venchka
Veteran
Same here
Same here
Xtol 1:3. Fantastic.
For something different and nice:
Xtol 1:4 or 1:5 PLUS 4 or 5 ml of Rodinal.
Same here
Xtol 1:3. Fantastic.
For something different and nice:
Xtol 1:4 or 1:5 PLUS 4 or 5 ml of Rodinal.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Tom,
Thanks for the advice on Flickr. I'll check it out to get a taste of the different developers.
JP
kossi008
Photon Counter
You're tempting me. Until now I've always used one OR the other....
Edit: I notice you are using medium format: does your recommendation (Xtol + Rodinal) also hold for 35 mm?
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Marek,
Your picture is very impressive.
The contrast control and (I hope I'm using the right term) the border effect/enhancement gives a great effect to the final result.
How does Pyro developers behave with lower contrast subjects?
Does someone here ever try Divided D76 and compare to Pyro dev?
How about grain?
THX...
Your picture is very impressive.
The contrast control and (I hope I'm using the right term) the border effect/enhancement gives a great effect to the final result.
How does Pyro developers behave with lower contrast subjects?
Does someone here ever try Divided D76 and compare to Pyro dev?
How about grain?
THX...
wallace
Well-known
Instead of going through trial and error, choose one developer, Rodinal if you can accept grain
with 35mm (Gibson style?), or X-tol , which is the most environmentally friendly developer, as I have learned today ;-) Also, stick with Tri-X for some time.
Then make tests and notes...
Now comes the best advice I can give concerning your question:
Buy this book!!!
"The Zone System For 35mm Photographers" , written by Carson Graves.
There is no German edition, so I bought mine second hand via amazon for $5, well, shipping was another $11, but it was the best little money I ever spent .
In an easily understandable way, Carson explains the way to get control about tonality and contrast. It's much more practical for 35mm and MF than A. Adams' book. "the Negative" which I also own. Best American book I ever have bought! (we speak about photography...)
I have tried both of the bespoken developers, both work fine with Tri-X, I love Rodinal, because I don't have to take care of storing, but I maybe go back to X-tol to save the planet.
;-) wallace
with 35mm (Gibson style?), or X-tol , which is the most environmentally friendly developer, as I have learned today ;-) Also, stick with Tri-X for some time.
Then make tests and notes...
Now comes the best advice I can give concerning your question:
Buy this book!!!
"The Zone System For 35mm Photographers" , written by Carson Graves.
There is no German edition, so I bought mine second hand via amazon for $5, well, shipping was another $11, but it was the best little money I ever spent .
In an easily understandable way, Carson explains the way to get control about tonality and contrast. It's much more practical for 35mm and MF than A. Adams' book. "the Negative" which I also own. Best American book I ever have bought! (we speak about photography...)
I have tried both of the bespoken developers, both work fine with Tri-X, I love Rodinal, because I don't have to take care of storing, but I maybe go back to X-tol to save the planet.
;-) wallace
venchka
Veteran
Not yet-but I will
Not yet-but I will
I have only used the combination (Rodinal + Xtol) with 120 Efke 25. I have a lot of 35mm PanF+ and will try the combination with that film.
Not yet-but I will
You're tempting me. Until now I've always used one OR the other....
Edit: I notice you are using medium format: does your recommendation (Xtol + Rodinal) also hold for 35 mm?
I have only used the combination (Rodinal + Xtol) with 120 Efke 25. I have a lot of 35mm PanF+ and will try the combination with that film.
mfogiel
Veteran
@sanmich
I have used briefly D76 1+1 and 1+3 with Neopan 400, and I generally liked the results, although the tonality was "fuller" at 1+1. Here is an example of a fairly high contrast scene shot with the Elmarit 90/2.8 last version and developd 1+3:
This photo appears very sharp, but Neopan IS sharper than Tri X, so this could be nothing extrordinary. I like the tonality, but the highlights here are really borderline, and the blacks are not so convincing. One of the problems I have found with Prescysol EF, is my inability to darken substantially the skies. I tried recently some shots of architecture with a red filter, and the sky which was rich blue, is barely a touch darker than pure white. I have asked Peter Hogan, who formulated this developer, if it is a problem of the compensating action of Prescysol EF, but he suggests that my exposure is at fault. I am not so much convinced about it, as I believe that shooting white buildings against a blue sky with the 25A filter on, should in any case create a contrast difference that would show no matter the exposure, so I want to test this again. Here is the example:
For contrast, this one has been shot on Acros, developed in Rodinal, with an orange filter on:
I am very fond of the tonality seen on the prints of Michael Kenna, who notoriously shoots on Tri X and develops in D 76 (or Rodinal, whenever D76 is not available). If you look at these prints, 70% of them are "made" with a rich, dark, sometimes also heavily burned in, sky. So I am a bit undecided... However, the pyro gives you very high sharpness, nice defined grain (Prescysol EF notoriously controls well the grain size), and an incredible midtone palette. I will try now also Tanol speed, to see if it can improve on some Prescysol weaknesses.
I have used briefly D76 1+1 and 1+3 with Neopan 400, and I generally liked the results, although the tonality was "fuller" at 1+1. Here is an example of a fairly high contrast scene shot with the Elmarit 90/2.8 last version and developd 1+3:
This photo appears very sharp, but Neopan IS sharper than Tri X, so this could be nothing extrordinary. I like the tonality, but the highlights here are really borderline, and the blacks are not so convincing. One of the problems I have found with Prescysol EF, is my inability to darken substantially the skies. I tried recently some shots of architecture with a red filter, and the sky which was rich blue, is barely a touch darker than pure white. I have asked Peter Hogan, who formulated this developer, if it is a problem of the compensating action of Prescysol EF, but he suggests that my exposure is at fault. I am not so much convinced about it, as I believe that shooting white buildings against a blue sky with the 25A filter on, should in any case create a contrast difference that would show no matter the exposure, so I want to test this again. Here is the example:
For contrast, this one has been shot on Acros, developed in Rodinal, with an orange filter on:
I am very fond of the tonality seen on the prints of Michael Kenna, who notoriously shoots on Tri X and develops in D 76 (or Rodinal, whenever D76 is not available). If you look at these prints, 70% of them are "made" with a rich, dark, sometimes also heavily burned in, sky. So I am a bit undecided... However, the pyro gives you very high sharpness, nice defined grain (Prescysol EF notoriously controls well the grain size), and an incredible midtone palette. I will try now also Tanol speed, to see if it can improve on some Prescysol weaknesses.