 |
 | 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 / December 2005T-grain films in Paterson FX-50: any experience?
I'm looking for a film-developer combo to produce negatives with - maximum sharpness - minimum grain - no loss or if possible with increase of film speed - greatest tonality In other words: utopia. But I'd like to move in this direction anyway, as I see there's more to obtain from 35mm. I've been playing around with Fomapan200, a T-grain film, developed in a Rodinal-like formula (ADOX APH09, the new brand for Calbe R09), but I seem to loose film speed and the highlights are blocking up. I read some documentation about Paterson FX-50 but before buying it (not the cheepest of soups, and I have to pay for transportation as I can't find it nearby): does anyone have experience with a combination of T-grain film and this dev.? Or suggestions for alternatives? TIA! Jan Neopan 400 in Acutol 1+14 for 8 minutes. > I'm looking for a film-developer combo to produce negatives with > - maximum sharpness [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jan UC, maybe I wasn't clear enough: I want a dev. for the Fomapan200 wich is a T-grain film, I'm not looking for another film, just for a developer. The Rodinal-based Adox APH09 gave good results on grain and sharpness, but turns down film speed, blocks up highlights and increases contrast (higher dilutions would indeed reduce contrast but I'm afraid film speed as well). If there's one property to sacrifice, let it be film speed - I've been used to film speeds of 64 or 100 for shots requiring sharpness and grainlesness. If my Fomapan 200 turns out to be a sharp, smooth, grainless 100 ASA film, so be it, if inevitably. Jan | Neopan 400 in Acutol 1+14 for 8 minutes. | [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | > | > Jan > UC, > maybe I wasn't clear enough: I want a dev. for the Fomapan200 wich is a > T-grain film, I'm not looking for another film, just for a developer. I seriously doubt whether Fompan is anywhere near the quality of Delta 400 or Neopan 400. I would not even try it. It would be waste of precious time and resources. My expert advice is to try one of those films in FX-39, not FX-50. I tried FX-50 and it was dead when I picked it up at the store right after it came in on a special order. > The Rodinal-based Adox APH09 gave good results on grain and sharpness, but > turns down film speed, blocks up highlights and increases contrast (higher [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > | > > | > Jan > UC, > maybe I wasn't clear enough: I want a dev. for the Fomapan200 wich is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jan 4. UC Dec 8, 5:12 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom From: "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 8 Dec 2005 14:12:22 -0800 Local: Thurs, Dec 8 2005 5:12 pm Subject: Re: T-grain films in Paterson FX-50: any experience? Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Remove | Report Abuse I seriously doubt whether Fompan is anywhere near the quality of Delta 400 or Neopan 400. I would not even try it. It would be waste of precious time and resources. My expert advice is to try one of those films in Acutol or FX-39, not FX-50. I tried FX-50 and it was dead when I picked it up at the store right after it came in on a special order. > I seriously doubt whether Fompan is anywhere near the quality of Delta > 400 or Neopan 400. I would not even try it. It would be waste of > precious time and resources. I think your prejudice may be unwise. You may have run into Fomapan T200 under the name Paterson Acupan 200. It is well worth trying. That being said, I once bought several rolls of Fomapan 200 in 120 format which I should have had the sense to return as defective. Peter.  Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > > I seriously doubt whether Fompan is anywhere near the quality of Delta > > 400 or Neopan 400. I would not even try it. It would be waste of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fomapan T200 under the name Paterson Acupan 200. It is > well worth trying. Sorry, no dice. It cannot be as good as the films I mentioned. > That being said, I once bought several rolls of Fomapan 200 > in 120 format which I should have had the sense to return as > defective. > > Peter. now that one scares me off... just like the old news that Xtol has/had the rudeness of unannounced sudden death... This kept me from trying it. If the Foma production is that unreliable, I'd prefer to avoid using their films. Couldn't live with the fear shooting with unpredictable results, even for a non-pro user like me! Anyway, I'll complete my testing on the remaining 3 rolls. Got some Acutol left, I'll give it a try. Wanna know how it worked? ;-) BTW Peter, in what way were your films defective? Jan | That being said, I once bought several rolls of Fomapan 200 | in 120 format which I should have had the sense to return as | defective. | | Peter. > now that one scares me off... I didn't intend to do so. > just like the old news that Xtol has/had the rudeness of unannounced sudden > death... This kept me from trying it. Xtol is great stuff, especially in conjunction with Tmax-100 and Acros. I always do a clip test before developing film in Xtol. If Xtol can fail on Richard K., it can fail on anyone, but it seems to be fairly unusual for it to happen. I haven't been burned yet. For the clip test, I just stick a film leader in the measuring cup of Xtol in the light for five minutes, then in the fixer for another five. Black film means the developer is working, and this can be done easily while getting ready. > BTW Peter, in what way were your films defective? The rolls of 120 I got had what looked like lots of very thin long scratches running along the length of the film which produced very fine black lines on englargments. I suspect they weren't actually scratches, but I don't know the actual cause. At first I was worried that there might be a problem with my camera, but it happened with that lot of film in two different cameras and did not happen with other films in either camera, so it certainly seems to have been a film problem. I think I tried 3 of the films before giving up. I still have a couple rolls around somewhere. I wouldn't be too concerned about my experience. Any manufacturer can let the odd defective batch through, and this was a couple years ago. I didn't have any trouble with the 35mm stuff. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > | That being said, I once bought several rolls of Fomapan 200 > | in 120 format which I should have had the sense to return as > | defective. | Xtol is great stuff, especially in conjunction with Tmax-100 | and Acros. conclusion: Xtol is maybe what I'm looking for? It appears to have, on those world-famous T-grain films, the effects I'm looking for, so I bet it can do to Fomapan200 what FX-50 claims to? Another puzzle: in 2 posts I read about FX-50 having passed away before it's time, whereas Paterson claims, I quote their website: "and in concentrate form has a virtually indefinite shelf life". Another similarity between FX-50 and Xtol...? Jan I'm starting to be more suspicious of mixing temps sometimes affecting Vit C based concoctions. There seems to be some pattern of this in some of the discussion areas and some people seem to have better success when using the minimum temperature possible when initially mixing their Xtol or similar brews. Not sure of the validity of this but I thought I'd mention it. The FX-50 has earned many comments from users regarding its sudden death and short life once opened and that's a liquid so who knows? >| Xtol is great stuff, especially in conjunction with Tmax-100 >| and Acros. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jan Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com FX-50 is simply diluted; there's no mixing involved. Mine arrived DOA! > I'm starting to be more suspicious of mixing temps sometimes affecting > Vit C based concoctions. There seems to be some pattern of this in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Craig Schroeder > craig nospam craigschroeder com Peter, I'm sorry to say, but I have my doubts about the likeness of Fomapan200 and Acupan 200. I treated the Fomapan 200 as if it were Acupan 200 and developed in Acutol 1+14 for 5min. Even with a dev. time far exceeding the suggestions in the article of Michael Scarpitti on http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/scarpitti-paterson.html (3.5 min!!) I ended up with very thin results, without even reaching IE100 and with very week contrast, making me believe I need to extend dev. time up to 8-9 min. To be continued... Jan You may have run into | Fomapan T200 under the name Paterson Acupan 200. It is | well worth trying. Only at 10' in Acutol 1+14 Fomapan200 reached a normal contrast. By then the film showed the same amount of grain as Fomapan100, wich better suits my taste when it comes to tonality. No more Fomapan200 for me. I have one roll left. You can come and get it. Please make an appointment before. Jan | Peter, | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Fomapan T200 under the name Paterson Acupan 200. It is | | well worth trying. > Only at 10' in Acutol 1+14 Fomapan200 reached a normal contrast. By then the > film showed the same amount of grain as Fomapan100, wich better suits my > taste when it comes to tonality. No more Fomapan200 for me. I have one roll > left. You can come and get it. Please make an appointment before. > Jan Huh? Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? > | Peter, > | [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | | Fomapan T200 under the name Paterson Acupan 200. It is > | | well worth trying. Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain one. Enlargement of negatives of both, with +- identical gray parts in the sky showed about the same granularity in both pictures. But with drawbacks for the 200: blocking highlights and _not_ IE200, just above 100. | Huh? | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? > Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain > one. > Enlargement of negatives of both, with +- identical gray parts in the sky > showed about the same granularity in both pictures. > But with drawbacks for the 200: blocking highlights and _not_ IE200, just > above 100. Then, I suggest Delta 400 or Neopan 400 in FX-39. > | Huh? > | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100? Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both? | > Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain | > one. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | > | Huh? | > | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? I can hardly see the grain from Neopan 400 in FX-39 at 8x enlargements. > Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100? > Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > | > | Huh? > | > | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? I've used Foma 200 in 35mm and 120. I shoot it at box speed under normal conditions, and develop in either 510-Pyro, or Hypercat with excellent results. Grain is difficult to quantify, which is why it's most often discussed in relative terms, but in my experience, Foma 200 is about as grainy as conventional 100 speed films, with the developers I use, which are tanning/staining, acutance developers. You can read about 510-Pyro and Hypercat at digital Truth, where I've submitted a short article, and some development times for Foma 200. > I can hardly see the grain from Neopan 400 in FX-39 at 8x enlargements. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > | > | Huh? > > | > | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? > Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100? > Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both? Both. > | > Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain > | > one. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > | > | Huh? > | > | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100? >> Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100? >> Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both? > >Both. I agree. What they won't be, though, is useful at EI 400 -- at least not if you want shadow detail, instead of absolute minimum grain. The last test I did on the Ilford film gave me a working speed of about 260. The Fuji stuff is a bit better. But the only "400" speed films I've ever seen live up to their labelling are HP5+ and TMY; and TMY only manages that if you develop it in Xtol. Still, you'll get results comparable to what you'd get from an old technology 100 or 125 speed film, with about a stop more speed. That's nothing to sneeze at. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky > >> Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100? > >> Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > technology 100 or 125 speed film, with about a stop more speed. That's > nothing to sneeze at. Yes, that's precisely the same as my results. IE in the range of 250-320 with most ISO 400 films in Acutol, 200-250 in FX-39. > -- > Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com > > "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be > abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky I was fairly un-impressed with my trials of FX-50 -- it's expensive and my batch went bad on me before I had a chance to use it all up. Xtol is often touted as a good all-purpose developer. It may be worth a try. Like FX-50, it is a phenidone-ascorbic acid based developer. I haven't tried it with Fomapan 200, though I think that through experimentation and testing you should be able to come up with a time and dilution that work well. Don't be afraid to use up a lot of rolls in your tests. > I'm looking for a film-developer combo to produce negatives with > - maximum sharpness [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jan I solved these issues after trying Ryuji Suzuki's alternative to Xtol. If you're not accustomed to homebrewed and aren't interested in gearing up for it, it may not be viable for you. His DS-10 formula is the best I've found after trying many, many ways to coax the tonality I wanted from flat grain/T-grain films. It is especially effective with the Delta films that I've used it with. The formula and discussion are at: http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/film-dev-recommend.html >I'm looking for a film-developer combo to produce negatives with >- maximum sharpness >- minimum grain >- no loss or if possible with increase of film speed >- greatest tonality Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder 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
|
©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.