 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004Ilford Pan F+
Hi I am using Ilford Pan F+ for portraiture and would like to boost the contrast in the development. Any recommendations on developers and times? I am using HC-110 at the time. Will Rodinal give me more contrast? Regards Moda > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards Moda Why not just develop 10% longer or agitate more vigorously ? I did not try HC for PanF+, I used ID-11 1+1 and 1+0, the contrast was always between OK and high. Regards wkg Thanks. I'll the longer development. And probably buy a pound of ID-11 and try it out. Moda > > Hi > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Regards > wkg > Thanks. I'll the longer development. And probably buy a pound > of ID-11 and try it out. ID-11 is Ilford's brand of Kodak D-76. Pan F+ is already a very fine grain film. Check out Rodinal or one of the other high resolution developers. Ilford has one and there are others. Small quantities may be purchased. If very sharp, very fine grained negatives are not that much a factor, give a higher speed film consideration. Dan > Check out Rodinal or one of the other high resolution developers. For Pan F+ @ EI 32 I use Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 in a Jobo. Enlargements to 11X14 from a 35mm negative has no grain! The negs have no grain that I can detect with a Bestwell Grain Focusing scope at that magnafacation. _________________ Ready, Fire, AIM. Bruce Brooklyn, N.Y. I will be heading for my Rodinal (the first developer I ever tried, the price is as low as it can be). Maybe I'll use my Jobo processor for it just like you do. Moda > > Check out Rodinal or one of the other high resolution developers. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bruce > Brooklyn, N.Y. >Hi > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Regards Moda There are four things that one can use to control contrast. 1) Agitation - Usually number of inversions per minute 2) Developer concentration/dilution 3) Length of development 4) Temperature of the processing To increase contrast I would start with adding 10% to the total time of development and increasing agitation 2X your current method. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards Moda The contrast of Pan-F is already substantial. Why do you believe it needs a boost? > The contrast of Pan-F is already substantial. Why do you believe it needs a boost? I get contrastless negs...and I am a contrast lover > > The contrast of Pan-F is already substantial. Why do you believe it needs > a boost? > > I get contrastless negs...and I am a contrast lover What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly. It is actually hard to keep the contrast down... > What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What > developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly. > It is actually hard to keep the contrast down... I use: - Canon EOS 30 (aka. EOS 7E) - Sigma 28-105 (around f/11 or f/16) - Multiblitz 400w flash heads (I shoot portraits) - Ilford Pan F+ @ 50 iso (should I try 40, 32 or 25) - Rodinal Special for 4 minutes @ 20C. Agitation is continously for the first 30 sec. then 5 sec every 30 seconds. (Should I use Rodinal?) - Paterson Super System 4 Universal Tank (2 films at a time) - Prints are made on Agfa Premium @ grade 3 (On a Durst Colour Enlarger) //Moda > > What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What > > developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > //Moda The taking lens, being a zoom lens and being a Sigma, is not going to give you the best tonality. Get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or so. Also, the color head is a diffusion source, which tends to reduce contrast. If you want, send me a scan so I can see what you're talking about. Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105 into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and contrastboosters...weird. moda > > > What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What > > > developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the color head is a diffusion source, which tends to reduce contrast. > If you want, send me a scan so I can see what you're talking about. > Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday > and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105 > into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and > contrastboosters...weird. I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. We are some who are poor....but I'm saving up for a better lens. I'm happy with my Sigma 70-300 APO though. I use it for portraiture primarily. It's far better that the 28-105 (which was the standard lens for the Canon EOS 300 I bought as my first SLR). Moda > > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Moda Huh! You say you're poor? You don't know what poor is! I come from a very poor country. My country is so poor, we have only ONE Stooge. My country is so poor, all the roads are one-way: OUT. My country is so poor, our chief export is bums. My country is so poor, we were forced to eat our cash cow. My country is so poor, our cats have only three lives. My country is so poor, we have to stand in line just for a chance to stand in line. > My country is so poor, we have only ONE Stooge. Let us guess; his intials are "MS".  SignatureRun down to Bob Storches they handle lights for all occasions. > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. Nobody needs a perfect lens to make a good, indeed a great photograph. Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic differences? >Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic >differences? You too ? Why must so many continue to feed the ego of this twit ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >>Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic >>differences? > > You too ? Why must so many continue to feed the ego of this >twit ? What he said! Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >>Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic > >>differences? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA The talentless speak! Arf Arf Arf! > >Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic > >differences? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email You know 1/10000000000000000th of what I know, and have 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th the talent, Boo.... > >Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic > >differences? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email You know 1/10000000000000000th of what I know, and have 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th the talent, Bozo.... > > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. > > Nobody needs a perfect lens to make a good, indeed a great photograph. > Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic > differences? It doesn't, unfortunately...despite your delusions.... There is a difference between good and crap lenses. You don't have to own the very best, but crap won't cut it... > > > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There is a difference between good and crap lenses. You don't have to > own the very best, but crap won't cut it... Yes it will. Look at history and be enlightened. > > There is a difference between good and crap lenses. You don't have to > > own the very best, but crap won't cut it... > > Yes it will. Look at history and be enlightened. I am enlightened....crap lenses give crap images.... > > > There is a difference between good and crap lenses. You don't have to > > > own the very best, but crap won't cut it... > > > > Yes it will. Look at history and be enlightened. > > I am enlightened....crap lenses give crap images.... You have chosen your metric. So be it. It's your choice. But photography's singular quality among all other arts and crafts is its making of representations of a time/place, and not something abstracted by optical bench-racers. One ambitious seeker/photographer "out there" doing it regardless of his impoverished lens is worth a universe of couchpotato bench racers and usenet junkies. Now I have to leave this 'place' for seeral hours to do something. Enjoy your day at the tube. > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > news:<john-1304041840120001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Now I have to leave this 'place' for seeral hours to do something. Enjoy > your day at the tube. When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. > When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited > and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. But it does not replace taking pictures regardless of the lens quality. Get over it. > > When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited > > and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. > > But it does not replace taking pictures regardless of the lens quality. > Get over it. The poster was complaining about the quality of the image. It is traceable to the lens quality. The photo can be no better than the lens allows. And of course a good lens can equally be let down by camera shake, poor materials, poor subsequent processing, enlarger lens, cheap paper etc. The final image is as strong as the weakest link, as in all things. We should be helping those who are asking with balanced advice, rather than what seems to be getting out favourite soap boxes. On 15/4/04 2:17 pm, in article 2fd2ff8c.0404150517.384f2542@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited >>> and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > traceable to the lens quality. The photo can be no better than the > lens allows. > The poster was complaining about the quality of the image. It is > traceable to the lens quality. The photo can be no better than the > lens allows. You don't know the situation. He might be shooting at a low shutter speed. He might not be accomplished at focusing. It ain't about lenses. It's about being competent and being there. > > > The poster was complaining about the quality of the image. It is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He might not be accomplished at focusing. It ain't about lenses. It's > about being competent and being there. No, it's not. He was complaining about the lens quality. The lens in question must not be good enough. > > > > > The poster was complaining about the quality of the image. It is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, it's not. He was complaining about the lens quality. The lens in > question must not be good enough. You must know better, Michael. Most new photographers don't understand camera shake issues and focusing nuances and those two reasons are the largest cause of unsharp pictures. The next greater cause is cheap photofinishing. Most machine prints are intentionally dumbed down to make all images almost equally soft, but we aren't talking about that here. > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > news:<john-1504042031440001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > intentionally dumbed down to make all images almost equally soft, but we > aren't talking about that here. 'Sharp pictures' aren't the issue. Cheap lenses give poor tonality and poor color. > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message > news:<john-1504042031440001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > intentionally dumbed down to make all images almost equally soft, but we > aren't talking about that here. You'll note the following was his response: "Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105 into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and contrastboosters...weird." > You don't know the situation. He might be shooting at a low shutter speed. I was shooting at 1/125 f/11 most of the time with two flash heads. So shake isn't relevant. > He might not be accomplished at focusing. It ain't about lenses. It's about being competent and being there. I shot both AF and MF. Yes it can. I have owned a dozen or so Leica lenses on M and R series bodies. I have compared directly with friends pictures, on the same slide material and subsequent processing. However, looking back over 25 years of photography, thousands of slides and about 20 different SLR systems, it is the advances in film that stand out and actually relegate, in most cases, the lens performance to a second order effect. This improvement requires along with it, the best in technique and projection. My favourite image was taken with the worst zoom lens I have ever owned. If I had had a better lens, it would have been better still. It is having a lens and body to hand in that location and point in time that counts the most. Didn't WS say 'It is better to have love and lost than not to have loved'? On 14/4/04 8:25 pm, in article 2fd2ff8c.0404141125.4f0ad894@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message >> news:<john-1304041840120001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited > and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. : > > john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message : > news:<john-1304041840120001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : > Now I have to leave this 'place' for seeral hours to do something. Enjoy : > your day at the tube. : When people finally get really good lenses, they always get excited : and ask why they didn't do it before. It makes a difference. In your case you should have saved the money and gotten crap lenses. After all your images are crap. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com : > > There is a difference between good and crap lenses. You don't have to : > > own the very best, but crap won't cut it... : > : > Yes it will. Look at history and be enlightened. : I am enlightened....crap lenses give crap images.... If crap lenses give crap images how do you explain your crap images?? SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com It was rather short sighted then that Leica introduced a 28-70 zoom which was designed and partially manufactured by Sigma! Unfortunately, I anticipate Moda was influenced to purchase the standard zoom at point of sale of the SLR. In many shops, buying a body-only is quite tricky, especially on consumer SLR's. They can be quite good, but often are made down to a price. If you do want a standard zoom for the Canon, my personal experience would recommend the 28-105 USM II lens as a good compromise of aperture, performance and price. As for PanF+ being contrasty, isn't that rather like saying that a developer is contrasty? The contrast is what you make it, via dilution, temperature, duration and agitation of the developer. It can be controlled as can any other. Lenses can contribute to the overall contrast loss of a scene, often improved with a decent lens hood and made worse by the multiple glass/air surfaces of a modern zoom lens. Chris Woodhouse ARPS On 12/4/04 2:42 pm, in article 2fd2ff8c.0404120542.1dedace6@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday >> and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105 >> into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and >> contrastboosters...weird. > > I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses. > It was rather short sighted then that Leica introduced a 28-70 zoom which > was designed and partially manufactured by Sigma! To LEICA standards.... > Unfortunately, I anticipate Moda was influenced to purchase the standard > zoom at point of sale of the SLR. In many shops, buying a body-only is quite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As for PanF+ being contrasty, isn't that rather like saying that a developer > is contrasty? All slow films are contrasty. Fast films are soft. It's the nature of the beast. See 'The Science of Photography' by Haines/Bomback. The Leica 28-70 and the same Sigma 28-70 were tested by Amateur Photographer in the UK and found to be optically identical, both in terms of the physicals of the design and ultimately in the images they produced. Admittedly the build quality was better on the Leica, it was also I remember, 3x the cost. On 13/4/04 10:51 pm, in article 2fd2ff8c.0404131351.465c3b34@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: >> It was rather short sighted then that Leica introduced a 28-70 zoom which >> was designed and partially manufactured by Sigma! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > All slow films are contrasty. Fast films are soft. It's the nature of > the beast. See 'The Science of Photography' by Haines/Bomback. > As for PanF+ being contrasty, isn't that rather like saying that a developer > is contrasty? The contrast is what you make it, via dilution, temperature, > duration and agitation of the developer. Not exactly. Not all films have a linear response (on the LOG curve). Study up. I was trying not get into a detailed sensitometry discussion but a basic argument that goes along the line of, if your images are the wrong contrast, change your development, not your film. I know exactly what films can do and have measured and analysed many. If contrast is measured with a CI or G measurement, then all films, even tech pan, can be made to be tamed, or the opposite. I suggest that you are considering the non-linear region of a films response, especially in the sensitive toe area which translates into softer or harder shadow details. If for instance you look at the Agfa data sheets for APX25, 100 and 400, all films, with the correct development can give a contrast from 0.55 to 0.75. Likewise with TMAX and Ilford. The old Ilford datasheets (no since deleted of the Ilford website) had comparable negative density curves for PanF and HP5, with a contrast modifying chart of equal variation possibility. Chris Woodhouse ARPS On 14/4/04 12:42 am, in article john-1304041842110001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com, "jjs" <john@xyzzy.stafford.net> wrote: >> As for PanF+ being contrasty, isn't that rather like saying that a developer >> is contrasty? The contrast is what you make it, via dilution, temperature, >> duration and agitation of the developer. > > Not exactly. Not all films have a linear response (on the LOG curve). Study > up. > Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday > and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105 > into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and > contrastboosters...weird. The same model lens, one lens to the next in production, can vary noticeably. Overall Sigma lenses score well. I purchased an OM 2000 four years ago. Olympus was giving them away with a 35-70 zoom. The zoom gives a sharp image but barrel distortion is very noticeable. I was disappointed. The OM 2000 was Olympus' last OM series camera. I also have their OM1n. Contrast that with their famous f2.8 constant aperature 35-80mm zoom. It is considered one of the finest lenses ever produced. Dan Out to the whole group of know-it-all's: I'm looking for a lens that will give me the following. Which will you guys recommend? My demands: - Prime or zoom (what is recommendable for portraiture) - Between 80 and 135 mm. - Largest aperture around f/2 or f/2.8 - equipped with an Canon EF-bayonet. Regards. Moda > > What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What > > developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > //Moda >My demands: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Moda Zeiss Planar 85mm f-1.4 with Cannon mount. _________________ Ready, Fire, AIM. Bruce Brooklyn, N.Y. > Out to the whole group of know-it-all's: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Regards. I'd go for an 80-90 f/2 or 1,4, whatever Canon makes. > > Out to the whole group of know-it-all's: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'd go for an 80-90 f/2 or 1,4, whatever Canon makes. If any one but Scarpitti had said some lenses are crap, there would not have been the mud slinging competition that erupted. It is a pitiful self condemnation of this group that such can happen. Often the difference between two lenses is not the formulae but the coating of lens elements and interior of the lens barrel. The original poster complained of lack of contrast, not lack of resolution. The internal flare may be the major cause. Sometimes, a tight lens shade will make a significant improvement >>>Out to the whole group of know-it-all's: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > internal flare may be the major cause. Sometimes, a tight lens shade > will make a significant improvement The problem with Scarpitti is that after the first 250 times he yelled that the sky was falling everyone tuned him out. One of these days he will say something that is worthwhile and 80 percent of the long time users will not even see it since he has been killfiled by just about anyone worthwhile or they have gone to some other forum which is moderated. Bert > >>>Out to the whole group of know-it-all's: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Bert Go on, now, don't be shy. The problem is that too many people THINK they know about photography, but that 'knowledge' is third-hand, distorted mythology. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.