Ansel Adams - Which Book?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:19 pm

Pim wrote:The info on the silvergrain page is ok. Thnx O.
Please explain what you mean.


Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:59 pm

That the infirmation on the silvergrainpage was usefull to me, thank you for that!
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:30 pm

Pim wrote:That the infirmation on the silvergrainpage was usefull to me, thank you for that!
Oh, I see. You're welcome.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:37 pm

Ornello wrote:
Packaged D-76 is supposed to contain a formula that is buffered, and thus closely corresponding to D-76 'D'.

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76

Old copies of the British Journal of Photography Annual from about 1965-1986 contain useful formulary sections, written by Geoffrey Crawley.

What were these "disappointing results" or which you speak? In Table VI, page 433 of the reprint from Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film, the graininess for both D-76 and D-76 'D' is listed as 'average', with similar developing times. Stability (discussed on page 424) is markedly superior with the buffered version.

Some of Crawley's FX-series (FX-4, FX-7, FX-15, etc.) use a similar buffering scheme; I have mixed up and used these developers with perfect results.

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx15.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx18.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx19.html
From a BJP Annual by G.W Crawley: "D-76d is a buffered borax version of D-76 giving greater control of contrast and more consistent results on re-use with a slight loss of speed yield and 25-50% time increase".
See also: The British Journal Photographic Almanac 1957, `Soluble Bromides and Phenidone Developers` by A.J. Axford & J.D. Kendall which showed the practical limit of bromide in ID-166 (Kodak D-76d) to be no more than 0.25grams/litre before a loss of emulsion speed occurred. The other developer which was a P.Q. buffered borax formula was much more tolerant to the bromide which started at zero grams to 5.5 grams/litre added to both developers.

Other studies of the D-76 types have been carried out that are much more recent than 1929 by other photo-chemist such as G.I.P. Levonson and others. I shalln`t divulge my correspondent for reasons of his personal privacy, but he mentions that compared with D-76, D-76d yielded slightly lower speed with some of the more recent films and slightly higher base fog, also with some films, a slightly longer development time was required to obtain the same level of contrast. D-76d with 0.25g of Potassium bromide added becomes Kodak SD-21. This is a subject which has interested me for quite a few years now and Ryuji has done some good research for his Silvergrain site.

Geoffrey Crawley`s research in making a better all-round yield developer has also fascinated me, although the formula of his FX developers in the links provided differ to the formulary that I have read. Here`s the formulas that I have:
FX-15
Metol/Elon =3.5g
Sodium Sulphite, anhydrous = 100g
Sodium bisulphite =0.5g
Hydroquinone =2.25g
Borax =2.5g
Sodium Carbonate, anhydrous =1g
Phenidone =0.10g
Potassium bromide =1.5g
Water to make 1 litre of stock solution.

FX-18
Sodium Sulphite, anhydrous =100g
Sodium bisulphite =0.35g
Hydroquinone =6g
Borax =2.5g
Phenidone=0.10g
Potassium bromide =1.6g
Water to make 1 litre of stock solution.
Crawley`s description: "FX-18 is a P.Q. version of D-76, claiming slightly higher resolving power, with a slight reduction in grain and minimal speed increase allowing use at stock strength without speed loss".

FX-19
Sodium Sulphite, anhydrous =100g
Hydroquinone =7g
Phenidone =0.75g
Water to make 1 litre of stock solution.
Crawley`s description: "FX-19 is a P.Q. variant of Kodak D-23, giving, however, fuller emulsion speed.

D-76 remains the developer by which others are judged by in terms of performance, although Kodak now recommend their Xtol developer as a worthy improvement.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:12 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Packaged D-76 is supposed to contain a formula that is buffered, and thus closely corresponding to D-76 'D'.

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76

Old copies of the British Journal of Photography Annual from about 1965-1986 contain useful formulary sections, written by Geoffrey Crawley.

What were these "disappointing results" or which you speak? In Table VI, page 433 of the reprint from Some Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film, the graininess for both D-76 and D-76 'D' is listed as 'average', with similar developing times. Stability (discussed on page 424) is markedly superior with the buffered version.

Some of Crawley's FX-series (FX-4, FX-7, FX-15, etc.) use a similar buffering scheme; I have mixed up and used these developers with perfect results.

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx15.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx18.html

http://www.legacy-photo.com/html/darkro ... _fx19.html
From a BJP Annual by G.W Crawley: "D-76d is a buffered borax version of D-76 giving greater control of contrast and more consistent results on re-use with a slight loss of speed yield and 25-50% time increase".

See also: The British Journal Photographic Almanac 1957, `Soluble Bromides and Phenidone Developers` by A.J. Axford & J.D. Kendall which showed the practical limit of bromide in ID-166 (Kodak D-76d) to be no more than 0.25grams/litre before a loss of emulsion speed occurred. The other developer which was a P.Q. buffered borax formula was much more tolerant to the bromide which started at zero grams to 5.5 grams/litre added to both developers.
I don't think that developers should be re-used, if you are a perfectionist.
Other studies of the D-76 types have been carried out that are much more recent than 1929 by other photo-chemist such as G.I.P. Levonson and others. I shan't divulge my correspondent for reasons of his personal privacy, but he mentions that compared with D-76, D-76d yielded slightly lower speed with some of the more recent films and slightly higher base fog, also with some films, a slightly longer development time was required to obtain the same level of contrast. D-76d with 0.25g of Potassium bromide added becomes Kodak SD-21. This is a subject which has interested me for quite a few years now and Ryuji has done some good research for his Silvergrain site.
The greater stability of D-76D may more than offset these minor problems.
Geoffrey Crawley`s research in making a better all-round yield developer has also fascinated me, (snip)
There have been many printings of them. The BJP Annuals are the place to get the originals.
D-76 remains the developer by which others are judged by in terms of performance, although Kodak now recommend their Xtol developer as a worthy improvement.
Xtol of course has had problems with stability, but let's not turn this thread into an Xtol discussion.

Phenidone generally necessitates the use of a restrainer. My personal favorite metol-excess sulphite developer is the Adox formula.

ADOX MQ BORAX

Metol 2 gr
Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) 80 gr
Hydroquinone 4 gr
Borax 4 gr
Potassium Bromide 0.5 gr
Water to make 1.0 liter

This is similar to D-76 with slightly better sharpness, but development times must be increased by 10 - 20 %.

This developer formula was used for testing the DIN speed of films. It gives full film speed, excellent tonality and improved sharpness compared to D-76

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:57 am

Ornello wrote:
The greater stability of D-76D may more than offset these minor problems.
Perhaps for those who make their own, although Kodak and Ilford seem to have found ways of making their commercial products more stable, but that will remain their trade secret.
There have been many printings of them. The BJP Annuals are the place to get the originals.
Agree, that`s where I looked, although the annual didn`t have the FX-15 formula. That I got from the `Film Developing Cookbook`.
D-76 remains the developer by which others are judged by in terms of performance, although Kodak now recommend their Xtol developer as a worthy improvement.
Xtol of course has had problems with stability, but let's not turn this thread into an Xtol discussion.
Agree, but I was pointing out how manufacturers have studied processing chemicals to provide improvements over their predecessors.


Phenidone generally necessitates the use of a restrainer. My personal favorite metol-excess sulphite developer is the Adox formula.

ADOX MQ BORAX

Metol 2 gr
Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) 80 gr
Hydroquinone 4 gr
Borax 4 gr
Potassium Bromide 0.5 gr
Water to make 1.0 liter

This is similar to D-76 with slightly better sharpness, but development times must be increased by 10 - 20 %.

This developer formula was used for testing the DIN speed of films. It gives full film speed, excellent tonality and improved sharpness compared to D-76
The Adox formula is good and the extra borax provides better buffering capacity than the standard D-76/ID11 formula. I would suggest making this instead of D-76d.
AFAIK, the formula isn`t used in the latest ISO standard for B&W films, which was last revised in 1993. (ANSI/ISO6-1993).

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:35 am

Ornello wrote:
I don't think that developers should be re-used, if you are a perfectionist.
I always use developers `one-shot`.
For large film sheets such as 8x10, trying to use developers one-shot in large/deep tank will be costly. It would probably be much more cost effective to replenish the developer, otherwise to use print trays, rotary tube etc using one-shot development. Not ideal, but more convenient.
Probably not that many 8x10 Cameras used by the amateur hobbyist these days.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:06 am

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Ornello wrote:
I don't think that developers should be re-used, if you are a perfectionist.
I always use developers `one-shot`.
For large film sheets such as 8x10, trying to use developers one-shot in large/deep tank will be costly. It would probably be much more cost effective to replenish the developer, otherwise to use print trays, rotary tube etc using one-shot development. Not ideal, but more convenient.
Probably not that many 8x10 Cameras used by the amateur hobbyist these days.
I was speaking of miniature work. For large format, almost any consistent long-life developer is satisfactory.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:49 am

Pim wrote:We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
Here are a few, from prints that are not ideal:

http://www.photographyboard.net/compone ... m/catid,1/

I need to get a different enlarger, because I cannot seem to get perfectly even illumination across the image with the one I have.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:59 am

Ornello wrote:
Pim wrote:We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
Here are a few, from prints that are not ideal:

http://www.photographyboard.net/compone ... m/catid,1/

I need to get a different enlarger, because I cannot seem to get perfectly even illumination across the image with the one I have.
I liked the `Boy on bike` and `Tubes`. A good range of enlargers are made by Kienzle including some classic condenser designs through to cold light source ones in various formats.

http://www.kienzle-phototechnik.de/home ... glish.html

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:33 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Pim wrote:We know how you develop. The only thing we don't know about you are your photographs.
Here are a few, from prints that are not ideal:

http://www.photographyboard.net/compone ... m/catid,1/

I need to get a different enlarger, because I cannot seem to get perfectly even illumination across the image with the one I have.
I liked the `Boy on bike` and `Tubes`. A good range of enlargers are made by Kienzle including some classic condenser designs through to cold light source ones in various formats.

http://www.kienzle-phototechnik.de/home ... glish.html
The one entitled 'tubes' is of exhaust ducts on top of an old but still working steel foundry. They make railroad wheel castings. The last time I went over there, they had painted the ducts blue....when I took these photos, it was all brown and grey and rust-colored...why can't these factories leave well enough alone?

Taken with 560mm Telyt-R f/6.8, like this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/MINTY-Leica-560-f6- ... dZViewItem

http://www.wibergsfoto.se/images/leica/ ... 482750.//jpg//

'Boy on a bike' I like because of his big coat and the big shadow he casts across the undulating surface...

Taken with 28mm Elmarit-R.

I have added some more...

Here is my page:

http://www.photographyboard.net/index.p ... &user=7770
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Postby Pim » Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:29 pm

My fav is "under" and the one on neopan 1600. Did you shoot that on 800?
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:03 pm

Pim wrote:My fav is "under" and the one on neopan 1600. Did you shoot that on 800?
Directly above the area seen in the 'under' photograph is the area that can be seen in the photo 'station'.

The Neopan 1600 was exposed at about 650.

WYOMING TOM
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Casper, Wyoming

Books by Ansel Adams

Postby WYOMING TOM » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:20 pm

Get the negative and print books, both are useful as far as understanding the basic and advanced techniques of exposure and developing of negatives and prints, however they are also completely out of date and none of the data is usable for modern roll films if that is what you are using, it is still good for guidance and a excellent starting point. Sussman's Amateur Photographer's Handbook is more useful for small format vintage film cameras but again is a guide only. I would say the best approach would be to dig as deeply into your local library look for bio's and thoughts of the photographer's on what were trying to show and get away from the mechanics, and then research on the web looking for images. At the present my technique is not in ANY BOOK. I mix burst 3 frame bracket exposures with my Maxxum 5 in layers with high dynamic range scanning and software to get the inkjet print I visualize.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Books by Ansel Adams

Postby Ornello » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:10 am

WYOMING TOM wrote:Get the negative and print books, both are useful as far as understanding the basic and advanced techniques of exposure and developing of negatives and prints, however they are also completely out of date and none of the data is usable for modern roll films if that is what you are using, it is still good for guidance and a excellent starting point. Sussman's Amateur Photographer's Handbook is more useful for small format vintage film cameras but again is a guide only. I would say the best approach would be to dig as deeply into your local library look for bio's and thoughts of the photographer's on what were trying to show and get away from the mechanics, and then research on the web looking for images. At the present my technique is not in ANY BOOK. I mix burst 3 frame bracket exposures with my Maxxum 5 in layers with high dynamic range scanning and software to get the inkjet print I visualize.
I wrote my own book, based on my careful and extensive testing of various materials.

Adams's books have been responsible for ruining more negatives than any other books written as photographic guides. They are full of misinformation, lies, and myths.

A far more useful book is The Edge of Darkness: The Art, Craft, and Power of the High-Definition Monochrome Photograph by Barry Thornton.

Thorton's book, though, suffers from starting from a zs basis, which unfortunately colors and distorts his perception. His book is therefore full of contradictions. It is not possible to optimize one's technique for maximum definition and apply zs principles at the same time. The approach necessary for high definition precludes using the zs, and vice versa. As a result, his book must be used carefully. One must pick out what is useful for high-definition photography and ignore the zs crap.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest