Tetenal developers

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Tetenal developers

Postby miha » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:01 pm

Dear members,

I´m new to this site, but not to the photography. I have been developing films since I was 15, that means for 17 years. I have tried many developers, but have always come back to ID11 or Ilfotec HC.

Some years ago I bougt a bottle of Tetenal ultrafin plus developer and developed a roll of trix with it. The results were great: almost no grain (!) and the negatives print very easy on Ilford multigrade paper.

So here is the question: Is TT ultrafin plus more or less the same as T-max developer (or even Ilford DD-X).

What about TT ultrafin liquid (not the plus version).

Thanks,
Miha


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

Re: Tetenal developers

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:59 pm

miha wrote:Dear members,

I´m new to this site, but not to the photography. I have been developing films since I was 15, that means for 17 years. I have tried many developers, but have always come back to ID11 or Ilfotec HC.

Some years ago I bougt a bottle of Tetenal ultrafin plus developer and developed a roll of trix with it. The results were great: almost no grain (!) and the negatives print very easy on Ilford multigrade paper.

So here is the question: Is TT ultrafin plus more or less the same as T-max developer (or even Ilford DD-X).

What about TT ultrafin liquid (not the plus version).

Thanks,
Miha
Ultrafin liquid is quite an old product that has been around for decades and is one of a few remaining M.Q. B&W film developers left. Ultrafin Plus is a much more recent and modern developer and is designed to perform in a similar way to Kodak`s T-Max developer. Ultrafin liquid can be used at different dilutions to help control the contrast of negatives taken over a range of different lighting conditions, e.g; 1+10 for flat lighting or 1+30 for strong sidelit and backlit subjects.
Most modern B&W film developers use Phenidone or a derivative as does Kodak T-Max, Ilford DD-X and Tetenal Ultrafin Plus.

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Re: Tetenal developers

Postby miha » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:33 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
miha wrote:Dear members,

I´m new to this site, but not to the photography. I have been developing films since I was 15, that means for 17 years. I have tried many developers, but have always come back to ID11 or Ilfotec HC.

Some years ago I bougt a bottle of Tetenal ultrafin plus developer and developed a roll of trix with it. The results were great: almost no grain (!) and the negatives print very easy on Ilford multigrade paper.

So here is the question: Is TT ultrafin plus more or less the same as T-max developer (or even Ilford DD-X).

What about TT ultrafin liquid (not the plus version).

Thanks,
Miha
Ultrafin liquid is quite an old product that has been around for decades and is one of a few remaining M.Q. B&W film developers left. Ultrafin Plus is a much more recent and modern developer and is designed to perform in a similar way to Kodak`s T-Max developer. Ultrafin liquid can be used at different dilutions to help control the contrast of negatives taken over a range of different lighting conditions, e.g; 1+10 for flat lighting or 1+30 for strong sidelit and backlit subjects.
Most modern B&W film developers use Phenidone or a derivative as does Kodak T-Max, Ilford DD-X and Tetenal Ultrafin Plus.
If one starts to separate developers by how long they were available as commercial formulas, this confuses me. Isn`t D76 / ID11 also a MQ developer, and phenidone was used in developers many decades before modern films were invented?

Maybe I should paraphrase: Is Ultrafin plus a deep working developer (as is DD-X) and therefore sutible if film is going to be scanned.

Best regards,
Miha

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

Re: Tetenal developers

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 pm

miha wrote:
Keith Tapscott. wrote:
miha wrote:Is Ultrafin plus a deep working developer (as is DD-X) and therefore sutible if film is going to be scanned.

Best regards,
Miha
Miha, I doubt you would see much difference between any of those 3 developers. Any differences would most likely be subtle at most. If you are getting good results with the one you are using, stick with it.

You didn`t mention scanning in your first post and you also asked: "What about TT Ultrafin liquid (not plus version)?", hence my description of the differences between the two.
Last edited by Keith Tapscott. on Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Tetenal developers

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:00 pm

miha wrote:
Keith Tapscott. wrote:
miha wrote:
If one starts to separate developers by how long they were available as commercial formulas, this confuses me. Isn`t D76 / ID11 also a MQ developer, and phenidone was used in developers many decades before modern films were invented?
Maybe I should paraphrase: Is Ultrafin plus a deep working developer (as is DD-X) and therefore sutible if film is going to be scanned.

Best regards,
Miha
It not so much a matter of whether a developer is M.Q. or P.Q. but rather how they are formulated. You will get much nicer negatives if you use a carefully formulated B&W film developer than you would if you processed your films in a print developer. :) It is better to find a film and developer combination that you like and you seem to be pleased with your results with Tri-X in Ultrafin Plus and Multigrade paper.
Last edited by Keith Tapscott. on Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Postby miha » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:03 pm

Thank you Keith,

yes my mistake for not mentionig scanning :oops:

So is it safe to say that DD-X, Ultrafin plus, Rollei high speed, Aculux and T-max belong to she same generic category of phenidone based developers?

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

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:09 pm

miha wrote:Thank you Keith,

yes my mistake for not mentionig scanning :oops:

So is it safe to say that DD-X, Ultrafin plus, Rollei high speed, Aculux and T-max belong to she same generic category of phenidone based developers?
Hi Miha, I`m not sure about Aculux as the MSDS that Paterson supply is sparse on the actual ingredients and they are only for health and safety reasons, not actual formula. The original Aculux contained clearly stated Metol. The current Aculux 3 is recommended by Paterson for those who prefer to scan their negatives for digital output.
They are all suitable for general use, though Aculux 3 probably provides the finest grain of these.

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Postby miha » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:28 pm

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
miha wrote:Thank you Keith,

yes my mistake for not mentionig scanning :oops:

So is it safe to say that DD-X, Ultrafin plus, Rollei high speed, Aculux and T-max belong to she same generic category of phenidone based developers?
Hi Miha, I`m not sure about Aculux as the MSDS that Paterson supply is sparse on the actual ingredients and they are only for health and safety reasons, not actual formula. The original Aculux contained clearly stated Metol. The current Aculux 3 is recommended by Paterson for those who prefer to scan their negatives for digital output.
They are all suitable for general use, though Aculux 3 probably provides the finest grain of these.
Thanks,

if anyone else has some info or user experience regarding the above-mentioned developers or has compared them, I would love to read.

Miha

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

Postby Keith Tapscott. » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:46 pm

There are lots of good film and developer combinations around, but it would take what might seem like eternity to try them all.

http://blogs.salon.com/0004217/2004/11/04.html

There is also some interesting articles on Erwin Putts site.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page39.html

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Tetenal developers

Postby Ornello » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:06 am

miha wrote:
Keith Tapscott. wrote:
miha wrote:Dear members,

I´m new to this site, but not to the photography. I have been developing films since I was 15, that means for 17 years. I have tried many developers, but have always come back to ID11 or Ilfotec HC.

Some years ago I bougt a bottle of Tetenal ultrafin plus developer and developed a roll of trix with it. The results were great: almost no grain (!) and the negatives print very easy on Ilford multigrade paper.

So here is the question: Is TT ultrafin plus more or less the same as T-max developer (or even Ilford DD-X).

What about TT ultrafin liquid (not the plus version).

Thanks,
Miha
Ultrafin liquid is quite an old product that has been around for decades and is one of a few remaining M.Q. B&W film developers left. Ultrafin Plus is a much more recent and modern developer and is designed to perform in a similar way to Kodak`s T-Max developer. Ultrafin liquid can be used at different dilutions to help control the contrast of negatives taken over a range of different lighting conditions, e.g; 1+10 for flat lighting or 1+30 for strong sidelit and backlit subjects.
Most modern B&W film developers use Phenidone or a derivative as does Kodak T-Max, Ilford DD-X and Tetenal Ultrafin Plus.
If one starts to separate developers by how long they were available as commercial formulas, this confuses me. Isn`t D76 / ID11 also a MQ developer, and phenidone was used in developers many decades before modern films were invented?

Maybe I should paraphrase: Is Ultrafin plus a deep working developer (as is DD-X) and therefore sutible if film is going to be scanned.

Best regards,
Miha
If your intention is to scan, conventional B&W films are not the best choice. The chromogenic B&W films (such as Ilfor XP2) will usually produce better results. Of course, you can use color negative film and scan it and desaturate...

Conventional B&W films are intended to make prints, not scans

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Postby miha » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:24 pm

Thanks Ornello,

I always print - I love darkroom work - but sometimes it is very useful and practical to scan films as well, especially if one wants to post photos somewhere on the net.

BTW, I find chromogenic films too clinical, and besides I like to get my fingers wet (and the smell of the Tetenal "geruchlos" fixer :wink: )

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Postby miha » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:15 pm

Below is the example of the horrid grain that doesn`t show in wet print.

APX 400@200 Ilfotec HC 1+31, elmarit-r 28mm, flash, Frontier scan.

http://www.shrani.si/f/1/AK/4YKi9sze/rokvesna.//jpg//

Best,
Miha

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:57 pm

miha wrote:Below is the example of the horrid grain that doesn`t show in wet print.

APX 400@200 Ilfotec HC 1+31, elmarit-r 28mm, flash, Frontier scan.

http://www.shrani.si/f/1/AK/4YKi9sze/rokvesna.////jpg////

Best,
Miha
A 400 speed film should show no grain at that size. What film was that?

miha
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 am

Postby miha » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:10 pm

Ornello wrote:
miha wrote:Below is the example of the horrid grain that doesn`t show in wet print.

APX 400@200 Ilfotec HC 1+31, elmarit-r 28mm, flash, Frontier scan.

http://www.shrani.si/f/1/AK/4YKi9sze/ro ... /////jpg//////

Best,
Miha
A 400 speed film should show no grain at that size. What film was that?
The film was Agfa APX 400 exposed at E.I. 200

Ornello
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Postby Ornello » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:16 pm

miha wrote:
Ornello wrote:
miha wrote:Below is the example of the horrid grain that doesn`t show in wet print.

APX 400@200 Ilfotec HC 1+31, elmarit-r 28mm, flash, Frontier scan.

http://www.shrani.si/f/1/AK/4YKi9sze/ro ... ///jpg////////

Best,
Miha
A 400 speed film should show no grain at that size. What film was that?
The film was Agfa APX 400 exposed at E.I. 200
The image looks quite grainy. Either the film is not so hot (my experience with Agfa leads me to believe it is a possible cause of the graininess) or the scanning has grossly exaggerated the graininess, or both.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests