 |
 | 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 2005Standing Development with Dilute Compensation Developers
I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I must start looking at other developers (and am curious to experiment anyway). What is a good starting point? I've read in the archives here that Acutol works well. What is the weakest dilution one can use and expect good, sharp, negs with a broad tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very little agitation)? Other recommendations? cont...@christopherbush.com wrote: > I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation > on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very > little agitation)? Other recommendations? 1:19 is about as weak as you'd want to go with Acutol. Thanks. Will standing development work at 1:19? > Thanks. Will standing development work at 1:19? I don't recommend standing development at all with roll film. Stand development is best used on sheet film laying flat. Streaking is all too common otherwise. >I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation > on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, It's still available under a different label. http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx See Announcements. >I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation > on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tonal range from thin emulsions (using standing development or very > little agitation)? Other recommendations? Forgive my ignorance, but what's the benefit of standing development over agitation?  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com Matt Clara spake thus: >> I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without >> agitation on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Forgive my ignorance, but what's the benefit of standing development > over agitation? Supposedly more pronounced "edge effects", and therefore apparent sharpness. Supposedly. SignatureGod willing, the many crimes of the Bush Administration will eventually be printed in a nice leatherbound, multi-volume edition that will look fantastic on my bookshelf. it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and keeps working on the shadow areas. this also leads to edge effects. many claim this is risky and could lead to streaking or "bromide drag", but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original post. On 18 Dec 2005 02:14:10 -0800, you wrote: > it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the > highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original > post. Edge effects are typically minimal on todays films such as TMX/TMY D100/D400. It might be different with sheet films (larger area/volume of exhausted chems) but with roll film even the longest developments I used generated almost no detectable (read not detectable in the print) adjacency effects. Best practice is to dilute a highly alkaline, low sulfite developer and use it with high contrast films. I haven't done this since Tech Pan was discontinued though. John i haven't done any comparisons, but i believe the conventional wisdom is that the adjacency effect is maximized with older, thicker emulsions. on modern emulsions, i use it primarily to lower contrast. > it is a great way to harness contrast. developer exhausts on the > highlight areas (and just sits there since there is no agitation), and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but i have not any problems with the combo mentioned in my original > post. I get plenty of adjacency effects with normal agitation. Two inversions, once per minute. i tried the acutol at 1+19 for the recommended time and normal agitation on a roll of acros yesterday. the results look good, but i've yet to enlarge them. the tonal range and contrast are very impressive. cont...@christopherbush.com wrote: > i tried the acutol at 1+19 for the recommended time and normal > agitation on a roll of acros yesterday. the results look good, but > i've yet to enlarge them. the tonal range and contrast are very > impressive. Yes, it's great! > i tried the acutol at 1+19 for the recommended time and normal > agitation on a roll of acros yesterday. the results look good, but > i've yet to enlarge them. the tonal range and contrast are very > impressive. What 'recommended time'? 12 minutes, if I remember correctly (twice the time in the little pamphlet to balance out the greater dilution). cont...@christopherbush.com wrote: > 12 minutes, if I remember correctly (twice the time in the little > pamphlet to balance out the greater dilution). Try about 9-10 minutes, for 35mm. Do not use Paterson's times. They are too long. See: http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/scarpitti-paterson.html > I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation > on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I > must start looking at other developers (and am curious to experiment > anyway). What is a good starting point? Rodinal is not no-more...just the Agfa labeled Rodinal. You will soon be able to buy Rodinal from www.photoformulary.com and others. Or you can mix it yourself. No need to abandon Rodinal. > > I have had great success using Rodinal at 1:300 or so without agitation > > on thin films such as Acros. With the news that Rodinal is no more, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No need to abandon Rodinal. Of course there is. Acutol is much better. Someone else mentioned that. I plan to try it out as soon as B&H gets it. |
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.