[Jmaster5]

Rodinal is amazing with low-speed film, but with higher speed film I've noticed I don't get the results I like. It makes grain more noticeable, which sometimes isn't the look I want. It's a developer capable of producing amazingly sharp negatives, which also enhances grain.

I use D-76 for higher speed film (400+) and Rodinal for lower film (200-). I love the look of Fuji Acros developed in Rodinal, pushed slightly to ISO 125 or 150. Great contrast and sharpness.

I did notice when I used it on some ILFORD 125 I think it was and some ACROS 100 the results were quite nice but that was my third batch with Rodinal so I wasn't sure if it was my technique or not. But it makes sense that with ISO 400 like you said might not be ideal. I did notice that the Rodinal was more precise in the amount of grain you get based on how you treat it during the rotation of the tank. So far I have tried ILFOSOL and it was ok and Rodinal I like it but I have to be careful with it and the TMAX which is like easy to use and works well with the 400. So maybe I have found the solution - thanks Rodinal for the lower ISOs and TMAX for the higher ones.

---------- Post added 30th Sep 2010 at 23:36 ----------

Cool car. You should try a wet print, at least in order to determine your personal preference. Its impossible to show what they look like from scans as scanners' D-ranges are too small. Detail is sublime, as there are no pixels. It keeps you off the computer, and it means you have a permanent print (provide you wash it). Aesthetically, I find making prints of my new baby very satisfying, bringing me closer in the whole process, making it feel a little bit more like an art. However, I am also using a digital to placate family who want military mug shot documentation.

All you need is a tank for processing (3), an enlarger (5) with lens (15) and timer (free, its part of the enlarger), and a print drum (15) with some rollers (10) and washer (5). Prices are in brackets, enlarger lens is a Nikkor 50/2.8, which cleans the floor with any scanner. Its all I have (no trays, but development of prints is to finality) and the drum is a (Jobo 2830) a life saver, meaning I don't have to work in the dark, there is less smell, and the processing is quicker. I don't muck around with contrast after having established the settings for a roll, I just print everything the same, and rely on my ME exposure meter being consistent. It takes about an hour to process the film (clearing the purple dye from Tmax is a pain) and about 15 minutes for 4 prints. (The Jobo does 4 5x7's at the same time) To get going, I got hold of Hicks and Schultz black and white book which covers the essentials. Its good fun, but I've not tried colour and that looks more tricky. I'm simplifying a little here...but its all quite intuitive, and I have found loads of help online, in clusters of afficionados, like Apug.

I just got rid of my scanner, as I found I could identify potential prints more easily from the negatives on a lightbox, which is also a good idea. Scanning takes a long time to do correctly, and my hit rate is so poor (maybe only 4-8 shots at best per roll of 39 frames are keepers for me) that scanning for me makes little sense. If I need to document stuff, I shoot digital, if I am looking for an arty print, its film and I process and print it. Family appear to like homemade prints as presents, at least so they pretend.

Give wet printing a try...its not advertised as the next big thing as there is no money in it, no "conspicuous consumption" or obsolescence designed in. And if you want more sharpness, some of this kit will process larger negatives at a later date...I can smell a 645 or 67 on the horizon.

Awesome! Thanks and I do the same thing these days. Even though I have an awesome K7 which I love, I don't use it much unless the job requires it like documenting etc... but I pretty much always grab my film now a days. When I got back into it I was primarily interested in just developing my own film and using the scanner but a friend of mine just recently purchased all the equipment for printing to paper so that might very well be the next thing I dabble in Right now I only process black and white and I plan on trying color processing soon. I am currently in love with Ektar 100 that stuff is beautiful hmm - hope you have a great weekend and thanks for the information.

[Jmaster5]

Hey guys a friend just emailed me this link. Anyone tried this yet? (Kodak Portra)

Kodak Porta 400 Film Made Exclusively for Scanning -- Not Printing

[artobest]

Good post, hoojammyflip, but I'd like to correct you on a couple of points.

First, the density range of pretty much any decent scanner far exceeds that of photographic paper - around 3.4-3.6d compared to only around 2.0d (and that's on a logarithmic scale), so you should have no problem capturing all your tones in a scan.

Secondly, there are no pixels in an inkjet print either - there are ink dots, but these are a) smaller than the naked eye can see (on a good machine), and b) subject to dot gain on the paper, which often creates something as near to continuous tone as makes no difference, especially on matte papers. (Of course, dye sublimation prints actually are continuous tone, but few people would make great claims for them.)

Lastly, wet prints are very far from archival - ask any photo restorer, or read Ctein's book Digital Restoration to discover the many and varied ways that photographic prints can fade, tarnish, discolour, delaminate and crack. Pigment-ink prints on acid-free paper are considerably more archival, partly because they are never at any stage immersed in chemicals.

A real silver print is a beautiful thing - especially contact prints of large-format negatives. But there's no need to oversell them. If your goal is a real 'arty' print, then you can get greater colour depth and finer tonal control, as well as better perceptual sharpness, using Photoshop, a semi-pro inkjet printer and a supply of nice paper.

[whojammyflip]

Artobest, nice website. Some really interesting stuff there. Yeah, maybe I was a bit too enthusiastic with my post, and I would like to add that I am also a newbie to this, so as with any other piece of information from the web, the value of someone random's personal opinion is limited.

I did not know that about modern prints and longevity. I really thought my variable contrast MG IV would last longer. I have tried printing out B&W prints on my Canon MP540, and they look very flat and lifeless. Its my guess you are talking about a whole different ball game, with professional quality scanning and printing.

It also sounds like you might be talking about colour prints, which I know absolutely nothing about. In fact, I went through the whole bit of shooting a proper grey card and then trying to print colour out, and in the end I came to the realisation that a photograph is just a representation of what we see...balancing colour is tricky thanks to the fact its going to end up on a different material reflecting light back at us. The change in texture has an impact on this process. I just came to the conclusion that B&W was more pure for me. I shoot gaudy colour stuff for the folks who look at them through randomly colour balanced screens, but personally prefer the abstraction of B&W. Bright colours are nice, but become a distraction if they are not spot on for me.

Re my slating of scanners: My old V300 could not resolve anything beyond 30lp/mm. My Nikkor enlarger lens lays out much finer detail. Another thing, the V300 scanner emphasises "grain" more, and I believe its something to do with the "callier effect" around the grain which makes it looker larger than it is from a diffuser enlarger. I guess there is scanning and there is scanning. Looking at reviews of Imacons, it seems that they are likely to produce far better prints than a lowly V300.

---

Last edited by whojammyflip; 10-01-2010 at 05:48 PM.

[John Poirier]

Interesting discussion, artobest and hoojammyflip.

I agree with many of artobest's comments, with two exceptions.

1. The archival qualities of "wet" prints. Properly fixed, washed and stored black and white prints will last a very long time. That includes most RC papers. The sort of things Ctein restores (in blakc and white) are a result of failings in processing or storage, not due to inherent vices of the materials. Colour prints and films are a can of worms of a different colour.

2. A truly excellent black and white print will equal the tonal depth and sharpness of a digital print. However, I find it much easier to get there digitally- and the results are far more repeatable.

There is no question in my mind that digital is the way to go for colour printing.

I'm enjoying hoojammyflip's enthusiasm for the darkroom. It is quite a magical process. If you have the energy it's well worth pursuing simply for the pleasure of it.

You're right, there is scanning and there is scanning. There is image editing and there is image editng. There is printing and there is printing. You shouldn't dismiss the digital process because as a beginner you've been unhappy with results. At this stage you don't even know what you don't know, if you know what I mean.

Whether you are working in the darkroom or digitally, there is no substitute for a thorough understanding of what you are doing. That is what really makes professional quality, not specific pieces of equipment.

One step toward being a professional or a skilled amateur is developing the ability to stand back and assess your own knowledge level, then systematically fill in the gaps. Doing so has been one of the more rewarding aspects of my photographic career.

John

[artobest]

Spot on as usual, John. Great results can be achieved in any medium with care and effort.

Many of us learned our craft in the darkroom, and that experience is invaluable in learning to use and appreciate the tools available to us in the digital realm. One example is local tonal adjustment. In the darkroom, such things were often heart-pounding exercises in precision timekeeping and fine muscle control. How much easier it is now, and yet, for me at least, no less rewarding.

PS thanks for the kind words, hoojammyflip. Keep an eye on the site; I think it will get even more interesting quite soon.