sf
Veteran
In case anyone cares to know, the only difference I can see is a nice lowering of contrast - to a more pleasant level. I'd say that the Arista Premium developer actually produces more desirable effects at 1+19 than it does at 1+9. . . in my own experiences so far, at least, which are very few.
Attached is an image at 1+9 and one at 1+19. The times are 7.5 minutes and 9 minutes respectively. Both rolls are developed at 75 degrees F.
The Arista Premium developer is Clayton F76+
Attached is an image at 1+9 and one at 1+19. The times are 7.5 minutes and 9 minutes respectively. Both rolls are developed at 75 degrees F.
The Arista Premium developer is Clayton F76+
Attachments
bmattock
Veteran
Interesting information, thanks for posting!
I have to confess - I can't see much difference between the two here.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I have to confess - I can't see much difference between the two here.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Hmm. What's the film? Nice test image, BTW.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
kmack
do your job, then let go
Like you, over all I prefer the second image. The tonality, contrast and highlights all seem smoother and more pleasant.
Based on your experiences so far I have put in an order for some Clayton F76 just to try out. I really like my HC110 at 1:100 but it's good to experiment once in awhile.
Based on your experiences so far I have put in an order for some Clayton F76 just to try out. I really like my HC110 at 1:100 but it's good to experiment once in awhile.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
1+9 or 1+19 definitely Clayton F76+!!!
Yes at 1+19 it has a definite compensation, longer tonality and better shadow detail
If you want the time/temp development table let me know... I can email it as an excel sheet
Yes at 1+19 it has a definite compensation, longer tonality and better shadow detail
If you want the time/temp development table let me know... I can email it as an excel sheet
sf
Veteran
bmattock said:
Difference is : the one on the right is 1+19 and far lower contrast. Better shadow detail, a little more flat but more manageable with the scanner. I like it better in some ways - certainly more economical.
I want to try HC110 as well, but not sure how it looks with the Fomapan.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Stick to F76+
I have not seen any real difference between both dilutions, but using a more diluted developer allows for more control over the final reuslt by means of making errors less relevant.
If you make a 30s mistake in a 5 minute time will be significant, now comapre 30s to 9 or 10 minute is less problematic.
Check the latest PhotoTechniques magazine, there is a photography miths about this.
I have not seen any real difference between both dilutions, but using a more diluted developer allows for more control over the final reuslt by means of making errors less relevant.
If you make a 30s mistake in a 5 minute time will be significant, now comapre 30s to 9 or 10 minute is less problematic.
Check the latest PhotoTechniques magazine, there is a photography miths about this.
sf
Veteran
titrisol said:
I would greatly appreciate that. PM sent. Whoops - your box is full.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Pablo,
Is your sheet different than the one Lowell has? If so, I'd like a copy, too.
thanks,
allan
Is your sheet different than the one Lowell has? If so, I'd like a copy, too.
thanks,
allan
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
It's about the same, with times that Ihave added/modified based on my own experience/needs.
I've found lowell times to be dead on for starters
Since I suffer from presoaking and bad agitation habits I have to modify times accordingly
I've found lowell times to be dead on for starters
Since I suffer from presoaking and bad agitation habits I have to modify times accordingly