|
killabyte posted:I bought one of those bulk fomapan rolls. It's sitting in my freezer, not sure when I will get around to it, but yeah, it's a hell of a deal. I've never tried Foma before, but apparently Fomapan 100 gives an Agfa APX100-like tonality, especially when used with Rodinal... nice and punchy. You should roll up a few rolls!
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I've never tried Foma before, but apparently Fomapan 100 gives an Agfa APX100-like tonality, especially when used with Rodinal... nice and punchy. You should roll up a few rolls! I have a bulk roll of Tech Pan that I want to get to first...but it's on the list. I have loads of film I need to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
Picked up some Portra 160NC-120 today. Holy gently caress it was expensive at Henry's. Anyway, since my camera doesn't shoot at 160 I exposed it at 200. When I take it to some lab, do I just tell them explicitly to develop it at 200 or is there anything else I need to make them aware of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 05:17
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Anyway, since my camera doesn't shoot at 160 I exposed it at 200. When I take it to some lab, do I just tell them explicitly to develop it at 200 or is there anything else I need to make them aware of? C-41 is C-41. Unless it's a pro lab that can push it, there's nothing an average Joe lab can do about it. It should be fine anyway. You probably would have been better off shooting at 100.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 05:42
|
|
|
I'm not over taking it to a high end lab if they'll do it right. I had it in my mind to do it at 100, I was going to do it at 100 when I loaded the roll, but for some reason I flipped the dial to 200 carelessly. Oh well, learning experience. I'm like 0 for 3 with careless camera mistakes lately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 05:46
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm not over taking it to a high end lab if they'll do it right. I had it in my mind to do it at 100, I was going to do it at 100 when I loaded the roll, but for some reason I flipped the dial to 200 carelessly. Oh well, learning experience. It'll be fine. Don't worry. You only missed target by 40. If you're scanning, you won't notice a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 06:23
|
|
|
It seriously won't make a difference. Besides, a pro lab can't do a 1/3rd stop push anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 06:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It seriously won't make a difference. Besides, a pro lab can't do a 1/3rd stop push anyways.  Yes they can, what would make you think that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 06:33
|
|
|
The lab I use does 1/8, so they can't actually do 1/3 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 06:41
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:
Oh, sorry. I guess my local lab will only do full stop pushes, and I wrongly extrapolated. Still, I'd have to question the necessity of a 1/3 or 1/8 (!?) stop push for C-41 film. There's a lot of latitude in them 'thar dyes... and most metering techniques don't involve 1/3rd stop accuracy, especially amateurs shooting available light. Radbot fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Sep 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 07:02
|
|
|
notlodar posted:The lab I use does 1/8, so they can't actually do 1/3 That's unfortunate. quote:Oh, sorry. I guess my local lab will only do full stop pushes, and I wrongly extrapolated. There's no real necessity as far as proper exposure goes generally but pushing/pulling C-41 has various effects on the final negative that, when predicted for, can be desirable. For example, I like the granularity and colour shift that you get from pulling Superia 400 to 360.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 07:08
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:That's unfortunate. Hmm, that's cool. I'm so steeped in black and white and its (generally) forgiving ways that I hadn't even considered the color shifts one could get that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
Not to  , but it will be fine. I think the rule of thumb is 1 stop over/2 stops under exposure latitude
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 12:08
|
|
|
If I want to develop in either my stainless or a plastic 2-roll tanks, with HC-110 Dilution B (13-18ml of HC-110), will I be okay with a Paterson 45ml graduated cylinder or should I be looking at a syringe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 16:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If I want to develop in either my stainless or a plastic 2-roll tanks, with HC-110 Dilution B (13-18ml of HC-110), will I be okay with a Paterson 45ml graduated cylinder or should I be looking at a syringe? A graduated cylinder will work, but HC-110 is pretty sensitive to the dilution as it's a very active developer per unit volume. A syringe would be best, it makes HC-110 much easier to handle and is mandatory for developers like Rodinal or anything that you'd be using less than 10mL of. Try looking at your local drugstore for syringes used to give medicine to babies. If you need to get it done today or don't have access to a store, however, just be careful and make sure to rinse out the cylinder into your mixing beaker as lots of syrup will likely stick to the sides on the way out. It will probably be fine, it'll just be less convenient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 16:59
|
|
|
IMHO a syringe is absolutely the most convenient thing. I have a 60ml syringe in 1ml increments that makes portioning developer concentrate super easy. The way I usually do my 60+531 Ilfosol3 solution is I get a plastic beaker of water to 20c, then fill my other plastic measuring beaker with 500 of that since it's easy to do with the beaker's markings, then throw the syringe in and pull out another 31ml to add to the 500. Then pop open the concentrate and pull out 59ml (easier to pull out 60+ and squeeze out excess until you get back to 59) and add that to the soup. Literally three steps, instead of measuring in intermediate cylinders and whatnot. Edit: Also, thanks everyone for the info on push/pulling C41 and whether it would be necessary in my case. It sounds like I can just hand them the film and have them do it at 160 without too much issue. Literally my first roll of C41 so I wasn't sure whether the push/pull would be as simple and formulaic as it is for B&W. Though I never actually thought of 1/3 stops in BW either, so I dunno. On the upside I'm learning a lot 
some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 16:59
|
|
|
Whats the difference between HC-110 and diafine? I know with diafine you dont have to worry about the temperature as much, but what are the difference between the two in terms of negative quality? Buying my chemicals next week so need to decide what to use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Whats the difference between HC-110 and diafine? I know with diafine you dont have to worry about the temperature as much, but what are the difference between the two in terms of negative quality? If you can only choose between HC-110 or Diafine, I'd choose HC-110. Diafine is cool, but I'm not sure if I'd make it my only developer, at least not to start. It can be finnicky with bromide drag/uneven development and the best way to turn someone off of DIY development is to ruin your first set of negs. Quality wise, Diafine is a compensating developer by nature (which means it will produce lower contrast in general, which is usually a good thing as it's easier to punch up contrast versus take it down) and it also tends to increase effective film speed (which leads to more grain, and sometimes shadows can be too thin). Use Diafine if you need the speed and don't mind the grain. HC-110 tends to produce contrastier negs in my experience (although this could be because it's a very fast working developer at standard dilutions and is thus easy to overdevelop with). However, using dilution H (1+63) is a great way to reduce this effect, and will give great results. HC-110 doesn't kill speed like Rodinal but it's not as fast as Diafine... and will give less grainy results, too. If you're looking into those chems because of their long shelf life, then HC-110 will last forever when kept in syrup form and measured out by syringe. I'm currently half way through a bottle that I bought in high school six or seven years ago and it still works fine. Same with Rodinal, except it will produce far grainier negatives (though with far higher acutance, too).
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
I'm gonna chime in with a newbie question: can I use R09 multiple times? I tried searching Google and some results said one-shot and some said add a minute after four times so what the hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 20:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Ah, thanks for the help. I think I'll go with the HC-110 until I get used to the developing process, I was leaning towards it anyway. Cant wait to get started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
Although I'm sure you COULD use R09/Rodinal/p-a.p. developers multiple times if you had a gun to your head, I wouldn't recommend it, and it's not standard practice for most home development peeps. Try using 1:50 or even 1:100 concentrations to cut down on developer costs. Rodinal/R09 works well when extremely diluted, but make sure you do some research first as there are some precautions to take. I've heard that some formulations of R09 are more or less concentrated than Rodinal, so check that out too. Check out this post ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1068869#post1068869 ) and the rest of this thread for results with stand development with Rodinal, a more "advanced" technique that's given me great results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
I just called my local camera store to see if they carried HC-110, since I've been planning on developing my Tri-X in it instead of the random Sprint brand developer the class gives us. BH wants $14 for it. My local store didn't have any, and when I asked if they could special order it, they looked it up and said "Sure, $19.79 and it'll be 2-3 weeks." gently caress you I could order it from the internet shipped for the same price and it would be here in a week tops. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I just called my local camera store to see if they carried HC-110, since I've been planning on developing my Tri-X in it instead of the random Sprint brand developer the class gives us. BH wants $14 for it. My local store didn't have any, and when I asked if they could special order it, they looked it up and said "Sure, $19.79 and it'll be 2-3 weeks." gently caress you I could order it from the internet shipped for the same price and it would be here in a week tops. What else do they have? We could probably give you some input as to what would be the best stuff to use out of the stuff they have in stock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What else do they have? We could probably give you some input as to what would be the best stuff to use out of the stuff they have in stock. I ordered a jug from B&H along with a magnifier eyepiece for my 6x7. I don 't want something else, really. The long storage life of HC-110 along with the fact that it's a one-shot plus the fact that it's a natural combo with Tri-X are basically the reasons I want it. I will use whatever they have for the first roll (unless BH magicks my order here by Saturday), then do HC-110 in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
I really, really like Rodinal. Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50 is an absolutely gorgeous combination. I was amazed when I finished that first set of development and looked at 'em with a loupe... Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25 makes for some pretty serious grain, but it can be sorta cool. 1:50 seemed about comparable with my usual D76 1:1, perhaps slightly sharper and grittier. Neat trick, though: drop a little piece of exposed film into undiluted rodinal. It'll strip the emulsion right off. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Sep 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 09:05
|
|
is go
|
If im shooting Tri x and developing in C-110 what fixer should I use? Im buying in the UK if that makes a difference. Would Kodak T-max fixer be fine?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 12:51
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:If im shooting Tri x and developing in C-110 what fixer should I use? Im buying in the UK if that makes a difference. Yup, fixer makes little to no difference in anything as I understand it (I'm just getting started). Literally any brand, any fixer should work, it's all just convenience features like speed, shelf life, number of uses, nice scents, or color indicators, and you will be using a kodak product anyway. There's also Kodafix although I don't really know what the difference is. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Sep 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 13:41
|
|
|
Might go for the ilford hypam rapix fixer then. Found out that the european 500ml HC-100 is slightly less concentrated than the normal stuff so will have to bear that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
Ilford Rapid Fixer is the poo poo. Smells like hell, but when it's fresh it fixes film in about 45 seconds. When you mix up a batch of fixer, mix it to maximum concentration because it'll weaken over time and get slower as you use it more and more, so start strong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
HPL posted:Ilford Rapid Fixer is the poo poo. Smells like hell, but when it's fresh it fixes film in about 45 seconds. When you mix up a batch of fixer, mix it to maximum concentration because it'll weaken over time and get slower as you use it more and more, so start strong. This is what I use. I'm not sure how long it's supposed to last, but I've had the whole solution mixed for a month now, run at least 30 rolls, both 35 and 120, through it, and in my clip tests it still fixes in like 45 seconds. Wondering how long it will go before I need to take it somewhere to be disposed of, but so far so good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
I've never used liquid fixer before, so I went ahead and bought a small vial of Arista liquid fixer that, much like Ilford Rapid Fix, mixes up 1+9 to make a gallon... of paper fixer. It needs a 1+4 dilution to make film fixer! I wish they would have told me that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is what I use. I'm not sure how long it's supposed to last, but I've had the whole solution mixed for a month now, run at least 30 rolls, both 35 and 120, through it, and in my clip tests it still fixes in like 45 seconds. Wondering how long it will go before I need to take it somewhere to be disposed of, but so far so good. I've been using the same batch rapidfixer for nearly a year now. I have put about 60-some odd rolls through it and it still passes a clip test in under 2 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2009 23:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've never used liquid fixer before, so I went ahead and bought a small vial of Arista liquid fixer that, much like Ilford Rapid Fix, mixes up 1+9 to make a gallon... of paper fixer. It needs a 1+4 dilution to make film fixer! I wish they would have told me that. You'll be fine. It'll take longer to fix, but it'll still fix. Eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:You'll be fine. It'll take longer to fix, but it'll still fix. Eventually. I suppose it doesn't really matter, as I only do small tank development. Do you think 12oz of liquid fix concentrate will last as many rolls as a bag of Kodak Fixer? Doesn't seem like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
Just developed a roll of long-expired Tri-X (that had been kept at warm room temperature) in Diafine. The film expired, I would imagine, about 4-5 years ago. Fog. Fogadelphia. Foggier than San Francisco. I hadn't really had this problem before, but after Googling around, apparently Diafine is one of the world's worst choices for film that has any reason to fog. I suppose it makes sense, being an effective-speed increasing developer. It's definitely still printable, though. Also, I noticed a bit of uneven development on this roll, especially near the sprocket holes. This, after I did a 4 minutes presoak and made sure to invert during the development process! This is tough stuff to work with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 07:07
|
|
|
You should never pre-soak film with Diafine, as the first bath needs to be completely absorbed into the film.Paul MaudDib posted:The long storage life of HC-110 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Sep 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 07:12
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You should never pre-soak film with Diafine, as the first bath needs to be completely absorbed into the film. I know that's what it says on the box, but I've honestly had better luck with presoaking in the past, and many people swear by it (check out the APUG thread on Diafine). It's really easy to get horribly uneven development if you don't presoak and don't agitate correctly. edit: This guy also gives a thumbs up to presoaking and links to the Diafine flickr group, wherein a lot of people do it too Radbot fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Sep 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 08:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You should never pre-soak film with Diafine, as the first bath needs to be completely absorbed into the film. True. I just figured I should start with HC-110 since Tri-X Hc-110 a (very) known quantity that's been used for what, 80 years in various incarnations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You should never pre-soak film with Diafine, as the first bath needs to be completely absorbed into the film. I'd disagree with you on the "longest lasting, most durable developer" piece. People still use 50+ year old bottles of Rodinal all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
killabyte posted:I'd disagree with you on the "longest lasting, most durable developer" piece. People still use 50+ year old bottles of Rodinal all the time. Doesn't Rodinal age pretty fast once it's been opened, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 17:14
|
|