Here's a recent post describing how I handled that for XTOL:Originally Posted by sanking
Here's a recent post describing how I handled that for XTOL:
The nice thing about pre-mixed Pyrocat in glycol is that it does not leave dried white specks, and as is the case with D-23, throughout your darkroom.
The problem with D-23 is the sodium sulfite goes into solution, and then into the environment, when the water in which the sodium sulfite is dissolved evaporates.
Lots to think about. Thanks for the confusion ;-)
I'm looking at Ilford products, the Delta 100 film, and the Ilfosol developer.
Any reason not to go this route considering I will be scanning the film?
Haven't seen the Ilford products mentioned here too many times.
I used to use HC-110 back in the 35mm film days, and was considering that, but B&H doesn't ship it, but does ship other developers.
You can certainly use whatever combination of film and developer you please.
If there was one "best", there would be no others available for purchase.
The trick is to tightly control every aspect of exposure and development so you can learn exactly what your chosen method yields, and how that yield varies with changes in the process.
Once you're comfortable with that information for the given combination, you can decide whether to try a different combination or continue to use the one you chose.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Lenny
You mentioned that ID-11 is similar, do you mean similar to xtol (good for scanning) or similar to D-76? Thanks
The more people you ask, the more opinions you'll get.
Very few will back up their recommendation with even a single sample photograph.
Even fewer people will share sensitometric data or side-by-side comparison shots to show how various film/developer combinations differ with respect to tonality, grain, perceived sharpness, etc.
If you want to see some tests which really show how different films behave (with one developer), have a look at Sandy King's article on Pyrocat HD. You'll see that some films don't respond well to changes in development time, and are probably not good choices if we want to control contrast. To that end I'd suggest that choice of film may as important as choice of developer.
Unless we need to make very large prints, grain is a non-issue with Large Format. For scanning and digital printing where unsharp mask can be applied, acutance and 'local contrast' or 'edge effects' are also mainly irrelevant considerations. When scanning, remember that we can't burn-in dense parts of the negative as we can when making darkroom prints: therefore we need to keep the contrast of the negative within the range of the scanner. You might find this article on scanning helpful.
You might find this article on D-23 helpful. It's not the greatest developer (if one exists) but it's very easy to mix fresh every time and gives results that in my testing are basically the same as I get with Pyrocat HD, HC-110, D-76 etc. The article shows some sample images too
If I didn't use D-23 I'd probably bo back to either HC-110 or Pyrocat HD in Glycol because of their convenience and virtually infinite shelf-life.
Because it's one-in-a-million who do side-by-side comparisons. I did it for papers and paper developers long ago. Notice how I haven't repeated it? Papers were interesting, paper developers on the same paper were much harder to discern, as were different paper development times. I'm imagining doing films and developers and it makes me want to go take a nap.
Even that gallant lad Steve Simmons said "Don't be a member of the Film of the Month Club." He's right. The inimitable Fred Picker told me it took him years to understand the subtleties of Tri-X with HC-110. Those two opinions are good enough for me. I'll go try to learn how to make the most out of my chosen film and developer. Maybe I'll stay awake.
The results of the long-ago paper tests are in the archive on the website below.
Bruce Barlow
author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
www.brucewbarlow.com
Well I wrote out this whole thing and then it got deleted somehow but basically what I said was...
Ilford ilfotec HC is the same as Kodak HC-110 but they removed a chemical that was unnecessary, and by removing that chemical it was able to be shipped as normal, so if you want to still use the same thing you used back in the day, the Ilford version is just fine.
Personally I use Rodinal for Delta films, which you can buy (and will ship) from Freestyle's website http://www.freestylephoto.biz and they will also ship Kodak HC-110 I believe.
They are slightly higher priced than B&H so I tend to only buy some rare films there as well as the developers I use and leave the rest of the stuff for B&H.
The only developer that Kodak has discontinued producing lately is their line of commercial E-6 developers.
Good luck!
Last edited by StoneNYC; 6-Jul-2014 at 08:36. Reason: added E6 info
D-76 is still available freshly manufactured, both by Kodak and others. If that is what you you "know" then use it with confidence.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Its similar to D-76. Xtol and Pyro are so much better for scanning. Rodinal is a total waste of time, IMO. Especially if one has gone to the trouble of buying a film with really tight grains, then why make a mess of it...?
There are a lot of folks who use Pyro here. I'd say learn how to use it, get your times down and enjoy.....
Developing should be easy, and work for you rather than against.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks