 |
 | 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 2006Moving from TMY to Delta 400
Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. What's the difference in B+F between these two? The difference in development times seems more extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45 in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. >Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently >decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is >XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. I have had persistent problems, with Delta 400, with a bluish cast to the base -- which I believe to be residual antihalation dye -- that prints as substantial base fog. The result is that the effective film speed is considerably lower than that of TMY. I abandoned any attempt to use Delta 400 when it was available as sheet film (now that it's not, I have no reason at all to use it) after the best speed I got with any developer, testing two different boxes of film, was between 200 and 260. No thank you, Ilford! As I've mentioned here before, one of the nicest things about the modern Kodak products is that their printed-on-the-box speed is very close to their actual speed for correct exposure that prints well (I'd say "Zone" speed, but that has all kinds of implications I don't want to get into). The Ilford Delta products are among the worst in this regard, in my experience. Ilford's development recommendation is for a gamma of 0.65, which should print well on paper about a grade softer than film developed to Kodak's recommendation of 0.58. It may be that with the curiously high base density of Delta 400, this helps hoist some detail up out of the murk down at the bottom of the curve; anyway, it's one reason your negatives look denser and the development time is so much longer than with TMY. One nice thing about Delta is that it gives beautiful supercompensation with PMK Pyro. It can be a good choice for photographing very contrasty subjects such as white flowers in bright sun, or shadows on snow.  SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart >I abandoned any attempt to use Delta 400 when it was available as sheet >film (now that it's not, I have no reason at all to use it) after the >best speed I got with any developer, testing two different boxes of film, >was between 200 and 260. No thank you, Ilford! April 6, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, The speed at which one rates the film depends on the proposed use. You mentioned that you consider Kodak speed ratings as printed on the box to be very close to a user's rating. I do not doubt this is true. Even without being familiar with your work, my first thought would be that rating Kodak TMY at 400 (the box speed) probably suits your work perfectly. However, I find TMY at EI 400 much less useful than at EI 200. Rated at 200, I find TMY extremely good for my work, which is portraiture. Even though the difference is one hundred per cent, I consider the choice of 200 vs 400 for TMY to be in the area of individual preference. TMY is sometimes described as demanding very tight controls on development and exposure. Usually it's phrased in some sort of 'con' manner. The 'pro' side would be that controlling TMY at one point vs another makes it a good tool for one job vs another. Really, it's quite a film if it can be used for portraits or something else just by entering a different number into the light meter and developing accordingly. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >>I abandoned any attempt to use Delta 400 when it was available as sheet >>film (now that it's not, I have no reason at all to use it) after the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >(the box speed) probably suits your work >perfectly. Well, that's as may be, but in that case it would seem particularly damning that I get a speed fo 260 for the Ilford film. Excluding truly wildly different curve shapes (which, from the published data, these two films do not have), if I get a high speed for film "A" with a given subject matter I should get a high speed (compared to others) for film "B". In fact, the huge base density of the Ilford film gives me a very _low_ speed, which means it may give an even lower speed for others. It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart > It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print > the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >> It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print >> the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. > >Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film. Were you using the sheet film? I think the sheet film was a little worse than the roll film. I *know* the antihalation dye is supposed to wash out after treatment with hypo clear. Supposed to. Sigh. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart > >> It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print > >> the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Were you using the sheet film? I think the sheet film was a little > worse than the roll film. Sheet film. > I *know* the antihalation dye is supposed to wash out after treatment > with hypo clear. Supposed to. Sigh. I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >> >> It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print >> >> the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2. Hmmmmm. Maybe it takes more alkalinity than the hypo clear provides. The sheet film's still off the market, right? Elsewise, I'd pick up a box and do some experiments with Kodalk baths. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart > >I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2. > > Hmmmmm. Maybe it takes more alkalinity than the hypo clear provides. > The sheet film's still off the market, right? Elsewise, I'd pick up a > box and do some experiments with Kodalk baths. Yes in my view unfortunately. Unlike Tmax film, Delta's did & Do take the PMK stain-that is evenly. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print >the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. April 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Well, to tell the truth, that's pretty much the way I feel about Kodak TMY! I'd prefer it if the manufacturer would print the box this way instead: "TMY is a superlative EI 200 film that pushes excellently to 400." regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >>It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they >>like to print [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > regards, > --le But that isn't true for either film. Kodak uses the strict method prescribed in the international ISO standard for measuring the speed of B&W still film. Ilford began to use some modified version some time ago. Kodak speeds are pretty accurate when the desired contrast is close to the ISO contrast and the same developer and method are used. I don't know what Ilford does differently but their charts are for a slightly lower contrast than Kodak's and the speeds would be affected. The ISO method yields about the highest speed that will have shadow detail. One can use more exposure which moves even darker shadows up the toe to where the contrast is higher. There is virtually no underexposure latitude for ISO speeds but several stops of overexposure latitude. Latitude meaning the amount exposure can be changed without a significant effect on tone rendition. Perhaps it would be useful to quote the introduction to the standard: From ISO 6:1993(E) Black and white films will generally provide excellent results in several different developers and processing conditions. At the same time, it is realized that the speed of a film depends on the process used. Therefore, this International Standard specifies a method of determining the photographic speed of film/process combinations. This means a particular film may have several ISO speeds associated with it depending on the processes used. For this reason, it is important that manufacturers indicate the processing conditions for which ISO speed values are quoted. This International Standard recognizes that black and white films do not generally have a unique speed if several different processes are recommended. This conflicts with the tradition of associating a specific speed value with a particular product. In the future, the process used for determining sped values should be unequivocally described to avoid misinterpretation. Since users often do not know how these films well be processed, manufacturers have an obligation to proved a speed value for this situation which will ensure good results. Usually they will take advantage of the overexposure tonal latitude of the film and give it a conservative speed value to protect users from underexposure effects in case the film is put through a process which yields low speed. It is recognized that the speed at which a film can be exposed is depends on the extend of development, scene luminance range, subject matter, printing paper, etc. This International Standard specifies that film/process speed is determined with the film is processed to obtain a specified contrast level. Then relative ISO speed ranging of various films in different process system s will generally differ. The ISO speeds will provide correct exposures for average scenes with exposure metes conforming to ISO 2720 or ISO 2721 when the film is processes as specified in this International Standard. ----- The box speed is an average, usually the time/temperature charts for various developers will give the speeds appropriate to each. Kodak specifies the CI for its charts and gives a correction to the speed value for lower contrast (as for condenser enlargers). The ASA speed system used up to 1958 included a one stop fudge factor. At that time the complaint was that negatives were too dense. When the ASA adoped a new speed method in 1958 the fudge factor was dropped and all film speeds doubled! There are a great many factors affecting what is "correct" exposure. If lowering the film speed results in more acceptable tone rendition then do so, its good practice, but manufacturers are not lying about ISO speeds. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > But that isn't true for either film. April 9, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, No, it isn't. But it would replace a little bit of the lost romance! Perhaps a compromise would be to print something on the box pointing out that it works very well at 200, too, and many people actually prefer it. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45 >in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in >XTOL 1:1. Ilford recommends 11:30 for Delta 400 in XTOL 1+1. > Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 is the "matched" developer for that film. It works very well with Delta films, as well as HP5+. Eight minutes there, and you can push in DD-X up to 1600. Microphen will get you good results at 3200. SignatureRob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise http://rob.rnovak.net > Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two > films. I recently [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta > 400? Thx. "Really dense" suggests overexposure. What is the contrast like, do these dense negatives print OK on normal grade paper? Over development can lead to overly dense negatives but they will also be very contrasty. Base plus Fog density is two different things. One is the base or support density. For most roll and sheet films the base is nearly perfectly clear and has no significant density. 35mm B&W negative film usually has a pigment in the support to reduce light piping (conduction of light the long way through the film) and also aid in reducing halation although these films generally also have an anti-halation dye in the back coating. The base density is built into the film. The base density of 35mm film varies but is usualy around log 0.2. Fog is inherent fog of the unexposed emulsion. This is partly a function of the emulsion itself: faster films have higher fog than slower ones. It is also a function of age, becoming greater with age, and, to a limited extent, the developer. Xtol does not have a fog suppressant in it. It will deliver full film speed but will not reduce fog on foggy film. This is also true for D-76. The blue tint sometimes seen on Delta films, and the pink tint seen on T-Max is residual sensitizing dye. This can become bound to the gelatin and remains even when fixing is complete (contrary to what Kodak says). It can be removed completely by using Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, which breaks down the mordanting of the dye along with the thiosulfate and silver complexes. Anti-halation dye is not removed in normal processing but is converted to a colorless form by the sulfite in both developer and fixer. The sulfite in wash aid should also decolorize it. Fog can be seen on the unexposed borders of the film. If the film is relatively clear the density is not fog. Check this by fixing out an unexposed clip of film and comparing the density of the result to a clear area of the film. If there is excessive emulsion on your negatives it may be due to defective film but more likely to something else. To check for fog process an unexposed clip of film. It should be relatively fog free (fast film always have a little fog) if not, contact Ilford, its the film. FWIW, Ilford's speeds and development recommendations are for a lower contrast than the ISO standard. The standard requires a contrast index approximately suitable for diffusion enlarging or contact printing. This is the value used by Kodak. Ilford has chosen to use a value of CI about mid-way between that needed for diffusion printing and that needed for condenser enlargers for equal paper grades. This is about one-half paper grade reduction in contrast. So, if you follow Ilford instructions you should really be getting somewhat thinner negatives. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > > Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two > > films. I recently [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > grade paper? Over development can lead to overly dense > negatives but they will also be very contrasty. I think I did overexpose. I shot it (generously) as is my habit now at 320, (possibly lower). I now read that rating it at 500 may have been more appropriate for processing in XTOL. I pulled the processing back to 12 minutes from the recommended 13. Maybe I'll try 10 minutes next run. > Base plus Fog density is two different things. One is > the base or support density. For most roll and sheet films [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > film. The base density of 35mm film varies but is usualy > around log 0.2. My scanner, which is pretty good at reading low densities, says .34 to .35 Yikes. I'm going to double check this though. > Fog is inherent fog of the unexposed emulsion. This is > partly a function of the emulsion itself: faster films have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > down the mordanting of the dye along with the thiosulfate > and silver complexes. I faithfully use Rapid Fixes on film and following and rinse and with 4&1 Hypo and another five minute rinse. Clearing doesn't seem to be the problem. > Anti-halation dye is not removed in normal processing but > is converted to a colorless form by the sulfite in both [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you follow Ilford instructions you should really be getting > somewhat thinner negatives. Thanks Richard. Helpful and informed as always. Is there a benefit to using a different developer on Delta or should I just work within the framework of XTOL. This is for 35mm and 120 BTW. >> > Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these >> > two [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > work within the framework of XTOL. This is for 35mm and > 120 BTW. Xtol is an excellent developer except for the short term failure some have with it (I'm one). No one seem to know the real reason for this despite a lot of speculation. Note that Ilford has stated in the past that it does not rate its films using the ISO method. They do not say what exactly they are doing, but they also state that they base their development charts on a lower contrast than that called for in the ISO standard. If so, the effective speed is less than it would be if measured to the strict ISO method. Speed does vary with developers. The total range is not great, perhaps about three quarters of a stop up or down. Developers like Xtol, T-Max and T-Max RS, Microphen, DD-X, deliver maximum speed. Extra-fine-grain developers, like Microdol-X and Perceptol reduce speed by about 3/4 stop. D-76 being used as a standard. Edge printing can be a clue as to what has happened. When developed normally edge printing is dark gray but not black. When overdeveloped it becomes black, when underdeveloped light gray. This is not precision testing but the exposure of the edge printing seems to be pretty consistent so it can be a clue where the image is way off. I must say here that I am not a user of Delta films although I used other Ilford films. For 35mm I mostly use 100T-Max and 400T-Max, and both of those plus some others for roll and sheet work. I have been using D-76 1:1 as a standard developer for nearly everything but lately have begun using Perceptol, full strength, for 100T-Max because it is nearly as fine grained as Technical Pan and has nice tone quality. I shoot it at EI-50 and develop about 20% less than the time on the Ilford chart. I don't understand the blue tint on Delta. If this is 35mm film it may be in the support but It seems the complaints are not confined to 35mm film. Anti-halation dye is decolorized by sulfite. Some may wash out in a presoak. Sensitizing due is usually pink or red since it is a panchromatic sensitizer and the dye is the same color as the light it sensitizes to. In T-Max films this dye is very persistent and is bound to the gelatin. Even very long fixing does not remove it but a treatment in anything which changes the pH of the emulsion to neutral or alkaline results in its immediate release. If it is bound to silver complexes those are also removed by the sulfite bath. At any rate, T-Max film fixed in two subsequent baths of Sodium Thiosulfate fixer for about 10 minutes total time, treated with KHCA and washed, does not seem to have any residual silver in it as tested by the sulfide test. It might be worth sacrificing some Delta film to examine the color of the anti-halation dye in the back coating and to see what, if anything removes it. The color of the support itself can be examined by removing the emulsion and backcoating completely. This can be done by treating in full strength household bleach for a few seconds, the gelatin will peel right off. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these > two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY > 400 to Ilford Delta 400. And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan TMY 400 (TMAX) is T-grained and Delta 400 is T-grained. I've decided to move away from Kodak products, not away from T-grained films. I've used HP5+ to get that grainy "look" but I don't like it for everything, ie. portraits. > > Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these > > two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY > > 400 to Ilford Delta 400. > > And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan > TMY 400 (TMAX) is T-grained and Delta 400 is T-grained. > I've decided to move [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan Well, there is nothing wrong with Kodak other than the feeling that the disappear without warning. I can't proove it but think the level of technology at Kodak and at Fuji is consideribly in advance of that at Ilford and always has been. Its simply that both are large and relatively rich companies. I think Fuji would do well to make a 400 speed version of Acros but I doubt if they will. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Well, there is nothing wrong with Kodak [film] other than the feeling that > it may disappear without warning. I have the same trepidation. But this has the ole "self fulfilling prophecy" logic to it: If everybody stays away because it _might_ disappear then it _will_ disappear. Nothing logically wrong with staying away; of all prophecies the self fulfilling ones are the most likely to come true. In the face of logic flies faith. I am continuing using the products I always have until they go away and not before then. Who knows, I may not have to switch. "What, me worry?" SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics, Photonics, Informatics. Remove blanks to reply: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com f-Stop enlarging timers: http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/ I've been using Delta 400 as my standard film for years; I also now use Fuji ACROS. D-400 is more flexible in development than TMY; it will accept a little over or under-development without complaining.. I use a Phenidone/Vitamin C/Metaborate homebrew and get beautiful negs at 6:30 at 70F (22C.). I rate the film at 125 because I nearly always have a yellow filter on my lens. One of the reasons I prefer Delta to TMY is that the TMY is red-sensitive (doesn't need a yellow filter), but also doesn't respond to other filters the way a truly panchromatic film does. I could get a true 400 speed out of it if I developed for 7 minutes, but not as good a tonal scale. Much of the speed rating you use is going to depend on the variations in light meter, camera shutter speed, etc. anyway, so you have to test to get your own ISO anyway for whatever film you use if you want the best results. My experience has taught me that most films are slightly over-rated in speed by the manufacturer for the sort of average shooting that most people do. I like to see detail in my shadows, so I tend to expose it for about a stop more than the manufacturer recommends for all films, and then adjust my development to give me the tonal scale I want. >Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently >decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > >at 70F (22C.). I rate the film at 125 because I nearly always have a >yellow filter on my lens. One of the reasons I prefer Delta to TMY is >that the TMY is red-sensitive (doesn't need a yellow filter), but also >doesn't respond to other filters the way a truly panchromatic film does. Actually, according to the data from Kodak, the Tmax films have different filter factors for deep color filters because their color response is more accurate than that of older panchromatic films. Long ago, of course, there were different types of panchromatic films, which was expressed by a letter code "panchromatic type [x]" where [x] was some letter of the alphabet, and of course there were different filter factor tables for each. Now, almost all black and white films are the same, so they just say "panchromatic" on the box; of course some have extended red sensitivity and there are other minor differences. But in fact it's not the case that Tmax films aren't "truly panchromatic"; they just require different filter factors than older "panchromatic" films because they have different (more accurate) color response. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart >>at 70F (22C.). I rate the film at 125 because I nearly >>always have a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > films because they have different (more accurate) color > response. Kodak publishes spectral sensitivity graphs for their films. T-Max has flatter response at the blue end. Most pan films have increasing sensitivity at the blue end, and many have a hole in the green. T-Max has flatter response arcross the spectrum. For that reason it will reproduce skys a bit darker than films like Plus-X, probably not quite the difference a No.8 (K-2) filter makes on Plus-X. The letter classifications of pan films dates back to the 1930s and is a Kodak invention. At that time several dyes or combinations of sensitizing dyes were used for pan films. The letter code indicated the amount of red sensitivity, increasing from Type-A to Type-C. Modern films are mostly Type-B but Technical Pan and most traffic films are Type-C. These modern films also extend further toward the IR than the older films in addition to having higher sensitivity in the visible red, so they are not quite the same as old Type-C pan films were. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Could you share your "homebrew". Sounds similar to XTOL. Mytol perhaps? > I've been using Delta 400 as my standard film for years; I also now use > Fuji ACROS. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in > >XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. Yes, the homebrew is no great secret. I use it in two versions, one with carbonate and one with metaborate as the alkali. I call them PCC and PCM respectively. PCC 4 g (1/2 tsp.) Ascorbic Acid 5 g (1 tsp) Sodium Carbonate 2.5 ml 1% Phendione stock solution (1 g Phenidone dissolved in 90% alcohol) 1 liter water at 70F. PCM same thing except substitute sodium metaborate for the carbonate. D-400--PCM 6:30 at 70F at ISO 200 Fuji ACROS--PCC 7:30 at 70F at ISO 80 times are for my equipment; you'll probably need to refine them for yourself. I mix the formulas fresh (literally a 2-minute job) each time and use it as a one-shot, although if you're processing 4 rolls in a two-roll tank, you can re-use it for the second run of two rolls and simply add 20% to the time. >Could you share your "homebrew". Sounds similar to XTOL. Mytol perhaps? > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Thanks. I may give it a try the next time I order from my chem supplier. > Yes, the homebrew is no great secret. > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > >>>XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. Actually, Phenidone is the only thing you'll need to order from your chem supplier. And also metaborate if you aren't up for making it yourself (formulas available on the APUG website). The carbonate is just Arm & Hammer washing soda available at your supermarket, and the ascorbic acid is Vitamin C crystals or powder from your local health food store. >Thanks. I may give it a try the next time I order from my chem supplier. > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > > ... Phenidone is the only thing you'll need to order from your > chem supplier. And also metaborate if you aren't up for making it There is no need to bother with metaborate. Any solution ph from that of sodium bicarbonate's through that of sodium carbonate's can be achieved using a blend of the two. I've used that method and recommend it. Also, Ryuji Suzuki has used the method and he recommends it. ONE CAUTION: Carbonates should not be followed by any very acid solution. We all know what would happen. Dan Good to know about sodium bicarb. At my rate of going through film, however, a one pound jar of metaborate lasts me several years, so it's not about to break the bank, and it's easier to just dip out a teaspoon without the extra step of blending bicarb and carb. I only use it for my Delta 400. Old-style 400 films like HP5, or on Delta 100 or ACROS, I prefer the carbonate to keep the developing times under 8 minutes. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > ONE CAUTION: Carbonates should not be followed by any >very acid solution. We all know what would happen. Dan It burps. Borax. Works great and less grain. Tried carbonates several times and always found the grain to be worse than anything Rodinal develops. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net Borax does work great but gives longer developing times than I like. For Delta 400, metaborate works best for me. Developing times in the 6:30-7:00 range, and equally fine grain as Borax. Carbonate with a Phenidone-ascorbic acid developer gives slightly coarser grain, but not no coarser than HC110. I use it with slower films like D-100 or ACROS, where the grain is so fine it's almost impossible to see it in an 11X14 print. Developing times approximately 7:30. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > www.xs750.net > |
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
|
©2008 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.