You would miss out on one of the best films of the past and one of the few that keeps well enough that it's still in it's prime even now.
Acquiring more film, esp. in 35mm, is not hard. I have some I'd sell, probably. (bulk rolls mostly). It's harder to come by in 120 or 4x5 but not impossible.
When all things come together, it's an amazing film and capable of results no other film can achieve.
-Ed
This is Tech Pan (2000, frozen) with Rodinal 1 to 100 for 8 minutes, first 30, 5 seconds every minute:
[https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...ybSrzjE/s1024/diafine%20%285%20of%206%29.jpg]
I bought the Formulary TechPan developer, but now use that only for Tri-X. Depends on what your look is.
damonff: at what speed had you rated your TechPan for this image and for your cited development regime?
I am hoarding my 4 x 5. Have both liquid and powder Technidol developer. ;<)
If you have a jewellers loope or a short focus interchangeable photographic lens as a substitute then look at a negative on light table or in front of a light bulb.
if you cannot see the same mottle as is on the prints then it is not there. Compare with a pan f neg. Digital is an invention of the devil.
if you can see something that should not be there you need 2nd opinion.
Tech pan was a pain to use. You might spend years trying to get good continuous tone results with it. This will probably be impossible because the film is no longer manufactured. I stopped using it long ago when Kodak came out with T-Max 100.
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?