Where’s all my zone system experts??

[Michael R]

That’s interesting about PQ Universal. I wouldn’t have expected it to be a “short toe” type of developer but good to know.

Correctly scaled to match the density/ exposure scale in the Kodak chart for 4142, HP5+ in HC/ HC-110 at G-bar 0.62 follows the toe of the 4142 CI 0.6 curve - and tracks remarkably closely along the rest of the curve (albeit with the Ilford probably giving better highlights). 400TMY-II also lands very near directly on top (and implies that FP4+ should as well - as long as you don't use HC-110). 100TMX demonstrates potential improvements across the board for use in intermediary steps, especially in the upper range (and most of the comparisons that were done to look into suitability for separation work with 100TMX seem to have been done with HC-110, not TMax developer of either sub-species).



Almost all problems people get into with HP5+ involve disrespecting (or failing to spot) its shadow speed which runs to the higher end of its rating (hence 'better underexposure latitude'), which goes higher still in many PQ developers - and then trying to pseudo-compensate via development & further errors in subsequent exposures. Ilford's more traditional materials do tend (sometimes depending on developer) to take steps to prevent badly off-kilter exposures rendering negs totally unprintable, but it also underscores an effective conclusion made by Richard Henry about exposure techniques - namely, a lot of people who think themselves cleverer than the manufacturers are usually just exhibiting dependence on the latitude built-in to the product by the engineers who made it.



Sounds like you're not using a mainstream & scientifically researched developer then. If you really want a sharp toe & ruthless straight line up to high CI's, PQ Universal. The Ilford scientists aren't stupid. And I've used enough HP5+ to have found that exposing it wrongly (i.e. over-exposing it in particular) will quite readily reproduce all the 'faults' you claim - but also that exposing it correctly allows you to make prints with a sharp toe & good straight-line character in wide-ranging lighting circumstances without needing to resort to developer conniptions. FP4+ in ID-11 likes overexposure even less.

[Michael R]

You’re lucky the thing didn’t gore you.

Well, that was a risk. Worse still, if he went after things with his horns. But it turned out so darn amusing!

[interneg]

That’s interesting about PQ Universal. I wouldn’t have expected it to be a “short toe” type of developer but good to know.

There's a tendency to ignore 'universal' type developers - because they do have disadvantages compared to more modern neg developers - but if you need to get a good straight line, higher CI's at reasonable times - and granularity/ shadow speed are less of a concern, then they are useful. PQ Universal is probably the most 'modern' of them - and then there's even more aggressive stuff like Phenisol etc (and the Kodak equivalents in the D-72/ D-19b/ D-11/ D-8 range).

[bmikiten]

The point of testing isn't just to find the relative ISO (based on G-bar) but also to get development times for all the different SBR situations. It is just part of the testing. Note that speed will change based on developers as well so the testing does have some value if you aren't using D-76/ID11.

[Drew Wiley]

Other than Color Separation Film & Super-XX, the two "straight line" offering of Kodak, ALL of the rest were classified as either med toe or long toe. Don't argue with me; go back to Kodak's own literature and method of classification for decades. Of course, it's all relative. All had some kind of toe; but some line sections launched off the toe much faster than others, and the were real world application differences. For example, when my brother studied at the Photo Academy in the 60's, all the students were required to be familiar with three specific films : Super XX with its characteristics for industrial and landscapes applications, Tri-X as a photojournalistic mid-range-toe film, and Plus-X Pan for high-key studio portraiture, which was formally classified as an "all-toe" film due to the almost continuous upsweep of the curve.

T-Max films were engineered to replace all of the above due to their exceptional processing flexibility. But of course, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, and someone took a defibrillator and revived Tri-X. And it was easier for studios and big labs to use specialty film than a single category despite its flexibility. But TMax films stayed, and pretty soon Ilford wanted something analogous in their own line-up. They never did make a real "straight-line" film, though FP4 can be leveraged that direction once exposure level is above the toe. All kinds of people know this; it's not just my doctrine.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Michael - Oh, I've gotten in close with animals many times. It's wild boars I don't want to fool with. I once did have a herd of about 30, with four adult boars, surround me during a LF tree closeup shot. I kept one hand on my tripod, and another on a low tree limb, just in case I had to get up that tree fast. Did get the shot. The pigs were curious, but once they started grunting differently, I knew I had to do something, so suddenly started whooping and hollering to confuse them. It worked. They panicked and started all running the same direction in a big circle around me, and then all off together back into the woods.

[Drew Bedo]

Buy the book Adams wrote. And there are others out there.

Buy the Workshop and newsletter stuff from Zone VI (e-bay).

Read'em.