lessons learnt and discoveries made

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. Frank Pittel

    Frank Pittel Guest

    Prior to going out for a bit photography this weekend I went to a local
    camera store to stock up on film. ( 35mm slide film ) While at the store
    I went over to the book section and found the book scarpitti was referring
    to a while ago " Kodak Professional Black-and White Films". It was the second
    print year 2000.

    The part about being able to read a newspaper through a negative has been removed
    and replaced with something about magenta dye bleach. Being the curious type I took
    a random sampling of my negatives and low and behold I could see the print through my
    negatives just as mentioned in the book. I must be doing something right. :)

    Reading further I noticed that Tri-x pan professional roll film ( they only mention 120 and
    220 film and not 35mm film. I assume this has changed since 2000.) and sheet film
    are different films. Does anyone know why this is??

    I also acquired an interest in the Tmax3200 film and will be trying a few rolls in the
    not to distant future. I'm even more impressed with the Tmax films and the Tmax and
    Tmax-rs developers.

    Alas, This morning the rain started and my trip was washed out. All I ended up with is
    three rolls of P&S film that I've just processed in Diaphine. If you haven't used it
    before do yourself a favor and give it a try. Follow the directions on the box and enjoy.
    :)

    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Frank Pittel

    John Guest

    They have always been different emulsions as far as I know. Why the
    difference ? Only Kodak really knows but some emulsions don't like being bent in
    the tight radiuses used in roll-film backs.
    Then I suggest I;ford's Delta 3200 in Microphen.
    I think I'll stick with D23 a little longer ;>)

    Regards

    John S. Douglas, Photographer
    http://www.darkroompro.com
     
    John, Sep 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Frank Pittel

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:25:24 -0500, Frank Pittel <>
    : wrote:

    : >
    : >Reading further I noticed that Tri-x pan professional roll film ( they only mention 120 and
    : >220 film and not 35mm film. I assume this has changed since 2000.) and sheet film
    : >are different films. Does anyone know why this is??

    : They have always been different emulsions as far as I know. Why the
    : difference ? Only Kodak really knows but some emulsions don't like being bent in
    : the tight radiuses used in roll-film backs.

    I'm sure that Kodak will never tell us why the gave two different films the same name.
    The part that bothers me is that they give the same name to two different films. It's
    not something I'm going to lose sleep over or even spend any amount of time thinking about
    though. I just thought it interesting.

    : >I also acquired an interest in the Tmax3200 film and will be trying a few rolls in the
    : >not to distant future. I'm even more impressed with the Tmax films and the Tmax and
    : >Tmax-rs developers.

    : Then I suggest I;ford's Delta 3200 in Microphen.

    How does it compare to Kodak's Tmax3200? I don't see me using that much of it so it
    doesn't matter that much. I only got interested in trying it out while I was reading
    about. I wil keep the Delta 3200 and Micophen in mind for the future though.

    : >Alas, This morning the rain started and my trip was washed out. All I ended up with is
    : >three rolls of P&S film that I've just processed in Diaphine. If you haven't used it
    : >before do yourself a favor and give it a try. Follow the directions on the box and enjoy.
    : >:)

    : I think I'll stick with D23 a little longer ;>)

    I've never used D23 since I have no interest in mixing it from scratch. I've heard nothing
    but good things about it though. I started using Diaphine in spring in an attempt to help
    with the white skys (They actually look white when you look at them) and 12 stop scenes
    common to summer here in the midwest. I've found that it also help with low contrast
    scenes. It is an ultra-fine grain, speed increasing developer that gives good accutance
    and very good resolution. It's also a "no brainer" type developer with temperature,
    development time and aggitation making no practical difference in the resulting
    negatives!! In some ways it's almost to good to be true. I'm not ready to use it as my
    "normal" developer since zone system type contrast controls aren't possible.

    On the other hand you can get enough to make a quart cheap and if you haven't used it you
    may want to give it a try. It make processing film fun! :)


    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003
    #3
  4. Kodak used to make a sheet film called Royal Pan which was almost
    identical to Tri-x 35mm in its characteristics, including its speed of
    400. I used it a lot in the past. It was for press photography or
    outdoor use. Tri-x Professional (ISO 320) is a completely different
    film from Tri-x 35mm (ISO 400), and only Kodak's marketing idiots can
    explain. Because 'Tri-x' was a famous name, Royal Pan is no more, and
    it's quite sad that this happened, because it's much more suitable for
    outdoor use than Tri-x Professional.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Sep 1, 2003
    #4
  5. film ( they only mention 120 and
    Diaphine. If you haven't used it
    directions on the box and enjoy.
    Kodak's advice about the highlight density has been in
    every edition of the film booklet for decades. It says that
    when the negative is held against a printed page the density
    of highlights which are to have any detail should be just
    dense enough to obscure print for diffusion printing and
    just light enough to see the print for condenser printing.
    This is for sheet or roll film with no pigment in the suppor
    t. Nearly all 35mm B&W negative film has a pigment in the
    support to reduce light-piping and improve anti-halation
    properties. It is quite dense and is not removed by
    processing, so the above rule does not apply there.
    I have older versions of this booklet. They have a very
    good exposition of elementary sensitometery in them. If this
    is continued in the current version it will give you a good
    idea of how the shape of the characteristic curve affects
    the tonal rendition of the film.
    Tri-X and, until recently Plus-X, have come in different
    emulsions for sheet film and roll and 35mm film. The roll
    and 35mm emulsion of both is a medium-toe general purpose
    type. The sheet film emulsion is a very long toe film for
    studio use. Tri-X is not quite as extreme toe as Plus-X was
    but is similar. The idea is that the constrast increases
    with density throughout the curve. Thhis results in bright
    highlights which evidently Kodak thought were desirable for
    certain kinds of photography. If the same highlight and
    shadow points are chosen an upward rising film like Tri-X
    sheet film will yield darker mid-grays than a straight line
    film like T-Max. This can give very dramatic rendering of
    certain subjects and is useful for some portrait work.
    The low contrast toe mimics the effect of lens flare to
    some degree.
    Kodak's "portrait" films have had similar characteristics
    at least back to the 1930's. Its too bad that these
    emulsions were called by virtually the same name since they
    are really different films. Both Plus-X emulsions were
    available in roll film further confusing things.
    For pushing film T-Max developers work very well as does
    Xtol. Kodak gives push charts for both developers. 3200T-Max
    comes out about ISO-800 using the ISO standard but has a
    peculiar characteristic which allows it to be pushed to
    enormous speed. The Kodak charts show speeds up to EI-64,000
    using T-Max RS for scenes with fairly flat lighting.
    Remember that when you push film you are really only
    increasing the contrast. The toe contrast is lower than the
    overall contrast to pushing can make it come up to "normal"
    contrast. However, the mid and upper parts of the curve will
    then have very high contrast and very high maximum
    densities, which can make the negative hard to print.
    T-Max developers work well with T-Max films but do not
    give the finest grain with them (or anything else). Xtol is
    probably the optimum overall developer for T-Max 100 and 400
    films.
    You might also try Fuji Acros which has a slightly
    different curve than 100T-Max giving slightly different
    tonal rendition with similar grain and sharpness
    characteristics.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Sep 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Frank Pittel

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : message : > Prior to going out for a bit photography this weekend I
    : went to a local
    : > camera store to stock up on film. ( 35mm slide film )
    : While at the store
    : > I went over to the book section and found the book
    : scarpitti was referring
    : > to a while ago " Kodak Professional Black-and White
    : Films". It was the second
    : > print year 2000.
    : >
    : > The part about being able to read a newspaper through a
    : negative has been removed
    : > and replaced with something about magenta dye bleach.
    : Being the curious type I took
    : > a random sampling of my negatives and low and behold I
    : could see the print through my
    : > negatives just as mentioned in the book. I must be doing
    : something right. :)
    : >
    : > Reading further I noticed that Tri-x pan professional roll
    : film ( they only mention 120 and
    : > 220 film and not 35mm film. I assume this has changed
    : since 2000.) and sheet film
    : > are different films. Does anyone know why this is??
    : >
    : > I also acquired an interest in the Tmax3200 film and will
    : be trying a few rolls in the
    : > not to distant future. I'm even more impressed with the
    : Tmax films and the Tmax and
    : > Tmax-rs developers.
    : >
    : > Alas, This morning the rain started and my trip was washed
    : out. All I ended up with is
    : > three rolls of P&S film that I've just processed in
    : Diaphine. If you haven't used it
    : > before do yourself a favor and give it a try. Follow the
    : directions on the box and enjoy.
    : > :)
    : >
    : > --
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    : > -------------------
    : >

    : Kodak's advice about the highlight density has been in
    : every edition of the film booklet for decades. It says that
    : when the negative is held against a printed page the density
    : of highlights which are to have any detail should be just
    : dense enough to obscure print for diffusion printing and
    : just light enough to see the print for condenser printing.
    : This is for sheet or roll film with no pigment in the suppor
    : t. Nearly all 35mm B&W negative film has a pigment in the
    : support to reduce light-piping and improve anti-halation
    : properties. It is quite dense and is not removed by
    : processing, so the above rule does not apply there.

    One of the many things I learned while reading the book was the use
    of a pigment in 35mm film base to prevent halation and light piping.
    I used to wonder why 35mm always had some much more FB&F when running
    film speed tests. I always thought it had something to do with the developer.

    : I have older versions of this booklet. They have a very
    : good exposition of elementary sensitometery in them. If this
    : is continued in the current version it will give you a good
    : idea of how the shape of the characteristic curve affects
    : the tonal rendition of the film.

    The explanation was complete although a bit short. Before I
    understand it completely I'm going to need to find a explanation
    that's dumbed down a bit for me. :)

    That or I'm trying to make it more complicated then it really is.

    : Tri-X and, until recently Plus-X, have come in different
    : emulsions for sheet film and roll and 35mm film. The roll
    : and 35mm emulsion of both is a medium-toe general purpose
    : type. The sheet film emulsion is a very long toe film for
    : studio use. Tri-X is not quite as extreme toe as Plus-X was
    : but is similar. The idea is that the constrast increases
    : with density throughout the curve. Thhis results in bright
    : highlights which evidently Kodak thought were desirable for
    : certain kinds of photography. If the same highlight and
    : shadow points are chosen an upward rising film like Tri-X
    : sheet film will yield darker mid-grays than a straight line
    : film like T-Max. This can give very dramatic rendering of
    : certain subjects and is useful for some portrait work.
    : The low contrast toe mimics the effect of lens flare to
    : some degree.
    : Kodak's "portrait" films have had similar characteristics
    : at least back to the 1930's. Its too bad that these
    : emulsions were called by virtually the same name since they
    : are really different films. Both Plus-X emulsions were
    : available in roll film further confusing things.

    I just think it's unfortunate that Kodak gave these very different
    films the same name.

    : For pushing film T-Max developers work very well as does
    : Xtol. Kodak gives push charts for both developers. 3200T-Max
    : comes out about ISO-800 using the ISO standard but has a
    : peculiar characteristic which allows it to be pushed to
    : enormous speed. The Kodak charts show speeds up to EI-64,000
    : using T-Max RS for scenes with fairly flat lighting.
    : Remember that when you push film you are really only
    : increasing the contrast. The toe contrast is lower than the
    : overall contrast to pushing can make it come up to "normal"
    : contrast. However, the mid and upper parts of the curve will
    : then have very high contrast and very high maximum
    : densities, which can make the negative hard to print.
    : T-Max developers work well with T-Max films but do not
    : give the finest grain with them (or anything else). Xtol is
    : probably the optimum overall developer for T-Max 100 and 400
    : films.

    Since I 4x5 90+% of the time with MF making up the rest. The quest
    for the finest grain isn't my most important criteria. Even when
    I was using 35mm I found that when making prints up to 11x14 the
    grain of Tmax 100 was hard to focus on. I don't even try with 4x5
    and simply put my focuser on a sharp edge and focus on that.

    I'm more interested in the shadow detail and tonality. I find that Tmax
    film combined with the Tmax developers (Tmax for roll and Tmax-rs for sheet)
    hard to beat. I've heard to many bad things about the reliability of xtol
    to even want to try it. I think in the end I've become comfortable with
    Tmax film developed in Tmax to the point that I know how it's going to
    react and I can predict the results. Have I picked the best combination
    of film and developer? I think so (or I would be using what I thought was
    best. :)) but the right combination is what works best for each individual.
    I think we can all agree that it's important to spend enough time with a
    film/developer combination so that we become comfortable with it and then
    stick with it. It's also important to know when a given combination won't work
    and what combination will.

    That is the reason I decided to give Diaphine a try. It's far from being my
    day to day standard developer. It is nice to know that I can fall back to it
    when I'm faced with a 10+ stop scene or a 1 stop scene that I really want to
    get a photograph of.

    : You might also try Fuji Acros which has a slightly
    : different curve than 100T-Max giving slightly different
    : tonal rendition with similar grain and sharpness
    : characteristics.

    I've tried using Fuji Acros and it's a fine film and I don't know why I stopped
    using it. It was about the time that I started using Tmax 100 with Tmax diluted
    1:9 @ 75 degrees. :) I also keep meaning to try the Berger films.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Frank Pittel

    Frank Pittel Guest

    The lack of zone system type contrast control is a problem. I find myself
    using it in situations were the zone system wouldn't work well. I like it
    when I take out my P&S and pop off a roll or three of 120. It also helps
    with the 10+ stop scenes we get a lot of here in the midwest during the summer.

    I still think of it as a "special situation" developer and not my first choice.
    It is nice to know I've got a gallon of it at home when I need it. :)

    : Diafine and its cousins, the other two bath developers, are very fine,
    : indeed. They produce good negatives, are automatically semi-compensating,
    : and are not fussy about temperature. There is a whole family of them with
    : slightly different characteristics, but almost all must be mixed from the
    : raw chemicals. Anchell, "The Darkroom Cookbook" has a pretty good
    : discussion of them and a selection of formulas. The objection that us
    : zoneheads have is that you generally can not adjust the contrast easily
    : using these developers.

    : Frank Pittel wrote:

    : > Prior to going out for a bit photography this weekend I went to a local
    : > camera store to stock up on film. ( 35mm slide film ) While at the store
    : > I went over to the book section and found the book scarpitti was referring
    : > to a while ago " Kodak Professional Black-and White Films". It was the
    : > second print year 2000.
    : >
    : > The part about being able to read a newspaper through a negative has been
    : > removed and replaced with something about magenta dye bleach. Being the
    : > curious type I took a random sampling of my negatives and low and behold I
    : > could see the print through my negatives just as mentioned in the book. I
    : > must be doing something right. :)
    : >
    : > Reading further I noticed that Tri-x pan professional roll film ( they
    : > only mention 120 and 220 film and not 35mm film. I assume this has changed
    : > since 2000.) and sheet film are different films. Does anyone know why this
    : > is??
    : >
    : > I also acquired an interest in the Tmax3200 film and will be trying a few
    : > rolls in the not to distant future. I'm even more impressed with the Tmax
    : > films and the Tmax and Tmax-rs developers.
    : >
    : > Alas, This morning the rain started and my trip was washed out. All I
    : > ended up with is three rolls of P&S film that I've just processed in
    : > Diaphine. If you haven't used it before do yourself a favor and give it a
    : > try. Follow the directions on the box and enjoy.
    : > :)
    : >


    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.