That's nuttin'. We had to walk to school in snow storms, up hill, both ways, shooting with Super-XX...
In my experience, Fomapan 100 is quite acceptable grain-wise in half frame -- even when developed in Parodinal at high dilution. Then again, I grew up with real Tri-X.
Because there is no way to optimize for all the properties above at once, you have to pick the ones that matter most for the scene. That's why sheet film is so attractive. You can make the tradeoff to optimize the things that matter most on an exposure-by-exposure basis.
What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".
That's nuttin'. We had to walk to school in snow storms, up hill, both ways, shooting with Super-XX...
Life was hard in those days, before PMK/Pyrocat too....
This is actually true - there was a time when I experienced the use of mechanical typewriter that did not have key presses for 0 and 1. You had to use Os and ls.
The struggle to type my M.A. thesis was far greater than the uphill battle to make my first acceptable fine print....This is actually true - there was a time when I experienced the use of mechanical typewriter that did not have key presses for 0 and 1. You had to use Os and ls.
Yep. And they didn't erase, either; if you made a mistake on a finish-grade page, you had to toss it out and start over. The typists who could run at 60+ wpm and make no errors on a page always seemed other than human to me.
The struggle to type my M.A. thesis was far greater than the uphill battle to make my first acceptable fine print....
Gads, we're a bunch of old fellas, aren't we.
Some years later, the 0/1 thing was an amusement to us budding computer scientists as we pontificated with undergraduate certainty about a world in which 1s and 0s didn't actually exist. Many years later in grad school, we got to prove that any two distinct symbols would work, not just 0 and 1. It is intuitively true, but we had to do all manner of fancy theorem proving to show exactly why.
Although my education covered analogue, digital hardware, and software, I never forgot the famous Shakespeare quote that has kept me welded to traditional photography:
All the world's a stage, and digital is but a bit player ...
All the world's a stage, and digital is but a bit player ...
What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".
View attachment 399558
things have changed.
If there is a speed difference between D-76 and D-23 it is miniscule.
Add some salt (sodium chloride) to D-23 to make Microdol. Results with TMax 100 are virtually grainless (well as grainless as it gets without getting into exotics). Use it 1:3 to retain full film speed, with TMX I find grain at 1:3 and FS to be pretty identical.
I have always found that when using Microdol X I need to shoot about half speed. Never used it with Tmax so maybe with a T grain film full film speed is retained?
What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".
View attachment 399558
My personal tests using D-23 and Microdol-X produced similar results -- both were about one stop slower compared to D-76. I've never bothered to test D-23 or Microdol-X with T-grain film, but since the grain is finer in the film, why bother?
darkroommike, nice to know that this can be done even down to an amount for 1x35mm film in a Jobo tank of only 250mm John Finch briefly mentions scaling down to 500ml in response to a question from a viewer of the video but I suspect that he doesn't mention any further scaling down as you lose the simplicity of the "teaspoon" method and D23's keeping qualities means that the usual 1L can still be used within the likely time you'd develop 4 x 35mm films of 2x120 films
I don't do teaspoons. I love having an excuse to use my precision scale.
No teaspoons for me. When I mix up chemicals for a roll of Minox,110, or 16mm film, I only need 6.6oz (195ml) in my Yankee tank.
Thanks for sharing what you do but I was only speculating as to why John Finch did not mention in his video the option of scaling down his 1L
What I found useful in darkroommike's reply was that D23 has the added attraction of being scaled down. I am no photographic chemist but I suspect that not all developers lend themselves to straightforward "scaling down as some may need a minimum amount of certain ingredients to be effective
pentaxuser
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?