Moderator: Keith Tapscott.
blackwhite04 wrote:What is the minimum volume of the "syrup" one should use to ensure full development and also exhaustion of the diluted "Syrup", say 1:100, one hour? I would use Pan-F and FP-4
blackwhite04 wrote:I am not trying to go for anything exceptional. I have read several blogs about stand development. Unlesss I come across any evidence that it far surpasses the usual development methods I will not go for it. So many questions have been asked that I am wondering why photographers have not sought advice from manufacturers of films and their associated developers. I have a feeling that if stand/partial stand is so exceptional and successful film manufacturers would have published data years ago. A grandfather of mine used to work with glass plates, no doubt he would have used stand/partial stand, therefore would one consider that we maybe are trying to resurrect an outdated system of development? I am open to any suggestions which relate to positive success, the suject is fascinating.
foolscape wrote:I've used stand developing with sheet film with some success with Kodak HC-110, which is like Ilfotec-HC. I use the "Unofficial" dilution G (1:119 from syrup) for semi-stand (agitate for the first minute, and for 15 seconds every 3-4 minutes thereafter). My time for FP4 is 18 minutes, and HP5 is 20 minutes. For stand, I use the same dilution, but agitate for the first minute, and then don't touch them again for anywhere between 50 minutes to 70 minutes depending on the film or temperature. HC-110 requires at least 6ml of syrup per roll, or 8x10 sheet of film (4x5 = 4 sheets and 5x7 = 2 sheets). That does not change with the volume of water. Ilfotec-HC requirements should be similar.
Ornello wrote:The purpose of 'stand' development was to restrain highlights in the days of plates, when films had poor latitude and development. The process was more or less born of necessity. We don't really need it now. I do use a 'restrained' agitation, a little milder than some people recommend, but that is because I use Leica lenses with rather brilliant characteristics.
foolscape wrote:Ornello wrote:The purpose of 'stand' development was to restrain highlights in the days of plates, when films had poor latitude and development. The process was more or less born of necessity. We don't really need it now. I do use a 'restrained' agitation, a little milder than some people recommend, but that is because I use Leica lenses with rather brilliant characteristics.
Whether or not we need it now is a matter of debate. A 35mm Leica is far different from 8x10 sheets when it comes to exposing and developing. I have done side by side tests using standard development, semi-stand ("minimal agitation"), and stand development with high contrast scenes, and I found the stand developed negatives much easier to contact print. This may not be the case with enlargement, where there is some loss of contrast as the head moves further from the paper, but for some shots, stand development works just fine. Variable contrast papers offer some ability to lower contrast, but if the shadow detail is not brought out in developing, it won't matter much. There are times when you need to restrain the highlights while supporting shadow detail.
blackwhite04 wrote:Thank you very much. I use an M6 with FP4+. I need low contrast negs so that I can scan them with my Coolscan V. I have been advised recently not only to scan in RGB but to scan as a "Transparency" and then convert in Photoshop, is the latter to help with contrast? I do use digital cameras however to forsake film to me would be like forsaking my native tongue. Like you, I am very proud of who I am and what I am.
There appears to be a move back to "conventional" work amongst several of the amateur fraternity in the U.K. The prices of the very best digital cameras in the U.K. are horrific, I am glad that I still have my M6., OM1n., and my 3.5F, my "Golden Oldies" in which I take a great pride.
I am very pleased to hear from those who have shared my blog, and particularly from those in the States. How is the "conventional" market in the States these days? I am also well pleased with "Digital Truth".
I am retired, I do not know how I ever found time to go to work !!
blackwhite04 wrote:How is the "conventional" market in the States these days? I am also well pleased with "Digital Truth".
I acknowledge that Ilford papers aren't to everyone's liking, but I personally would be very sorry to lose them.foolscape wrote:Kodak is about to go belly-up (hopefully not), but the prices for older equipment like Hasselblads or view cameras are rising again. Film is a niche market these days, but it's a sizeable one. It's traditional printing that worries me. I still print all my B&W in the darkroom, and I need good printing material.
I'm not worried about Ilford paper going away, but I don't want to lose Oriental, and Bergger.
foolscape wrote:You misunderstand me. I said that I'm not worried about Ilford going away because the last time I heard, they are still doing OK. If Kodak fails, Ilford will probably pick up much of the film sales that Kodak loses. I use Ilford papers extensively, and while they aren't the best, they are consistent.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests