 |
 | 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 / August 2004Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?
Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at 24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be fairly grainy anyway. Thanks Ros > Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan > 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at > 24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be > fairly grainy anyway. HC-110 or D-76 will likely give less grain than T-Max, without loss of speed (though you're actually pushing a little to get Neopan 1600 to 1600; it's properly about 800-1000, but designed with low contrast so it pushes well). If you can tolerate loss of speed and some loss of acutance, Microdol-X should significantly reduce grain -- but then you might as well shoot Tri-X or Neopan 400 and develop in conventional processes. I've seen claims that shortening process time reduces grain, other factors equal, which would suggest HC-110, possibly even in Dilution A, would be the likeliest candidate. Dilution A times are about 70% of Dilution B, in the likely case you can't find them listed anywhere. The push to 1600 should still give a time around 4+ minutes; I wouldn't try to go under 4 minutes for tank development because of problems with consistency and fill/drain times relative to the total dev time.  SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. Hi, where can I find developing times with rodinal? thanks! --- SHOW E LIES L R.Gigi <r.gigiTOGLIQUESTOINMAIUSCOLO@email.it> ha scritto: > Hi, > where can I find developing times with rodinal? Try on digitaltruth. I remember they are very short, about 3.5 minutes in 1+50 diluition. SignatureRegistered user at http://counter.li.org # 170453 Jabber JID: silvio@jabber.linux.it GnuPG Key fingerprint = 10E0 2B05 0B0A 3525 8760 788B 59B6 C74A 250E 65B6 >Try on digitaltruth. I remember they are very short, about 3.5 minutes >in 1+50 diluition. Isn't too much short? tnx ! ciao --- SHOW E LIES L R.Gigi <r.gigiTOGLIQUESTOINMAIUSCOLO@email.it> ha scritto: >>Try on digitaltruth. I remember they are very short, about 3.5 minutes >>in 1+50 diluition. > > Isn't too much short? I was wrong, actually it is 5 minutes at 1+25 or 8 at 1+50. I was mislead by the time for some other developer. SignatureRegistered user at http://counter.li.org # 170453 Jabber JID: silvio@jabber.linux.it GnuPG Key fingerprint = 10E0 2B05 0B0A 3525 8760 788B 59B6 C74A 250E 65B6 >> Isn't too much short? > >I was wrong, actually it is 5 minutes at 1+25 or 8 at 1+50. I was >mislead by the time for some other developer. thank you !! --- SHOW E LIES L > Hi, > where can I find developing times with rodinal? Start with: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > > Hi, > > where can I find developing times with rodinal? > > Start with: > > http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. > It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 > than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he *liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with ugly grain is better than undeveloped film? SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > > It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 > > than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with > ugly grain is better than undeveloped film? The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat).' Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice. >>>It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 >>>than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice. Even then, I doubt Rodinal is any worse than Dektol (which most assuredly has been used as a film developer, though perhaps before your time), and probably no worse than Caffenol (which last would also have the advantage of giving a true speed of about 1250 instead of 1000, with out pushing at all). But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain, your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you don't mind grain. SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > >>>It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600 > >>>than Rodinal. Worst possible choice. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you > don't mind grain. Rodinal is a poor choice for Neopan 1600 for the following reasons: 1. Rodinal does not achieve full emulsion speed. Presumably the Neopan 1600 is being used because of the need for a very fast films. Using Rodinal would run counter to that because of its lack of speed-enhancing properties. 2. The poster explicitly wants to keep graininess to a minimum. On both counts, Acutol does an outstanding job. Acutol enhances speed and does not exaggerate graininess. Rodinal loses speed and exaggerates graininess. >But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain, > your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal >was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is >manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you >don't mind grain. It's all about taste. Some like texture some don't. I have a shot around where I should some Kodak Gold 1600 about 12 years ago. I used a Soligor (!!) 70~210 f/3.5 zoom and 2 of the cheapest doublers you've ever seen. It worked quite well to make "atmospheric" shots. A lot like the P3200 used in http://www.darkroompro.com/images/photos/3_despair.jpg Shot with a Minolta X700 at 1/60th and f/5.6 in a dark alley. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan > 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ros I strongly recommend Acutol. Try 1+15 for 7.5 minutes @ 20C/68F. It's a VERY fine-grained film when developed properly. Expose at about EI 650-800. > Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan > 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ros I strongly recommend Acutol. Try 1+15 for 7.5 minutes @ 20C/68F. It's a VERY fine-grained film when developed properly. Expose at about EI 650-800. Here's an example: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1225120 > Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan > 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ros Hallo ! In my opinion the best is XTOL 1+3 for Neopan 1600@800 ... I use it for Neopan 1600@1600 also. Times from www.digitaltruth.com Regards wkg http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=56107 On 7/2/04 12:20 PM, in article cc4cir$qbu$1@news.onet.pl, "wkg" <wkg_2.bezspamu@poczta.onet.pl> typed: >> Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for > neopan [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > wkg > http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=56107 Neopan 1600 is my most used favorite film and I do the same. In XTOL 1+3 it looks like normally developed medium speed film. Way better than tri x in D76 1:1. Sharper and less grain. I hate to overstate it but it's a dream come true for someone who's been doing this since 1965. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/ > Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan > 1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ros clayton f76 works really well actually. the neopan 1600 works best if you expose it perfectly. a little under or a little over and you'll see a lot of grain. |
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.