File :-(, x, )
Teus !QbSstcPD6U
Tri-x at EI 3200, developed in Rodinal 1+50

I like the Russian feeling on this one. Dirty shoes on a bench, an old TV on a few chairs.. caught in a gloomy and coarse photo
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
fontain downtown. 1/15 sec exposure, just like the first
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>30941
It lacks a bottle of vodka on the table for a complete Russian feeling. ;) But well done anyway.

>>30943
Very nice, I love it. Reminds me a bit of the "light painting" abstract photographs from the 50s-60s, except it's not. :)

Teus, did you ever try the 12 hour 1+1000 developing in Rodinal? I did once, and it failed in many ways. I wonder what went wrong.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>30960
thanks :^)

>>It lacks a bottle of vodka on the table for a complete Russian feeling. ;)
lol, right =)

>>Teus, did you ever try the 12 hour 1+1000 developing in Rodinal? I did once, and it failed in many ways. I wonder what went wrong.
stand-in development?
never tried it, I've barely worked a few times with Rodinal. I'll first figure out what the dilution of Rodinal gives, I heard the best compromise of its characteristics (grain, sharpness,..) are at 1+50
>> Anonymous
>>30941
I love it, and yes I can feel the Russian vibe too. The tones are well balanced, the composition is awesome. Great shot :)
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>30978stand-in development?
Yeah. No agitation, one developer change after 6 hours. I read an old article about this method, and wanted to try it out for its benefits (mainly highly compensated negs). But it failed badly:

- dichroic fog, and a bad one to that - unless viewed against light, the negs look almost like not developed at all (no, that's not improper fixing).
- smudges from the perforation.
- "banding" from developer stratification.

The latter two are obviously due to lack of agitation, BUT the article said these will not occur at such dilution, and that agitation would counter the benefits of this method. So I'm kinda lost.

>never tried it, I've barely worked a few times with Rodinal. I'll first figure out what the dilution of Rodinal gives, I heard the best compromise of its characteristics (grain, sharpness,..) are at 1+50
I work with Rodinal (actually, Foma's R-09) all the time. Too cheap and too lazy to mix powders yet. :) I tried 1+40 and 1+100 so far, and settled for the latter. It compensates nicely, gives finer grain, and is not too time consuming.

BTW, could you post an unscaled cropped sample of>>30941? EI 3200 in Rodinal sounds like something you can count the grains on with your bare eye. =)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
R09 is almost exactly the same as Rodinal. I'll look into it when my Rodinal runs out some time, or I can't find it in shops anymore. I heard that Rodinal got "cheapened" halfway the previous century, and R09 should be better quality. I heard its more expensive, at least.

>>BTW, could you post an unscaled cropped sample of>>30941
Sure, see attach.

I developed the film for 33 minutes, agitating every 5 minutes. I only had banding once, when i developed TMAX 400 in ID11, and forgot about agitation suddenly.. about 90seconds not agitated, while I agitate every 30seconds usually.

>> It compensates nicely, gives finer grain, and is not too time consuming.
well, tri-x at EI 3200 takes one hour to develop in 1:100 :/
but well, it's interesting if the developer compensates more. My first push to 3200 was with ID11 and overdeveloped, it really sucked. in daylight, shadow detail was zero. even portraits in a nightly, medium-lit bar were poor.

Ah well I didn't like ID11 after all. either the weather around here was too dull and flat when I experimented with it, or it is just too low-contrast.

I've toyed with Fuji Acros, its lovely in Amaloco 74, but the S-shaped curve doesn't make it good for all-around photography. photos in very bright sunlight are way too contrasty. recently, I looked at my first film again (souped in ID11 by my local shop), and was amazed by the wide contrast range... much better details in the highlights/shadows.

>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
From what I read, R-09 is the original Rodinal formula from 18xx, which Agfa modified in some way (don't know if for worse or for better) after the original patent expired. Other companies continue with the old recepture. And at least here it's not cheaper by any means. I paid maybe 3,75 Euro for 250 ml Foma's R-09 bottle last year, while Agfa's was going for up to 10 times that. This was due to the hype over Agfa closing its chemical branch, but even normally it's ~3 times more expensive.

>Sure, see attach.
Nice, I expected it to be far more coarse. It seems less grainy than my nominally developed Pan 400, haha (see below). :) I never shot Trix, so can't compare.

Banding after 90 seconds is quite bad. In 1+100, I agitate 15 seconds every 2 minutes for the first half of the process, and every 4 minutes for the remaining time (10 seconds every minute throughout in 1+40). Never had a problem.

I'm quite curious about ID-11/D-76. I mostly only see it being praised for soft and compensated negs, though there are also some opposite opinions. But I'm not gonna get into powders before sorting out some real life stuff.

Speaking of contrasts, I have some Kodalith freezing, with its nearly straight vertical curve. :) Just waiting for the clouds to go away to shoot some tests.

>So, I got quite careful about tonality. good tonality is the way to go for good, balanced photography ;)
Haha, yeah, I learned that the hard way, too. :) Still learning, actually. But employing some very rough and simplified ZS did wonders.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
Oh lawd, field too long.

>Otherwise Anonymous, maybe post some photos of yours :)
Working on it. :) I'm too lazy to make web versions of all the scans sitting on HD in some timely manner.

But here's one from the series I'm doing currently. This (and the candle from not long ago - it either got deleted for unknown reasons, or something's very broken with the expiration algorithm) are both Ilford Pan 400 in 1+100, 23 minutes at 20 'C. Turned out somewhat more grainy than I expected, though this might be because I overexposed most frames. Gotta try Pan 100 one day, and leave 400 for when I actually want grain. :)

More to come, um, soon. :)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
>>I'm quite curious about ID-11/D-76. I mostly only see it being praised for soft and compensated negs, though there are also some opposite opinions. But I'm not gonna get into powders before sorting out some real life stuff.
ID11 is quite soft indeed. A few days ago I've bought HC-110, it's like ID11/D76 but liquid. I also get the feeling you can experiment much more with this developer (like much more dilution possiblities)

check http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html , this guy only agitates a few times with small tanks o:

development times were quite short, so 1-2 minutes of no agitation were visible. attching the only worthwhile photo from that film. the guy at my local lab, professional photoshopper in a previous life, perfectly touched up the photo and printed it :)

>>the candle from not long ago
mmm, probably removed because of all the flaming

interesting thread, one of those that makes /p/ worthwile. do you have a website, or some other medium so I can contact you?
>> Anonymous
>>31146
I endorse this picture
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>31174check http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html , this guy only agitates a few times with small tanks o:
Wow, that's interesting. I can't discuss as I've never used HC-110, but some of his general statements are quite opposite to what I've learned over time. No stop bath? AFAIK, even if you replace the solution with water, the developer absorbed by the emulsion still works. It can't be fully washed out during a 1 minute stop bath, and 1 minute can be fatal at such short developing times...

But I feel like trying it out after reading the article. :)

>attching the only worthwhile photo from that film. the guy at my local lab, professional photoshopper in a previous life, perfectly touched up the photo and printed it :)
Nice photo. Is this before of after touching up? I can see the streak on both sides of the couple, though I'd probably overlook them as shadows if I weren't specifically looking for them. :)

I once tried fixing uneven exposure caused by the shutter failing at below -10 'C, but couldn't get satisfying results.

>mmm, probably removed because of all the flaming
Removing the whole thread because two or three mildly flaming posts? Someone needs to loosen up a bit.

>interesting thread, one of those that makes /p/ worthwile. do you have a website, or some other medium so I can contact you?
Is e-mail ok with you? If yes, look for the address in the bottom left of 31146. Don't have a website yet, and doesn't seem I will any time soon. :)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
>>Is e-mail ok with you?
sure, but those letters are damn tiny :)

attaching a photo from downtown last night, on Tri-X and HC-110 solution B. taken through the glass doors.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
>>31286
I did my best to make them as unobtrusive as possible for regular viewing. :) Can you zoom the image, or something? I'd rather avoid typing it out.

>attaching a photo from downtown last night, on Tri-X and HC-110 solution B. taken through the glass doors.
Looks very nice, so smooth. I definitely want to try it, for a change from Rodinal's harsh grainy look if not for anything else. :)

Picture most definitely related. :)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
have a crop of the Tri-x in HC-110. I don't like it some way. Rodinal has a much nicer and sharper feeling. maybe shooting through the window somewhat degraded quality

I've used the B dilution because I needed the contrast (nighttime scenes are quite low-contrast). I'll try diluting more next time, that should give more sharpness and compensating effect

scan is with 8x oversampling and some curves and unsharp mask adjustments
>> Anonymous
>>31299
Unsharp mask hates America
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>31299
I think it's ok as far as the grain go. Though it's hard to say without comparing. Perhaps it's too soft. Rodinal, on the other hand, seems a bit too grainy for general use for me.

This guy has some interesting tests, no HC-110 though: http://stefanski.one.pl/~alkos/pixelpost/tests.html

I talked with an old photographer few days ago. He pointed out that Rodinal was designed for plates and sheet film, hence problems with grain on 135. Makes sense. :)
>> Anonymous
why are you listing your developer and film type if asking critiqe of your photos content
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>31476
it's for those who are interested