Help with EMOFIN

Bobfrance

Bobfrance

Over Exposed
Local time
9:55 AM
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
1,615
Location
Lancashire, England
View My Gallery
Hi Gang,

I've just taken delivery of some EMOFIN 2 part developer from Tetenal and after reading the instructions I'm a little stumped. I wonder if somebody can help?

Upon reading appropriate developing times for the film I'm using, on the table supplied, it dawned on me that there is only one time given.
As Emofin is a 2 part developer does this mean that I give the same time for each part or divide it between the two for a total development time?

I'm a little stumped! I don't want to ruin my films - so all help will be greatly appreciated.

The instructions being largely in german don't help a poor monolingual brit much either! 😱

Bob.
 
Last edited:
can't help, bob. but i'd like to follow the thread having heard from *telewatt* that emofin is very nice with neopan 400.
 
We have images!

Which was lucky - I approached it with my usual ill-prepared developing technique of approximate timing and temerature control.

Mental note: buy a new thermomiter which works properly and a darkroom timer.

I'll scan some in and post them as soon as they're dry.
 
Hi Bob

Welcome to Emofin!

I use it with TX for a few years now.
The instructions clarity is inversly proportional to the quality of the results.

Soooo:

The time indicated is the same for each bath.

You can choose to process it for regular results (gamma =0.55) or contrasty (0.70).

You have there times for regular inversions (once per minute if I recall) but I use the times for constant agitation (I use continuous rotation)

Hope this helps.

I am no specialist but it works very well and I have converted one of my friends, a excellent photographer and lab tech that says that this combo (TX+ emofin) is fantastic.
better than DD76 by his tests.

Good luck, feel free to contact me if you need anything else.

Michael
 
I buy it from a shop in Paris.

I guess it can be a problem to get it in the US.

Yes, it is quite expensive at 10 Euros a pack (15 film) compared to other developers, but all in all, it's only a small part of the film+processing costs.
 
First Scans

First Scans

Just posted some of the first results up in the gallery.

Here

Here

Here

& Here

My thought so far are that it could have stood a bit more development time. There is a full tonal range but it does look slightly flat, although I put it down to all the shots being taken under pretty dull conditions.

For me the nigh time shot works best, which is what EMOFIN seems to excel in.
Also I intend to use it on faster films in the future; possibly pushed, which it seems to be suited for.

I need to get shooting. I've got fourteen more shots at it with what I've prepared!
 
sanmich said:
Hi Bob

Welcome to Emofin!

I use it with TX for a few years now.
The instructions clarity is inversly proportional to the quality of the results.

Soooo:

The time indicated is the same for each bath.

You can choose to process it for regular results (gamma =0.55) or contrasty (0.70).

You have there times for regular inversions (once per minute if I recall) but I use the times for constant agitation (I use continuous rotation)

Hope this helps.

I am no specialist but it works very well and I have converted one of my friends, a excellent photographer and lab tech that says that this combo (TX+ emofin) is fantastic.
better than DD76 by his tests.

Good luck, feel free to contact me if you need anything else.

Michael
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael.
I think I may be quizzing you further on the subject soon. 🙂
 
i believe jan has remarked that emofin is particularly good with films such as neopan 400. bob, i also agree that the blacks look quite rich in your night shot. pls do post further as your trial expands, and thanks for sharing.
 
I now have some Neopna 400 & 1600 films to try. I suspenct that 125 Ilford was waaay to slow/smooth to get that EMOFIN look. Also shot's taken on dull days are never going to look good whatever the developer, but just maybe the EMOFIN suffers more from it.

My conclusions so far are that I need to give it longer development times, buy a new thermomiter & timer.

Oh, and clean the bathroom before I get into trouble. 😉
 
Sorry I didn't spot this thread earlier, Bob, as I could evidently have helped. But it seems you have sorted things out.

I love Emofin, and have used it as my staple with Tri-X @ 800 ISO in all conditions for years, old and new Tri-X. I really value that extra stop of speed with no real sacrifice in other qualities. It's expensive per pack but cheap per film because it lasts for ages. I've also used it with FP4 at 200 ISO (good) and with Delta 100 @ 200 ISO (OK) and Delta 3200 @ 3200 ISO (surprisingly good).

It strikes me about your shots that they don't have the bite I'd expect. You should be getting something like these (http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4457590-lg.jpg; http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3217755-lg.jpg; http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1645577-lg.jpg). So before you reject a really fine developer, have another bash. I use the 3-second inversion routine. Tri-X gets 3.5 + 3.5 mins to suit Grade 2 Multigrade under my diffuser/condenser enlarger. This wasn't enough when I tried HP5+ the other day.

Currently I'm looking for a still better developer, probably a home brew, for the following reasons. First, consistency. You'll find that the first film through a batch is noticeably more bitey than the rest. Once the solutions get seriously coloured, contrast and film speed fall away a bit, presumably because of bromide build-up. Second, I don't know what the heck is going on in there (there are 2 developing agents and heaven knows what else), so I can't easily control it for different lighting conditions. This is a problem because in low contrast conditions (like your road-sign shot), the greys can look a bit compressed and muddy. Third, it is a bit prone to small black particles, which I guess are undissolved or precipitated metol, and which stick to the negs. So I recommend filtering the solutions into a beaker before use. Fourth, I'm beginning to suspect that it promotes irradiation effects in a way that some other developers may not. I wrongly attributed some of this to lens flare for a while. If I'm right about this, it's a bit of a bum in a developer that's otherwise especially suited to low-light conditions.

Keep us posted how you get on next time.
 
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the extra info. I'll certainly consider it the next time I use Emofin.

As for giving up on it - no chance - My initial results have proved very valuable in getting a feel for the process.

What you have told me seems to confirm my suspicions:

Film speed too slow - 125 ISO

Under developed - I had to reduce the time from 6mins to 3m40s due to having the solution quite warm but stupidly still used the agitate once a minute regieme (rounded up with a few extra shakes!).

Used for low contrast images - Dull images were never going to POP! were they.

In conclusion my night shot showed what it could really do. I should re-scan it as the current scan doesn't do it justice.

Time to break out the Neopan 1600 - stay tuned!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Help with GW690 (winding mechanism)
Replies
4
Views
235
jcapunta
J
M
Flash Advice for Minolta CLE
Replies
19
Views
2K
matteo29103
M
H
Ikoflex - Shutter Release Cable Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
HanSolex
H
D
Leica R Tech note: Upgrading a 1-Cam Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 Using a 60mm f/2.8 Macro Lens with 1:1 3-Cam Adapter (14198)
Replies
0
Views
618
Duofold RF
D
B
New year resolutions (photo-centered) for 2025
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
JohnGellings
J
Back
Top Bottom