 |
 | 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 2004Neopan400 in Rodinal 1:100?
Hi, Has anyone tried this combination? I'm looking for nice tonality, don't care much about the grain. Ifordpan400 was very nice in R09 1:100, I hope Neopan will be better;-) Blazej > Hi, > Has anyone tried this combination? I'm looking for nice tonality, don't care > much about the grain. > Ifordpan400 was very nice in R09 1:100, I hope Neopan will be better;-) > > Blazej I cannot recommend Rodinal and most fast films. Paterson Acutol is MUCH better, and I use it on Neopan 400 all the time. Dilute 1+14, develop for 8 minutes @ 20C/68F. Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern films at all. Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. The Massive development chart says rated at 200 ISO the time for 1+100 is 15 minutes 68F....it beats the hell out of listening to your whining. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html > I cannot recommend Rodinal and most fast films. Paterson Acutol is > MUCH better, and I use it on Neopan 400 all the time. Dilute 1+14, > develop for 8 minutes @ 20C/68F. > > Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern > films at all. > Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. > > The Massive development chart says rated at 200 ISO > the time for 1+100 is 15 minutes 68F....it beats the hell > out of listening to your whining. > http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html Thx, I know the times, I'm rather interested in users' impressions:-) From my experiences, Ilfordpan400 developed in R09 has comparable grain size to Neopan400 in Microphen 1:1, but the tones and grain pattern are much better. It is also sharper. I also liked TMY in D-23, but now I have some Neopans to shoot;-) > > I cannot recommend Rodinal and most fast films. Paterson Acutol is > > MUCH better, and I use it on Neopan 400 all the time. Dilute 1+14, > > develop for 8 minutes @ 20C/68F. > > > > Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern > > films at all. Yeah, I know;-) Blazej > > Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Blazej Rodinal has a rather high alkalinity and therefore causes considerable graininess. Its developing agent is not particulary efficient either, which means there is some speed loss compared to other products. Acutol and Neopan 400 are just fabulous together! So some say about Sigfried and Roy but that doesn't mean I want spend the night in my car with them. > Rodinal has a rather high alkalinity and therefore causes considerable > graininess. Its developing agent is not particulary efficient either, > which means there is some speed loss compared to other products. > > Acutol and Neopan 400 are just fabulous together!  Signature? ? ? ? LOL >> Rodinal has a rather high alkalinity and therefore causes considerable >> graininess. Its developing agent is not particulary efficient either, >> which means there is some speed loss compared to other products. This is just wrong. When diluted to working strength, Rodinal's alkalinity is not really so high. Someone have a meter? Rodinal's graininess is primarily a result of using a dilute developer with few salts in solution, a low buffered alkali and no chemicals that modify the developer's action. Try Rodinal at 1:100 , :200, etc. along with some Sodium Sulfite . Anything from 30 grams, and up, per liter of working solution will do. That alone will reduce the appearance of grain, speed development and give an increase in film speed. Reuse it once, immediately, and the grain gets reduced more.. But, the nameless one never knew that. His ignorance in some areas is profound, despite his expressions of some sort of dogma as omniscience. >> Acutol and Neopan 400 are just fabulous together! >So some say about Sigfried and Roy but that doesn't mean I want spend >the night in my car with them. What's that expression? "Go get 'em, Tiger?" ;-/ Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >> Rodinal has a rather high alkalinity and therefore causes considerable > >> graininess. Its developing agent is not particulary efficient either, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > What's that expression? "Go get 'em, Tiger?" ;-/ > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and difficult to control for that reason. There is just no good reason to use Rodinal at all. Damn and to think those negatives I just processed last weekend should be really underdeveloped at 1+100. "NOT". > Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and > difficult to control for that reason. > > There is just no good reason to use Rodinal at all. (lost attributes, sorry) >Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and > difficult to control for that reason. > > There is just no good reason to use Rodinal at all. You know, I've had terrific luck with Rodinal 1:200 for modified stand processing of Agfa AXP 100. Very even development, very nice N-1. Perhaps I've assimulated Rodinal's characteristics into my methods for too long to understand, but I like it a lot. OTOH, I have a monster JOBO system ordered. It should be here in two weeks. It will plunge me into a complete re-evaluation of all my practices. > (lost attributes, sorry) > >Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > OTOH, I have a monster JOBO system ordered. It should be here in two weeks. > It will plunge me into a complete re-evaluation of all my practices. All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better tones, better grain. > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > tones, better grain. With sheet film? & If I don't like it better than Rodinal 1+100 can I publicly flog you for wasting my time, film and money? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better >> tones, better grain. > >With sheet film? & If I don't like it better than Rodinal 1+100 can I >publicly flog you for wasting my time, film and money? What is this? Just in this branch of a thread, the nameless one is rebutted by experience by 4 to 1. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > > tones, better grain. > > With sheet film? & If I don't like it better than Rodinal 1+100 can I > publicly flog you for wasting my time, film and money? Why yes, of course! Please note that dilution may need to be increased if you're using a rotary machine. Let me know, before you start, what film you'll be trying with it. Ok I'll try it, I'll use Ilford Delta 100 sheet film. 68F in a rotary drum on my Jobo. I'll do the comparison between Acutol and "Rodinol 1+100" if Acutol is truly better in any way I'll admit it. You can suggest any time for the process you like but I am quite capable of running my own field tests and will do so. > > > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > > > tones, better grain. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you're using a rotary machine. Let me know, before you start, what > film you'll be trying with it. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > tones, better grain. Better tones and better grain FOR WHOM? The local Kamera Klub Koffee Klatch kontest kliches? If so, no thanks. I'll use D-76 or even DK-50 when I need a "fine grain" developer. > > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > > tones, better grain. > > Better tones and better grain FOR WHOM? The local Kamera Klub Koffee > Klatch kontest kliches? No, for you. > If so, no thanks. I'll use D-76 or even DK-50 when I need a "fine grain" > developer. Acutol give better speed, better tonality, finer grain, and better sharpness than Acutol. It is NOT a solvent developer. If you choose Rodinal instead, you're making a mistake. It's inferior on all measures to Acutol. >> Better tones and better grain FOR WHOM? The local Kamera Klub Koffee >> Klatch kontest kliches? > No, for you. But Mike, I sometimes LIKE grain! Ralph Gibson's overdeveloped Rodinal negs would be not as singular. > > All I can say is that you really should try Acutol. More speed, better > > tones, better grain. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If so, no thanks. I'll use D-76 or even DK-50 when I need a "fine grain" > developer. Do you have ANY experience with these developers? I doubt it. >> If so, no thanks. I'll use D-76 or even DK-50 when I need a "fine grain" >> developer. > Do you have ANY experience with these developers? I doubt it. Decades of experience with D-76, usually 1:1. Moderate experience with Rodinal and DK-50. But to partly appease you, should I ever buy a Minox, I promise I'll try Acutol. I'm a camera collector with too many untried toys: for the past two years I've had a beautiful 5x7 "Compact" (ha!) Graflex, holders and film; I've got a couple of exposed holders, so that's my next project. D-76 1:1 or Rodinal should work fine for 5x7" contact prints. > >> If so, no thanks. I'll use D-76 or even DK-50 when I need a "fine grain" > >> developer. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > film; I've got a couple of exposed holders, so that's my next project. > D-76 1:1 or Rodinal should work fine for 5x7" contact prints. True enough, but Acutol remains the best developer for conventional films in 35mm. : (lost attributes, sorry) : >Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and : > difficult to control for that reason. : > : > There is just no good reason to use Rodinal at all. : You know, I've had terrific luck with Rodinal 1:200 for modified stand : processing of Agfa AXP 100. Very even development, very nice N-1. Perhaps : I've assimulated Rodinal's characteristics into my methods for too long to : understand, but I like it a lot. There's a reason why Rodinal has been around for as long as it has been!! It works well with both "traditional" film and T-grain film. To say otherwise is just ignorant. : OTOH, I have a monster JOBO system ordered. It should be here in two weeks. : It will plunge me into a complete re-evaluation of all my practices. Have I missed the news that hell has frozen over!! :-) Which model have your ordered?? In any case you're going to love it and will quickly wonder how you ever did without it. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : OTOH, I have a monster JOBO system ordered. It should be here in two > weeks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > ever did without it. Frank, I don't even know what model it is. It is part of a huge lot of studio and darkroom stuff I bought out. All I can tell you is that it has lots of bottles, is about 5 feet long, has a lift, plumbing, two big boxes of tanks and 'stuff'. If it id not even work (and it does) it would be worth what I'm paying for it. Along a similar vein I got that used ATL 3 I acquired for free last fall running and processed my first E6 with it last week. Its a beast and requires hot and cold water hook ups, I got two twelve foot garden hoses and coupled the processor to my existing tempered water supply. The hoses leak a little but I put them in a big trash can to catch the water, the machine dumps about five gallons of water for the complete cycle. I catch that water in a big chemistry tank and will dispose it properly. All said its nice to be able to walk away from the machine. > Frank, I don't even know what model it is. It is part of a huge lot of > studio and darkroom stuff I bought out. All I can tell you is that it has > lots of bottles, is about 5 feet long, has a lift, plumbing, two big boxes > of tanks and 'stuff'. If it id not even work (and it does) it would be > worth what I'm paying for it. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Forgot the link: http://www.gregblankphoto.com/Darkroom.html > Along a similar vein I got that used ATL 3 I acquired for free last fall > running and processed my first E6 with it last week. Its a beast [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > of tanks and 'stuff'. If it id not even work (and it does) it would be > > worth what I'm paying for it. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Forgot the link: You must be a wealthy man. :( I just have good friends ;-) It was given to me!!! Free, not one penny spent except the rental van to pick it up. > > Forgot the link: > > You must be a wealthy man. :( SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : I just have good friends ;-) It was given to me!!! : Free, not one penny spent except the rental van to pick it up. I wish I had friends that would give me things like an ATL3!! : > > Forgot the link: : > : > You must be a wealthy man. :( : "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, : or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, : is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable : to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com rodinal 1:who-fawking-knows (5ml, 10 hours) looks awesome with apx 100 imho if rodinal were a soup I'd have it every day. >(lost attributes, sorry) >>Rodinal at 1:100, 1:200 etc would be very close to exhaustion and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >OTOH, I have a monster JOBO system ordered. It should be here in two weeks. >It will plunge me into a complete re-evaluation of all my practices. Cheers, -sd http://www.zoom.sh > rodinal 1:who-fawking-knows (5ml, 10 hours) looks awesome with apx 100 > imho Two rolls of 120 in a 30 oz can, 1:200 for 90 minutes develops to completion.There is no reason to develop longer. >>Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It is also sharper. I also liked TMY in D-23, but now I have some Neopans to > shoot;-) In general the grain of film developed in Rodinal will be larger than most other developers. It is not a fine grain developer. But it has a tone quality to it that many people like. If you liked stuff developed in D23, don't expect Rodinal to produce similar negatives. Personally I love what I get from medium speed films (=< 400 EI) in Rodinal. Your taste may differ but you may be very pleasantly surprised. If you prefer smaller grain, you may want to try making up the Rodinal in a 9% sulfite solution. Some of the tone/sharpness qualities may be lost but it is a worthwhile combination. Also, Rodinal at high dilutions (1:100) becomes a nice compansating developer. Since you will be testing yours film speed anyway, try it. It is my preferred dilution. Look up the Massive Development Chart for starting times and film speeds. Do let us know what your results are. And I will join the group recommending you ignore M. Scarpitti. I am sure you will notice he has a pronounced bias against some subjects and against mainstream opinions. He used to call himself "the world's best printer" until he posted some of his pix and got laughed at for the junk he showed. Bert > In general the grain of film developed in Rodinal will be larger than most > other developers. It is not a fine grain developer. But it has a tone quality > to it that many people like. If you liked stuff developed in D23, don't expect > Rodinal to produce similar negatives. > Personally I love what I get from medium speed films (=< 400 EI) in Rodinal. > Your taste may differ but you may be very pleasantly surprised. I like APX100 in Rodinal: http://kokonik.terramail.pl/czcz.htm but Ilfordpan400 was also very nice and less grainy then I thought it should be : http://kokonik.terramail.pl/czcz3.htm > If you prefer smaller grain, you may want to try making up the Rodinal in a 9% > sulfite solution. Some of the tone/sharpness qualities may be lost but it is a > worthwhile combination. Also, Rodinal at high dilutions (1:100) becomes a nice > compansating developer. Since you will be testing yours film speed anyway, try > it. It is my preferred dilution. Look up the Massive Development Chart for > starting times and film speeds. I've used R09(Foma version of Rodinal) only in 1:100 dilution, maybe once or twice in 1:50. Can I use table salt instead of sulfite? > Do let us know what your results are. I will. > And I will join the group recommending you ignore M. Scarpitti. I am sure you > will notice he has a pronounced bias against some subjects and against > mainstream opinions. He used to call himself "the world's best printer" until > he posted some of his pix and got laughed at for the junk he showed. In the beginning I was interested in his posts, but later I decided to ignore his messages... > Bert Blazej > >>Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Bert Bert, you know nothing whatsoever about me, my work, or my knowledge of photography. The 'junk' I showed was scanned from books, prints I did not even make, or prints that were poorly printed! : > >>Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. : > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] : > : > Bert : Bert, you know nothing whatsoever about me, my work, or my knowledge : of photography. : The 'junk' I showed was scanned from books, prints I did not even : make, or prints that were poorly printed! Are you now publically admitting that you violated the copyright of the owner of the work and claimed the work as your own?? What books did you steal the images from?? Personally I think this is another one of your lies. When you first posted them you bragged about them. When people started to laugh at the piss poor quality of the images you claimed they were crap prints that you made during the early 70's and are no longer reflective of your current abilities. You mantained that until a couple of days ago. Now you decided to claim that they weren't prints you made all along and that in reality you stole them. Not only are you a piss poor photographer. You are a liar and a thief. Is it any wonder you have no credibility left. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Bert, you know nothing whatsoever about me, my work, or my knowledge > of photography. > The 'junk' I showed was scanned from books, prints I did not even > make, or prints that were poorly printed! A little RPD history: Around the summer of 2003, Mike Scarpitti posted a URL link to some of his prints, most of which were SCANNED from an old college yearbook. I liked a few of his photos, but most were Photo I/yearbook filler cliches; coeds tossing a Frisbee on the campus quad, etc. The quality of the original prints must of have been mediocre; scanning them from a litho-screened book made them worse. A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS IN THE WORLD! And to "prove" it, he actually posted a link to some astoundingly mediocre work... > [...] > A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose > statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS > IN THE WORLD! [...] Even if one was a great printer but with a thirty years hiatus, it's unlikely he's the same today. : > [...] : > A few weeks before this, Mike Scarpitti made yet another grandiose : > statement; he claimed to be ONE OF THE TEN BEST BLACK-AND-WHITE PRINTERS : > IN THE WORLD! [...] : Even if one was a great printer but with a thirty years hiatus, it's : unlikely he's the same today. He stunk then and based on more "modern" work he stinks now. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > > : > [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He stunk then and based on more "modern" work he stinks now. Funny, how we never see any of your 'work' here, isn't it? : > : > : > [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > : > He stunk then and based on more "modern" work he stinks now. : Funny, how we never see any of your 'work' here, isn't it? Nice try at changing the subject. My abilities or lack there of is irrelevent to the fact that you stunk back in the early seventies and the fac t that you stink now. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com "Frank Pittel" : (Mr. Pittel was responding to Scarpetti) > [....] My abilities or lack there of is irrelevent to > the fact that you stunk back in the early seventies and the fac t that you > stink > now. The seventies were another time out-place here. It's hard or impossible to recapitulate what was significant then, and that's one justification for photography: it prevails. Lighten up. But then, I was never, ever, happy with what I did back then, even the moment I made the image-series although one series persuaded an editor to nominate me for the Pulitzer and my view remains the same when I looked at my stuff a year after it was done - it sucks. Geeeze, Frank. You do put our feet to the fire, and that's a Good Thing. Keep on with it. We are not what we were. Thank God. Life is good thanks to Time. I am interested in people as the are now. That is all we have. So Let's all lighten up a bit. I don't think Scarpetti ever had the power to diminish any single individual here. : "Frank Pittel" : : (Mr. Pittel was responding to Scarpetti) : > [....] My abilities or lack there of is irrelevent to : > the fact that you stunk back in the early seventies and the fac t that you : > stink : > now. : The seventies were another time out-place here. It's hard or impossible to : recapitulate what was significant then, and that's one justification for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : sucks. Geeeze, Frank. You do put our feet to the fire, and that's a Good : Thing. Keep on with it. Some things were never any good, even during the seventies. Is there anyone that really likes bell bottoms? I've seen a lot of photos done during the seventies that were excellent. Then there is "waffle boy". : We are not what we were. Thank God. Life is good thanks to Time. : I am interested in people as the are now. That is all we have. So Let's all : lighten up a bit. I don't think Scarpetti ever had the power to diminish any : single individual here. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Some things were never any good, even during the seventies. Is there anyone > that really likes bell bottoms? Actually, I rather enjoyed bell bottoms (at least the less radical ones). Okay, I was a teen in the 70s, so they suited me, but I had one pair I liked so much that when I got too tall for them (but not too big in the waist, because I was skinny until I got my driver's license) I let down the cuffs, and then let out the hems that had been inside the cuffs, and even dyed them in order to keep wearing them (for four or five years, if I recall correctly, from age 13 until at least 17, maybe 18). Now platform soles sucked from day one... > I've seen a lot of photos done during the > seventies that were excellent. Absolutely; I recall a lot of photographs I saw in places like Life magazine and National Geographic in the 1970s that were and still are simply awe-inspiring, both as a matter of subject matter and on technical grounds. It was a desire to emulate those photographs that first pushed me into photography (and an inability to do so, with the perceptions and budget I had as a teen, that pushed me out of it for twenty years or so). 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. : > Some things were never any good, even during the seventies. Is there anyone : > that really likes bell bottoms? : Actually, I rather enjoyed bell bottoms (at least the less radical : ones). Okay, I was a teen in the 70s, so they suited me, but I had one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : cuffs, and even dyed them in order to keep wearing them (for four or : five years, if I recall correctly, from age 13 until at least 17, maybe 18). Can I ask what it was that you saw in bell bottoms?? Although Iwore them like everyone else I never understood what people saw in them. Then again I always seem to go against the "style" of the time. That was true then and it's true now. : Now platform soles sucked from day one... True. : > I've seen a lot of photos done during the : > seventies that were excellent. : Absolutely; I recall a lot of photographs I saw in places like Life : magazine and National Geographic in the 1970s that were and still are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : perceptions and budget I had as a teen, that pushed me out of it for : twenty years or so). I keep meaning to subscribe to both Life and the National Geographic. I don't know why I never get around to it. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > Some things were never any good, even during the seventies. Is there anyone > : > that really likes bell bottoms? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > seem to go against the "style" of the time. That was true then and it's true > now. In the day, I liked my pants tight from the waistband down to the knee, and loose below -- just my preference, in the days when I didn't carry a huge amount of stuff in my pockets. I can't wear 'em that way now, too many keys, pocket knives, spare rolls of film, and change. The bells were a bit of a problem on a 10-speed without chain guard; I got into the habit of tucking the right one into my sock when I got on my bike, which of course didn't add to my overall "coolness" or popularity, but it did cut down on the grease stains and sprocket tooth holes in my pants... > I keep meaning to subscribe to both Life and the National Geographic. I don't > know why I never get around to it. I know why *I* don't -- have you seen the annual subscription price for NG?? 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. > Can I ask what it was that you saw in bell bottoms?? Hell, Frank, a person could strap an Uzi on each ankle and still be a Hippie! : > Can I ask what it was that you saw in bell bottoms?? : Hell, Frank, a person could strap an Uzi on each ankle and still be a : Hippie! :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > Can I ask what it was that you saw in bell bottoms?? > > : Hell, Frank, a person could strap an Uzi on each ankle and still be a > : Hippie! > > :-) I did military service from '64-70 with 36 months overseas and went home pretty much a wreck to live in an 'Urban Zone' - ya know, all hippies and third-worlders prentending to be bruthas and sistahs, but ripping each other off all the time. Sure, I let my hair grow long. Why not. It all ended very humourously one day when I came home to find a circle of unwelcome freaks in my living room passsing reefer round and round. They smiled with those half-closed-half-wit eyes and Da Man said, "Saaaay, Johnnie, take a hit, Bruthah" I leaned over the circle to get the reefer, my 1911 45-auto fell out of my shoulder holster right to the in the middle of the group in a clatter of mennace, cocked and locked. End of party. Life around there was all much better after that. > Actually, I rather enjoyed bell bottoms (at least the less radical ones). > [...] They served the US Navy well, too. > > : > : > [...] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the fact that you stunk back in the early seventies and the fac t that you stink > now. If nothing you do is of relevance, then why is anything I do of relevance? : > : > : > : > [...] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : > the fact that you stunk back in the early seventies and the fac t that you stink : > now. : If nothing you do is of relevance, then why is anything I do of relevance? The conversation is about how you stink at photography and at printing. That makes your drek relevent. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com From: Michael Scarpitti (mikescarpitti@yahoo.com) > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely > GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment > I can and do. Reality Check, Mike: there's NO golden glow coming from your prints. I liked your "Under The Overpass" composition, but it would really SUCK printed 11x14 with the badly washed-out daylight areas. A suggestion for an "Under The Overpass" reshoot: get a 24 exposure roll of Tri-X, expose at EI 100, presoak for 2 minutes in water, then develop it in D-76 1:1 for FIVE minutes. "Pulling" lowers contrast and increases latitude, so only use this roll for high-contrast shots. FWIW, I have 4 35mm cameras; a Russian Kiev 4am, Leica IIIf, Leica M3 and a folding Zeiss Ikonta 522/24 w/Xenar lens. I use the Kiev the most; it's an excellent camera with a sharp 53mm Helios lens. The Ikonta folder is cute & fits in a shirt pocket, but I'm not too impressed with its lens. My next 35mm purchase will be a 35mm lens for the Kiev. For my 2 Leicas I have three German-made lenses, the best of which is a DR 50mm Summicron. I also have a Russki Jupiter 50mm/f2, which certainly does not optically compare to the Summicron. But otherwise the Jupiter is a better lens: it is lighter, and due to the quicker thread pitch of the focus-barrel, it focuses faster than the Summicron. Larger prints from my 50mm Summicron are sharp; no surprise. But I've probably USED the 50mm Jupiter more; it's faster to use and much lighter and can be easily replaced for under $50. I'll happily trade off the slight optical loss for an easier-to-use lens. (Your clunky Leicaflex is a far cry from the sleek Leica I/f3.5 Elmar of 1935!) So making 11x14 prints from 35mm is a low priorty for me; I use 35mm for its small size and ruggedness. If I gotta make a big print, I'll use my 4x5 press cameras. (Speed Graphic & B&J Press; 127 & 205mm Ektar lenses.) I only have 1 "Jap" 35mm lens, a Fuji 35mm f2, which is fairly soft at wider apertures, but fairly sharp past f5.6. So how many of your Leicaflex lenses are "Jap" made? Or made in Canada? > From: Michael Scarpitti (mikescarpitti@yahoo.com) > > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely > > GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment > > I can and do. > > Reality Check, Mike: there's NO golden glow coming from your prints. Since you haven't seen one, how can you judge? > I liked your "Under The Overpass" composition, but it would really SUCK > printed 11x14 with the badly washed-out daylight areas. They're not 'badly washed out'. The drama of the scene lies precisely in the extreme contrast of the two areas. There is highlight detail in the print. When exposing for such a scene, a compromise must be reached. I intend to reshoot this one soon, based on my experience with this particular roll, I'll bracket a bit more and develop the Neopan 1600 with Acutol at a greater dilution than this roll. I have already started doing so on other rolls, but I have not made it back to that site yet when the sun is the way I want it. > A suggestion for an "Under The Overpass" reshoot: get a 24 exposure roll > of Tri-X, expose at EI 100, presoak for 2 minutes in water, then develop > it in D-76 1:1 for FIVE minutes. "Pulling" lowers contrast and increases > latitude, so only use this roll for high-contrast shots. I do not want to 'flatten' the scene at all, but compensation is indicated on such subject matter. > FWIW, I have 4 35mm cameras; a Russian Kiev 4am, Leica IIIf, Leica M3 and > a folding Zeiss Ikonta 522/24 w/Xenar lens. I use the Kiev the most; it's [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So how many of your Leicaflex lenses are "Jap" made? None. Or made in > Canada? 1, the 90mm Summicron-R. And 'Canada' is not 'Japan'. In fact, some of the Canadian lenses were actually better than the German ones.... : > From: Michael Scarpitti (mikescarpitti@yahoo.com) : > > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely : > > GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment : > > I can and do. : > : > Reality Check, Mike: there's NO golden glow coming from your prints. : Since you haven't seen one, how can you judge? We've scans of your prints and they stink. : : > I liked your "Under The Overpass" composition, but it would really SUCK : > printed 11x14 with the badly washed-out daylight areas. : They're not 'badly washed out'. The drama of the scene lies precisely : in the extreme contrast of the two areas. There is highlight detail in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : already started doing so on other rolls, but I have not made it back : to that site yet when the sun is the way I want it. There's no "drama" to the image. Just washed out highlights. Another example of a print that you brag about that I would have thrown into the garbage. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest resolution on several high-speed films tested. If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I have made pdf's from them. >I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares >various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest >resolution on several high-speed films tested. > >If anyone wants to see the article, please write to me directly. I >have made pdf's from them. Since these have been E-mailed to me without my having to ask, Here are my impressions. Rodinal was used at 1+50 and 1+75 on all films, with, generally, slow films getting the more dilute version. We have been discussing 1+100 and beyond here and the addition of some Sulfite. The films under test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible exeption of Adox, as Efke. This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to today's films and this discussion. Given that, it appears some other developers give poor results with some films and good results with others. Rodinal is one of these. Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal gives results the equal of any number of other developers. Big surprise is Diafine's abilities to increase effective speed with a number of films,as well as its image qualities. An even bigger surprise is the results of using E24 with the Adox films. Whopping speed increases while maintaining average quality with other developers. Hey, what's up with Atomal and Agfa and Perutz films. Lots of speed and gooos image quality. Back then, this was a variant of the Promicrol type. containing Glycin and that Amidol-like agent in the Promicrol patent. What the nameless one quotes is not anything like proof of his assertions, even if the datedness is set aside. Interesting, though. What's E24? Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares > >various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > What the nameless one quotes is not anything like proof of his > assertions, even if the datedness is set aside. You'll note that Rodinal offered no advantage whatsoever on the high-speed films tested, delivering 'lower' than average resolution, lower speed, and higher graininess, especially on Tri-X. If that isn't significant, I don't know what would be. > >I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares > >various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Even using the inappropriate (in my opinion) 1+50 dilution, Rodianal > gives results the equal of any number of other developers. This is false for the fast films and some medium-speed films. Look again. > >I have available scans of a Leica Fotografie article that compares > >various film and developer combinations. Rodinal offers the lowest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > test in the 1968 article. are not available now, with the possible > exeption of Adox, as Efke. Plus-X and Tri-X are essentially unchanged. Ilford's FP3 and HP4 were the immediate predecessors of their current offerings, as are the AGFA films tested. Perutz and Ferrania are no longer available. > This set of factors reduces the relevance of the tests results to > today's films and this discussion. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern > films at all. Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... Following is a reprint of a recent posting of mine: Date: 2004-08-18 06:26:28 PST "The local Kamera Klub Koffee Klatch does not like Rodinal; they place great importance on fine grain and extreme sharpness. The member who makes tack sharp 20x24" prints from 35mm is held in high esteem; another member who makes 16x20" prints from Minox negs is regarded as a demi-god. Like Mike Scarpitti, members of the Kamera Klub Koffee Klatch almost never use the word "TONALITY". Sorry, but I can't help you with your request; I've never used Neopan. FWIW, following is my one of my favorite camera/film/developer combos: I use my ancient Ansco 120 folder with an uncoated three-element f8 lens, Kodak Tri-X 400 and Rodinal 1:50, developed for Agfa's suggested time. I rate the film at EI 200. Printed full-frame on 8x10" paper, Mike Scarpitti & the other lifetime Photo I students and the local Kamera Klub Koffee Klatch will point out the strong grain pattern, but what they don't have the sensitivity to appreciate are THE TONES; the soft, uncoated crude lens also enhances the effect. But if you're a blundering pedantic fool who actually makes statements like: "A PRESANTATION PRINT MUST BE 11X14" OR LARGER", you will never appreciate the results from the Ansco Folder/Tri-X/Rodinal combo. >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... That's one word. Try pathetic as well. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email You don't know me, or my work. Shut up and let me answer the man's question! He won't answer you he put you in his killfile along long time ago. Perhaps you belong there. > > >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You don't know me, or my work. Shut up and let me answer the man's question! >He won't answer you he put you in his killfile along >long time ago. Perhaps you belong there. Perhaps ? You are truly a kind person ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >He won't answer you he put you in his killfile along >long time ago. Perhaps you belong there. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> You don't know me, or my work. Shut up and let me answer the man's question! This last complaint by the nameless one is exactly what he was accused of in response to his first reply to the OP. >A Concerned Contributer <dmax@the-baseline.com> wrote: >Why don't you shut up and let them ask the question. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern >> films at all. It continues. Robert Vervoordt, MFA : > >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com : > Please remove the "_" when replying via email : You don't know me, or my work. Shut up and let me answer the man's question! Last year you put your "work" on display on a website. Those of us that saw it are still laughing at what we saw. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... > : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Last year you put your "work" on display on a website. Those of us that saw it > are still laughing at what we saw. Oh really? Let's see your 35-year old work, sonny! : > : > >Sigh... Scarpitti is SO predictable... : > : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : > Last year you put your "work" on display on a website. Those of us that saw it : > are still laughing at what we saw. : Oh really? Let's see your 35-year old work, sonny! My abilities as a photographer then and now is irrelevent to the fact that you stunk then and you stink now. I would like to take a moment and thank you for all the laughs you've given me. Your posts and the drek that you put on the web to show off your photographic ability has made for good laughing stock for myself and others. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Frank: You really should knock it off,...you know they tend to calm down once they get enough medicine in their system,....if you don't repeatedly antagonize them. ;-) > My abilities as a photographer then and now is irrelevent to the fact that > you stunk then and you stink now. > > I would like to take a moment and thank you for all the laughs you've given > me. Your posts and the drek that you put on the web to show off your photographic > ability has made for good laughing stock for myself and others. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern > > films at all. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > like: "A PRESANTATION PRINT MUST BE 11X14" OR LARGER", you will never > appreciate the results from the Ansco Folder/Tri-X/Rodinal combo. If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. I can and do. Use "Jap" equipment and make incompetent prints ? > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW > and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. > > I can and do. > Use "Jap" equipment and make incompetent prints ? (he was responding to Mr. Scarpetti) Yah, it seems crazy to cast aspersions on the nationality of the maker. Leitz has hardware made in Canada and Japan. All the work I did in the early years was German Leica and Japanese Nikon. Sharpness wasn't even an issue back then, and I seriously doubt it's a criteria for Good Photography today. > Use "Jap" equipment and make incompetent prints ? > > > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW > > and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. > > > > I can and do. Right. I use Leica cameras and lenses, and Leica enlarging lenses. It makes a difference. : > Use "Jap" equipment and make incompetent prints ? : > : > > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW : > > and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. : > > : > > I can and do. : Right. I use Leica cameras and lenses, and Leica enlarging lenses. It : makes a difference. It can't make much of a difference. I don't know how your photos can be any worse then what you've already put online. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW > and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. Dunno what SHARP means here, but I've seen a lot of prints in which sharpness doesn't matter; the content, at any size, survives to be stunning. > > If you can't make 11x14 prints (from 35mm negs) that absolutely GLOW > > and are SHARP, you're incompetent or you're using Jap equipment. > > Dunno what SHARP means here, but I've seen a lot of prints in which > sharpness doesn't matter; the content, at any size, survives to be stunning. Japanese lenses give a different look, and the quality differential between the Focotar-2 that I use and anything else is simply amazing. > Japanese lenses give a different look, and the quality differential > between the Focotar-2 that I use and anything else is simply amazing. Can you show us an example? I found the Focotars to be soft. > > Japanese lenses give a different look, and the quality differential > > between the Focotar-2 that I use and anything else is simply amazing. > > Can you show us an example? I found the Focotars to be soft. The 50mm f/4,5 Focotar-2, from 1977, is fantastic. It blew away my El-Nikkor 50mm 2,8. I'm talking nuclear explosion blow-away, my friend..... >> > Japanese lenses give a different look, and the quality differential >> > between the Focotar-2 that I use and anything else is simply amazing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > El-Nikkor 50mm 2,8. I'm talking nuclear explosion blow-away, my > friend..... If I ever print 35mm again I'll try it. I have the 50mm Focotar. : > Hi, : > Has anyone tried this combination? I'm looking for nice tonality, don't care : > much about the grain. : > Ifordpan400 was very nice in R09 1:100, I hope Neopan will be better;-) : > : > Blazej : I cannot recommend Rodinal and most fast films. Paterson Acutol is : MUCH better, and I use it on Neopan 400 all the time. Dilute 1+14, : develop for 8 minutes @ 20C/68F. : Forget Rodinal. It is an old, old product. Not recommended for modern : films at all. The only one that I know of that reccomends against using Rodinal is you. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried it using 1+100 dilution with say 120 or 4x5 film his mind would change....and that could be a good thing. A change of mind that is ;-) > The only one that I know of that reccomends against using Rodinal is you. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because >it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried >it using 1+100 dilution with say 120 or 4x5 film his mind would >change....and that could be a good thing. A change of mind that is ;-) Ya know, I still like Rodinal even though the similarities with Scarpitti are so uncanny. == Rodinal is a grainy developer. Scarpitti is very abrasive. == Rodinal sacrifices about 1/2 stop of film speed. Scarpitti is not very swift either. == Rodinal diluted 1:100 causes adjacency in the developed image. Scarpitti always makes a mountain out of a molehill. == One thing they don't have in common : character. Rodinal is to Scarpitti as Jack Daniels is to Budweiser. One might say that Scapitti simply doesn't know Jack. ;>)) Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email >> Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because >>it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email Hmm, so are you suggesting that both would be improved by further dilution? I could well enjoy less of the nameless one around here. Maybe just getting them to consume more Sulfite will smooth the edges. Naah. The nameless one is exactly like Rodinal, so, in his own description, is useless for modern film. Don't listen to him, Newbies! Robert Vervoordt, MFA I am gonna print this and put it on my wall. > > Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because > >it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >I am gonna print this and put it on my wall. Glad you liked it. BTW, I know Jack. He's a neighbor. http://www.jackdaniels.com/ At one time Jack Daniels and Samuel Adams got together and created something called Millennium Ale. Please let me know if you ever come across a bottle. It's a 40 proof beer ;>)) Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email No but I've had a few Irish Car bombs,.... Guiness with a shot glass of Bailey's Irish cream dropped into it I highly recommend the combo,...but you need to drink it fairly quickly or the "cream" makes a strange looking out of the Guiness. Somewhere in my roots I have some Irish/Scotch blood,... or was that in my desk drawer? ;-) > At one time Jack Daniels and Samuel Adams got together and > created something called Millennium Ale. Please let me know if you > ever come across a bottle. It's a 40 proof beer ;>)) > Regards, > > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com > Please remove the "_" when replying via email SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >Somewhere in my roots I have some Irish/Scotch blood,... >or was that in my desk drawer? ;-) My fathers father was (of course) a Douglas from Scotland. My mothers father was a Harper. I guess that's Scotch-Irish enough ;>)) Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email : Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because : it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried : it using 1+100 dilution with say 120 or 4x5 film his mind would : change....and that could be a good thing. A change of mind that is ;-) I've never actually used Rodinal but have seen prints made from neatives developed with Rodinal. The results were breath taking. : : : > The only one that I know of that reccomends against using Rodinal is you. : "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, : or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, : is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable : to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because > : it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've never actually used Rodinal but have seen prints made from neatives > developed with Rodinal. The results were breath taking. But even better results would be in Acutol. > : > : > The only one that I know of that reccomends against using Rodinal is you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > : to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > : Personally I like Rodinal, its great for film testing because : > : it like Mike Scarpitti is so predictable. I am sure if he tried [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > I've never actually used Rodinal but have seen prints made from neatives : > developed with Rodinal. The results were breath taking. : But even better results would be in Acutol. That's your claim. Then again you have no crediblity in this group. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com |
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
|