What developer for medium format negs

[Excalibur2]

I hate to say this, but if Unitol was that good, where is it now? It should still be out there being grabbed up by us all! And yet, good advice, Xtol, HC110 and D-76 or analogs keep on plugging along.

PE

Paterson took over the company, you might have heard of them, then Jessops (I believe they have branches in the US) supplied an equivalent but they don't sell it anymore....and you might be right in that it wasn't brilliant but it worked for me. Also if it was made from 1950-to 1990 plus then either it was good or there was at least a million dumb photographers who never got the best from their b/w negs.

Unitol dev, FP4, the best I can get scanning, taken in 1967 Pentax 35mm takumar 55mm lens and I know the bridge needs to be horizontal :-(............

 

[Chazzy]

***I think Rodinal will take care of the majority of your developing needs.**

Well some one said it not the best when scanning negs?

I would never consider Rodinal a general-purpose developer anyway. It's an acutance developer for slower films, although a minority of people use it for everything and like its graininess.

 

[k_jupiter]

I would never consider Rodinal a general-purpose developer anyway. It's an acutance developer for slower films, although a minority of people use it for everything and like its graininess.

He is developing FP4 in 120 size.
It is my considered opinion that Rodinal scans just fine in this size.

I use WD2D+ instead of Rodinal for 135 FP4+ but then again, I don't shoot much 135 anymore.

tim in san jose

 

[edtbjon]

***I think Rodinal will take care of the majority of your developing needs.**

Well some one said it not the best when scanning negs?

I for one said that. I use Rodinal when I want very sharp negatives which show a sharp grain. The thing with Rodinal (in my mind) is exactly that, the sharp grain.
In that answer I also said that scanners don't like grain, but you have to print big from a MF scan for the grain to be a problem (even with Rodinal).

//Björn

 

[Ian Grant]

I hate to say this, but if Unitol was that good, where is it now? It should still be out there being grabbed up by us all! And yet, good advice, Xtol, HC110 and D-76 or analogs keep on plugging along.

PE

Johnson's developers were excellent, they had superb chemists. The company became part of a much larger group and later the photo-chemistry division became independent before becoming part of Paterson. Despite having better products the Johnson's B&W chemistry disappeared, Crawley had a strangle hold on Paterson B&W chemistry, but the Johnson's Phototecnology colour chemistry only disappeared more recently.

Ian

 

[Excalibur2]

***but the Johnson's Phototecnology colour chemistry only disappeared more recently.***

..and that was the cause of me giving up dev and printing, in colour, with Medium format..I used to use PhotocolorII which was handy for negs and prints although I believe Jessops re-bottled it under their own name for a while.

"Photocolor II was the world's first workable '2 bath' process capable of both developing C-41 (Kodak process) colour negative film and also processing EP-2 (Kodak process) colour printing paper. Much to 'Pip's annoyance, however, the print developer required a 3rd bottle, a UV brightener to improve print contrast. Practical Photography magazine (April 1984 edition) claims Photocolor II first appeared on the market in 1975 but 1976 seems more likely."

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have no idea what Unitol was, but your question doesn't make sense to me. Plenty of stuff far better than "good" is now gone; photographic and otherwise.

You and others have made good points and I can agree with your viewpoint, but nevertheless Unitol wasn't widespread as far as I can determine (or remember) compared to many of the other fine products that vanished. I guess that is what moved me to say what I did.

Back in those days, I think that sales of millions was not such an impressive fiigure compared to D-76 and ID-11 in that same time period for example.

PE

 

[Excalibur2]

Back in those days, I think that sales of millions was not such an impressive fiigure compared to D-76 and ID-11 in that same time period for example.

PE

Well like quite a few other excellent British products in the past, we never seem to be any good at selling to the world..what can you remember from Britain, a few motorcycles and Rolls Royce, the Spitfire, and the Beatles or Pink Floyd....erm and going of the thread a bit, so FP4 and ID-II.

 

[srs5694]

Interesting point about scanning as I've just bought a cheap s/h scanner that will do 35mm esp to go back over all my B/W negs that I never printed, and some scans had terrible grain. My first thought was that after many years some B/W negs get grainy as they age because maybe they weren't fixed properly? or?

I can't say with certainty that grain doesn't change with age, but I doubt it. I think it's more likely you ran into grain aliasing. This is a bit controversial, but the basic idea is that the regular grid pattern of the pixels scanned by a scanner interacts with the random pattern of film grain, producing an apparent increase in graininess when film is scanned. A more in-depth discussion of this phenomenon probably doesn't belong here, but on hybridphoto.

FWIW, my subjective impression is that all but very slow films (roughly ISO 100 or slower) look much grainier when scanned (using my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400) at 2700 dpi than when printed traditionally. The effect seems more pronounced for traditional B&W films than for color films. This is with modern films that I've processed recently (I usually scan within a day of processing, and make darkroom prints within a week).

 

[jim appleyard]

Well like quite a few other excellent British products in the past, we never seem to be any good at selling to the world..what can you remember from Britain, a few motorcycles and Rolls Royce, the Spitfire, and the Beatles or Pink Floyd....erm and going of the thread a bit, so FP4 and ID-II.

You forgot The Rutles!

 

[Ian Grant]

You forgot The Rutles!

First famous musician I ever photographed "was" the Ruttles, Neil Innes, that's going aback a couple of years to 1972 He had his Bonzo Dog high heeled boots for Humanoid Boogie

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Many Britcoms and Dr. Who are quite popular over here too.

OTOH, ID-11 and other British (Ilford) photo products are very very well known too. But, some are totally unknown or almost so. Kodak produces many products at Harrow. Is that a bad omen?

PE

 

[Excalibur2]

I can't say with certainty that grain doesn't change with age, but I doubt it. I think it's more likely you ran into grain aliasing. This is a bit controversial, but the basic idea is that the regular grid pattern of the pixels scanned by a scanner interacts with the random pattern of film grain, producing an apparent increase in graininess when film is scanned. A more in-depth discussion of this phenomenon probably doesn't belong here, but on hybridphoto.

FWIW, my subjective impression is that all but very slow films (roughly ISO 100 or slower) look much grainier when scanned (using my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400) at 2700 dpi than when printed traditionally. The effect seems more pronounced for traditional B&W films than for color films. This is with modern films that I've processed recently (I usually scan within a day of processing, and make darkroom prints within a week).

Well it does cause a problem as it would mean some of my negs are not suitable for scanning although the prints from the darkroom are ok, and have tried in photoshop to reduce "noise" but I don't think PS understands "grain"...anyway thanks for the link as apug is not a scanning forum.
Have tried on http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewforum.php?f=25 but can't log in to make a post.

 

[Excalibur2]

Many Britcoms and Dr. Who are quite popular over here too.

OTOH, ID-11 and other British (Ilford) photo products are very very well known too. But, some are totally unknown or almost so. Kodak produces many products at Harrow. Is that a bad omen?

PE

Well you can't rest on your laurels in the US as the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Germans and uncle tom cobbley and all are cutting swathes thru US products, but it's not all that bad as US sitcoms and films could be about 30% of UK tv and Mcdonalds is popular....

 

[sanking]

An impression based on files in the APUG gallery is extremely low on the list of ways I would evaluate developers for scanning.

Sandy King

******
Based upon my impressions from APUG's Gallery, the best-appearing scans come from negs souped in D76.

 

[2F/2F]

The APUG gallery is extremely low on the list of ways I would evaluate developers for scanning.

Sandy King

word

 

[nworth]

MF is a lot bigger than 35mm, and that mitigates some of the grain and sharpness issues you have with small formats. But it is still small enough that it needs to be treated carefully, and grain is still a bit of an issue. In general, the developers you would use for 35mm are appropriate for MF. I prefer D-76, but the usual others (D-23, HC-110, etc.) are good, too. Acutance issues are reduced enough that some people may prefer D-76 undiluted to D-76 (1+1).

 

[wogster]

Well it does cause a problem as it would mean some of my negs are not suitable for scanning although the prints from the darkroom are ok, and have tried in photoshop to reduce "noise" but I don't think PS understands "grain"...anyway thanks for the link as apug is not a scanning forum.
Have tried on http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewforum.php?f=25 but can't log in to make a post.

If negatives are good for darkroom printing, then one solution would be to make a contact print of each roll, then scan the print, and cut the images out of the scan. If grain is a problem, then simply shoot a fine grain film like Ilford PanF, soup it in a fine grain developer, and you have very little grain to worry about.

 

[Excalibur2]

If negatives are good for darkroom printing, then one solution would be to make a contact print of each roll, then scan the print, and cut the images out of the scan. If grain is a problem, then simply shoot a fine grain film like Ilford PanF, soup it in a fine grain developer, and you have very little grain to worry about.

Thanks, but my Rollei enlarger is still set up in a light proof room I built in my garage, all I need to do is brush away the cobwebs and use it (if I have to)...dunno about the lots of B/W paper I have, it was never stored in ideal conditions.
When printing in colour, I used to project the colour negs on B/W paper to choose which ones to print (in 8X10" colour), and the results were good.

 

[wogster]

Thanks, but my Rollei enlarger is still set up in a light proof room I built in my garage, all I need to do is brush away the cobwebs and use it (if I have to)...dunno about the lots of B/W paper I have, it was never stored in ideal conditions.
When printing in colour, I used to project the colour negs on B/W paper to choose which ones to print (in 8X10" colour), and the results were good.

Well, scanning negatives is an inexact science, and scanning paper isn't, contact prints should be okay, so that is why I suggested it, especially for negatives larger then 24x36mm, although I would guess scanning a contact print of 35mm would work as well.

The reason why a contact print, is that you don't really gain any grain from the process, and of course your printing cost is much lower, in that you don't need to make a print of each negative individually. Yes the scanning time can be quite long, and the file size quite large, but you can start the scan, go make another contact print, then get it ready for the scanning process. You can also scan the print in pieces.

Probably best to use matte paper for the contact prints, so the shine from glossy paper doesn't interfere with the scanning process. You also have the ability to vary the exposure of different negatives, if you see some are off exposure wise, you can dodge and burn while printing, so that the print is more even, for scanning. This would also reduce the number of scans with blown highlights and blocked up shadows, which are impossible to fix digitally.

I just wish the process going the other way, was as easy

 

[Excalibur2]

Well, scanning negatives is an inexact science, and scanning paper isn't, contact prints should be okay, so that is why I suggested it, especially for negatives larger then 24x36mm, although I would guess scanning a contact print of 35mm would work as well.

The reason why a contact print, is that you don't really gain any grain from the process, and of course your printing cost is much lower, in that you don't need to make a print of each negative individually. Yes the scanning time can be quite long, and the file size quite large, but you can start the scan, go make another contact print, then get it ready for the scanning process. You can also scan the print in pieces.

Probably best to use matte paper for the contact prints, so the shine from glossy paper doesn't interfere with the scanning process. You also have the ability to vary the exposure of different negatives, if you see some are off exposure wise, you can dodge and burn while printing, so that the print is more even, for scanning. This would also reduce the number of scans with blown highlights and blocked up shadows, which are impossible to fix digitally.

I just wish the process going the other way, was as easy

erm well it's an idea, but maybe I'm not following you properly:- If I was to go into my darkroom, place a strip of 35mm negs onto print paper, then use the enlarger to flash a light to expose, then use developer and fixer for the print....why don't I just put the neg in the enlarger and do it that way.
I know what bad negs to select because I have jpgs of them after scanning.

 

[wogster]

erm well it's an idea, but maybe I'm not following you properly:- If I was to go into my darkroom, place a strip of 35mm negs onto print paper, then use the enlarger to flash a light to expose, then use developer and fixer for the print....why don't I just put the neg in the enlarger and do it that way.
I know what bad negs to select because I have jpgs of them after scanning.

Well if you want to make a 4x5 print of every negative, and scan those, then by all means, go ahead. The idea of a contact print, for scanning is to make it easier to scan, this works a couple of ways.

1) Negatives have a very high Dmax, it can be as high as 4, a print is closer to 2.5, IIRC even the best scanners, can't get much beyond 3, which is why scans can have blocked up shadows and blown highlights.

2) It's a lot easier to judge a scan of a print, then of a negative, just like it's easier to judge a scan of a slide to a scan of a negative.

3) You don't waste as much time on scans of images that are not going to work.

4) You don't introduce extra optical artifacts from the enlarger into the scan.

I always used the enlarger to do contact prints though, nice even and controllable light source, just jack it up to where you would make an 8x10 enlargement, turn it off, with an empty negative carrier in place, put down a sheet of paper under safe light add the negatives, give it a nice exposure, say 10 seconds at f/8 or f/11 and process normally.

Afterwards, scan the sheet, then punch 3 holes into the contact print at the edge, and clip into the negative book, before the negatives in question.

 

[Excalibur2]

***Well if you want to make a 4x5 print of every negative, and scan those, then by all means, go ahead. The idea of a contact print, for scanning is to make it easier to scan, this works a couple of ways.***

Well I can follow your idea and it's great, if I had a large batch of strips of negs that don't scan well and are important to get a print, for the future and from the past.
And the confusion was that you probably didn't know my personal problem:- I was going over hundred of negs that I never printed, and quite a few are not so great and boring on looking back now, and my scans are equivalent of doing contacts prints, so I know what negs don't scan well and come up with bad grain, and on blowing up on the computer screen can also see if they are badly scratched etc..and also see (blown up) the ones worth printing.....and sometimes the frames worth printing maybe in different strips of negs.
So for my problem it just depends on the best way for convenience, i.e. whether to do a complete contact strip (even if I only want one frame) and how many, or put chosen negs in the enlarger and do a 6X9" (or whatever) final print, either way I still have to mix up developer and fixer in a tray.