mfogiel
Veteran
JSU, could you expand on the TRi X in Acufine please? When I tried it, it was no more than EI 800 - is it the post dev bath that pulls out more shadow detail?
morback
Martin N. Hinze
My magic combo is Rodinal 1:100, 50mn stand with Foma 200. Preferably shot by my C-Sonnar.
Arista Premium / Tri-X is ok in that combo, compared to Foma I find it to lack dimention/depth:
A close second to Foma is Efke/Adox. Doesn't scan as nicely though, but brings its own charisma to the party:
Surprisingly I have few shots of Foma past PP...I should remedy to that, it's all I am using now! Soon Foma and Efke will be tested in medium format size.
Arista Premium / Tri-X is ok in that combo, compared to Foma I find it to lack dimention/depth:
A close second to Foma is Efke/Adox. Doesn't scan as nicely though, but brings its own charisma to the party:
Surprisingly I have few shots of Foma past PP...I should remedy to that, it's all I am using now! Soon Foma and Efke will be tested in medium format size.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I really like HP5 in HC-110. I dilute it 1+49, as per Jason Brunner's "HC-110 made simple" http://www.jasonbrunner.com/hc110.html
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Mine is very similar. In the late seventies Ilford recomended HP5 shot at 650 ASA, developed in Micrphen 3:1.
Current technical literature provided by Ilford no longer suggests shooting with a push of half a stop. I also probably underagitate a little because I rotate my tanks rather than invert the tank, after the first round of inversions.
The long extended developement softens the contrast, even though the film is pushed a little more than half a stop, but details remain in the highlights.
My negitives print easily on Ilford Gallery number two graded paper.
Calzone
climbing_vine
Well-known
I'm new to diy processing, but I'll play. Arista EDU 400 or Tmax 3200 depending on light. Diafine, for both film and paper (Ilford MG so far). I'm liking what this is doing. So far.
arseniii
Well-known
That is some serious work here. I liked it a lot both the look and the composition.
As for the subject, My fav is TRI-X in Rodinal 1+50 for 13min. Yeah it is grainy, but has a character! As a matter of fact I like Kodak product very very much, AGFA (especially APX100)films were my number one for a long time but since it's out of production I was forced to switched to Kodak, never had to love ILFORD :-(
As for the subject, My fav is TRI-X in Rodinal 1+50 for 13min. Yeah it is grainy, but has a character! As a matter of fact I like Kodak product very very much, AGFA (especially APX100)films were my number one for a long time but since it's out of production I was forced to switched to Kodak, never had to love ILFORD :-(
Being 99% a B&W shooter, I have been inevitably sucked into the eternal quest for "THE" magic combination of film and developer. I find it very interesting to find out at times, that a given photographer, who I admire, is only using this and that combination of film and developer.
Most of the time however, these cases concern mature artists, who have restricted the scope of their photography to a specific subject, specific negative size, and often also a specific format of the output.. An evident example of this is Michael Kenna, who only uses 6x6 Tri X in D76, and ... he only prints 10x10 inches...
If one wants to do more types of photography and uses various formats, the choices get complicated.
So, I would like to initiate this thread, hoping you will contribute with your "Magic Combinations" - this may include the film, developer, film format, lens and even use of specific filters, which in your opinion deliver outstanding results for a specific type of output.
I would like to start with one of my favourite films - AGFA SCALA. Unfortunately, the last labs in southern Europe, stopped developing it last year, and though I still have some rolls left, I develop it myself as negative now.
Scala is a fairly sharp film with a characteristic tonality, and excels in the dramatic look of deep blacks. I find it a film which ideally suits a Ralph Gibson type of subject, without much need for shadow detail. Here is a frame developed as a slide, which illustrates the point - taken with the 50/2 Planar ZM
If you put a red 25A filter on, the resulting rendering becomes even more dramatic - this one taken with the 25/2.8 Biogon ZM
Another fabulous characteristic of this film, is the capacity to render metallic like structures in a very nice way. This one taken with the C Sonnar:
It also can deliver great results in portraiture, although I find it more appropriate for the "character" portraits, than glamour shots. This one taken with the Makro Planar 100/2 ZF and developed in Prescysol EF:
I know some were raving about SCALA in Rodinal - I have only tried it in Prescysol EF, Tanol Speed and Rodinal Special ( the shot below). In most cases, it is better to expose it at EI 100.
I will come back to this thread later, with other examples of combos that work for me, and hope to see many of your favourites too.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I don't want to highjack this thread, but is Diafine a one-shot developer or is that stuff put back into the working-solution's bottles after developing? I ask because it is pretty expensive overhere.
stephaneb
Established
You keep it and reuse it. The film will absorb a bit of solution A each time, meaning you'll have less and less solution A. When you don't have enough to cover your reels, you discard the amount of solution B to get it at the same level as A. You mix fresh Diafine from the powders and you add your fresh solutions to your used ones.
Personally, I mix a gallon. If and when I deplete solution A enough for not being able to cover the reels, I don't feel I lose much by discarding what's left and restart with a fresh gallon.
There is no time limit.
climbing_vine
Well-known
Indeed.
I've gotten a unique tone that I'm enjoying for scenes with a lot of dynamic range by using it for paper developing. The key seems to be to not leave it in solution A for as long as you would with film. 30 to 45 seconds is about right depending on the image... at the three-minute mark that's recommended for film, it gets (for some reason) extremely sensitive to agitation so that even moving it to solution B and then to the fixer seems to usually result in smear effects.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
FAB Thread Marek...Thank You for giving me lots to Digest 
for the past year i have been addicted to "the Magic Combo'
neopan 1600 & Rodinal
also been doing Arista premium & Rodinal
BUT I would like to change now that I am running out of Arista
I am Torn between FP4+ & Rollei retro 100
is their a BIG Difference between them. I tend to lean towards rich,lush blacks but now DESIRE more Detail rendering
Any Suggestions or thoughts for 100 /125iso film.....
I will play with Extremes and shoot only 100 & 1600 for a year....
for the past year i have been addicted to "the Magic Combo'
neopan 1600 & Rodinal
also been doing Arista premium & Rodinal
BUT I would like to change now that I am running out of Arista
I am Torn between FP4+ & Rollei retro 100
is their a BIG Difference between them. I tend to lean towards rich,lush blacks but now DESIRE more Detail rendering
Any Suggestions or thoughts for 100 /125iso film.....
I will play with Extremes and shoot only 100 & 1600 for a year....
Last edited:
stephaneb
Established
FAB Thread Marek...Thank You for giving me lots to Digest
I am Torn between FP4 & Rollei 100
is their a BIG Difference between them. I tend to lean towards rich,lush blacks but now DESIRE more Detail rendering
Any Suggestions or thoughts for 100iso film.....
I will play with Extremes and shoot only 100 & 1600 for a year....
Depends on what you mean by Agfa 100. I'd assume you mean the old APX. It is quite different from FP4+. Less grainy, yet with very good acutance. It is (was) an extremely high quality film.
I have not yet tried the current Rollei 80s, which is an Agfa film, but I can tell you the Superpan 200 and Retro 400s (both from Agfa and of the same family of aerial photography films) are excellent, both with cutting acutance and reasonable graininess. That is in HC-110.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Helen Rollei 100 has a very wide latitude and IMO can retain great details, another choice would be Fuji Acros, the level of detail you can pull out is really amazing.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
THANK YOU Stefan & Hans for the recommendations
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
(I've posted this before, maybe more than twice ... so forgive the sin of excess... )
APX100, yellow-green filter, Rodinal 1:100
... so forgive the sin of excess... )APX100, yellow-green filter, Rodinal 1:100
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
Yes, that's it.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Tri-X @ 800 in Xtol 1:1 w/ Rodinal 1:100 doesn't suck, either ...
mfogiel
Veteran
Another combination I like, but I shoot less these days due to some unwillingness to cope with the QC issues of the film, is Fomapan 200 in either Prescysol EF or FX39. The Foma 200 FX39 has been flashed to me by Roger Hicks on his site sime time ago already. This film has a midtone tonality and gives certain roundness to shapes which is difficult to explain with words, so I better pass on to the images.
Fomapan 200 in Prescysol EF, Summaron35/2.8:
Same combination with the C Sonnar 50/1.5:
And again, with Makro Planar 100/2:
It gets even better with FX39... here again with the Makro Planar 100/2:
And with Makro Planar 50/2:
And with the Rolleiflex Planar 80/2.8:
This film, unfortunately, presents often some tiny dark spots, as if the emulsion was not applied uniformly, which creates the annoying hassle of extra spotting in the bright areas. Also, the 120 version curls so badly that I stopped using it altogether. However in 35mm, when you need this tonality, I have not yet seen a good substitute.
Fomapan 200 in Prescysol EF, Summaron35/2.8:
Same combination with the C Sonnar 50/1.5:
And again, with Makro Planar 100/2:
It gets even better with FX39... here again with the Makro Planar 100/2:
And with Makro Planar 50/2:
And with the Rolleiflex Planar 80/2.8:
This film, unfortunately, presents often some tiny dark spots, as if the emulsion was not applied uniformly, which creates the annoying hassle of extra spotting in the bright areas. Also, the 120 version curls so badly that I stopped using it altogether. However in 35mm, when you need this tonality, I have not yet seen a good substitute.
Last edited:
marduk
Well-known
Right now the "Magic Combo" for me is HP5+ exposed at E.I. 200-250 and developed in Perceptol stock using Ilford times. It gives me almost non-existent grain and creamy tonality in the 35mm format. Lets me keep separation in the highlights under difficult lighting conditions. Excellent in 120 too. I think it's best for considerable enlargements.
I also favor the APX 100 in Rodinal 1+50.
For ISO 400 and higher I use Tri-X in D-76 or Neopan 400 in LC29 or DD-X.
I also favor the APX 100 in Rodinal 1+50.
For ISO 400 and higher I use Tri-X in D-76 or Neopan 400 in LC29 or DD-X.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
I have waited with the last combination I like to use the most, actually because the jury is still slightly out on this one. I am obviously talking about Tri X, which is my most frequently used film. I am still undecided between a diluted Rodinal and Prescysol EF, and am using both depending on some factors.
Let's see which developers I DO NOT like with Tri X, and why, first.
The least loved is Xtol. The grain is fine, but the sharpness is scarce, and the tonality is plain muddy, it really takes away the sparkle from this film:
Xtol 1+1
The second worst is HC110, I think I have used the dilution H, to increase the acutance. Conclusion: unsharp with ugly biggish grain, although the tonality is very good.
The third least loved, but often necessary for obvious reasons is Diafine. The grain is mushy and the sharpness is borderline, but the mushiness of grain permits some sharpening in PS without generating a gritty effect. The tonality is generally great in midtones. It is a great portrait combination, and gives you the advantage of incredible tolerance on exposure. Best tonality is obtained when shooting between EI 400 and 800.
Now comes Acufine - a developer which delivers almost a Rodinal like grain and good tonality plus it gives you an extra stop for EI 800. I have always used it more diluted as a one shot developer.
Finally we arrive to D76 1+1. I have tried 1+1 and 1+3 to see if there was any discernible difference in sharpness, but my judgement, is, thet there is none. On the other hand, the tonality is slightly better at 1+1. This developer has only one fault - it is not very sharp, but the tonality is difficult to beat for an average subject:
So, we have arrived to the finalists: Rodinal and Prescysol EF.
Rodinal, when well treated, gives you great tonality with a sharp but not excessive grain, and a general pop to the image that I like a lot. I have tried Rodinal between 1+50 and homeopatic dilutions in stand development, but I find that pure stand developmrent causes too many problems, like uneven development of one side of the negative, or excessive blocking of the highlights. I believe, the right way, is to find a dilution and a semi stand agitation scheme that do not pump up the grain, block the highlights and give you acceptable speed, here's an example from my last roll done at 1+60 with only 3.75cc of Rodinal per film:
Finally, we get to Prescysol EF, which is one of the new Pyro developers. This developer gives a fairly small and sharp grain, with a razor sharpness and a great tonality, although it excels in the middle upper range, i.e. the blacks are not shattering, which is due to its strongly compensating nature. I find this developer unbeatable for shooting old architecture with some vintage Leica lenses. It is also great for portraiture, less for landscapes, where you might want a more dramatic tonality. Here are some examples shot with the DR Summicron and Summaron 2.8:
Let's see which developers I DO NOT like with Tri X, and why, first.
The least loved is Xtol. The grain is fine, but the sharpness is scarce, and the tonality is plain muddy, it really takes away the sparkle from this film:
Xtol 1+1
The second worst is HC110, I think I have used the dilution H, to increase the acutance. Conclusion: unsharp with ugly biggish grain, although the tonality is very good.
The third least loved, but often necessary for obvious reasons is Diafine. The grain is mushy and the sharpness is borderline, but the mushiness of grain permits some sharpening in PS without generating a gritty effect. The tonality is generally great in midtones. It is a great portrait combination, and gives you the advantage of incredible tolerance on exposure. Best tonality is obtained when shooting between EI 400 and 800.
Now comes Acufine - a developer which delivers almost a Rodinal like grain and good tonality plus it gives you an extra stop for EI 800. I have always used it more diluted as a one shot developer.
Finally we arrive to D76 1+1. I have tried 1+1 and 1+3 to see if there was any discernible difference in sharpness, but my judgement, is, thet there is none. On the other hand, the tonality is slightly better at 1+1. This developer has only one fault - it is not very sharp, but the tonality is difficult to beat for an average subject:
So, we have arrived to the finalists: Rodinal and Prescysol EF.
Rodinal, when well treated, gives you great tonality with a sharp but not excessive grain, and a general pop to the image that I like a lot. I have tried Rodinal between 1+50 and homeopatic dilutions in stand development, but I find that pure stand developmrent causes too many problems, like uneven development of one side of the negative, or excessive blocking of the highlights. I believe, the right way, is to find a dilution and a semi stand agitation scheme that do not pump up the grain, block the highlights and give you acceptable speed, here's an example from my last roll done at 1+60 with only 3.75cc of Rodinal per film:
Finally, we get to Prescysol EF, which is one of the new Pyro developers. This developer gives a fairly small and sharp grain, with a razor sharpness and a great tonality, although it excels in the middle upper range, i.e. the blacks are not shattering, which is due to its strongly compensating nature. I find this developer unbeatable for shooting old architecture with some vintage Leica lenses. It is also great for portraiture, less for landscapes, where you might want a more dramatic tonality. Here are some examples shot with the DR Summicron and Summaron 2.8:
Last edited:
marduk
Well-known
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and superb photos, mfogiel.