NSFW What film developer should i use?

Marino

Marino

Messages
491
Name
MARINO
Edit My Images
No
Hey all,

Only recently I learned from online sources that the film developer affects the grain and contrast of the negative.
My main criterion of choosing developer was the price.
After developing a few times i have different needs from a developer.
First is shelf life and second is yielding low/normal contrast and hopefully grain that’s not too harsh.
Can i have it all or do i have to compromise?
So far I’ve used Kodak d76 and ilford Perceptol. I’m happy with the results but i have a feeling these developers are expensive and shelf life isn’t the best(i read even opening the lid of the bottle it’s stored even affects the potency of the developer).
To be honest i haven’t noticed much difference (i haven’t compared side by side). But after looking online a video comparing developers one significantly increased the contrast, especially when diluted (rodinal i think).
What’s your thoughts?

Marino
 
Marino said:
But after looking online a video comparing developers one significantly increased the contrast, especially when diluted (rodinal i think).
Click to expand...
You may wish to consider using Rodinal for stand developing (AKA development to extinction). I've used this for a long time, when developing monochrome film. Here are three descriptions to start you off ...

andrewkaiserphotography.com

Tutorial: Rodinal Stand Development — Andrew Kaiser Photography

Buy some Rodinal and learn how to stand develop. Every photographer should learn how to do this at least once in their life.
andrewkaiserphotography.com andrewkaiserphotography.com

www.lomography.com

Lomography - Stand Development - Ode to Rodinal

Maybe I'm lazy, but standing around carefully timing out eight, twelve or whatever minutes makes me pretty antsy. If you feel the same way, this is for you - stand development is hassle free, just mix the chemicals, then go watch TV.
www.lomography.com www.lomography.com

Stand Developing Ilford FP4+ in Rodinal 1:100 – Bracket This Photography Blog

www.bracketthis.com www.bracketthis.com
 
I'm about to go out, so I'll write more later. Developers can be fine grain, acutance (makes things look sharper), or speed increasing. Each one is achieved at the expense of at least one of the other two qualities. I use Rodinal because I like the convenience of a one shot with a long shelf life (N.B. I'm still using Agfa Rodinal years on, not one of the modern equivalents, some of which have short not long shelf life).

Rodinal is an acutance developer, and not fine grain. I wouldn't personally use it with 35mm, but it's fine with 120 and sheet film.

This link gives a scan of a review of Rodinal from the first issue of Silverprint magazine, which you may find interesting.

Being lazy, I prefer a liquid rather than powder developer; and using large format, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference what I use. The only developer I've ever used that really did seem different in the results was the original Paterson Acutol when it first came out. The effects on the stone of my then parish church astounded me.

OneDrive

1drv.ms 1drv.ms
 
P.S. From memory there is a thread here which discusses developers. I'll see if I can find it later.
 
My favorites were ID11 (more or less the same as D76) for most stuff and Microphen for pushing faster films like HP5.
 
For shelf life and general all round goodness, given some of the Rodinal variants being quite flaky. your really should consider Kodak HC-110, or if unavailable the other versions, Ilfotec HC and Bellini's Euro HC. You can get more contrast with dilution B (1+31) and more evenness with dilution E (1+47). Grain usually well controlled. I bought my bottle of the Kodak in 2018, I'm about 2/3 though it, gone a nice orangy colour, and will be perfectly fine for another few years.

FX-39 II is really nice for some lower ISO films like FP4 and below, though I found the results with expired Acros 1 a bit TOO low contrast for my liking, switched to dilution E and loved it. Shelf life of FX-39 is more like a year or so though, AFAIK.

The only other developer I've used was Ilfosol 3, which I really liked, but despite adding marbles to the bottle I twice had it go off before I'd finished it.
 
Thanks very much all for the info, much more complicated than i thought.
Looks like i opened a can of worms.
.
.
@FishyFish thx that's a really good blog with loads of info.
.
.
StephenM said:
Developers can be fine grain, acutance (makes things look sharper), or speed increasing.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "speed increasing" Stephen? Is it like pushing a film when developing?
By the way i searched the forum but couldn't find anything, don't worry though I've gathered a lot of info so far.
.
.
@AndrewFlannigan thx for the info. I really like the lazy idea of developing with almost no agitation.
.
.
I found and watched this really informative video comparing Rodinal, HC110
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Me7KTkEou0&t=921s

Even agitation with the same developer seems to be affecting contrast:eek:
Rodinal looks like a good combo with slow speed films (like iso 100) and scenes where i need to pump the contrast.
Not so sure it looks good on high speed films though. I do not mind too much grain but high contrast puts me off.
Am i right to think Low contrast can be fixed easier compared to high contrast in the darkroom/scanning?
.
.
@ChrisR
thx! HC110 looks like a much better alternative to Rodinal with really good shelf life (year and a half says google).
.
.
I've learned a lot today
 
and then again after looking at this video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_TDCeOONoc

Looks like there's not really much of a difference in contrast...
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Anyhow, looks like i'm going for either rodinal or Bellini Euro HC. Instead of overthinking it at least i dont have to worry about having to throw away expired developer.
 
Last edited:
The simplest way I think of it, is ISO as measured at ISO standards ( thats confusing) will results in a particular density on the film when exposed to a a known amount of light
By an increase in speed it means we can shoot at a higher ISO and still get the density ( however these speed increases are usually only within 1/3 of a stop increase so not much to worry about)

Similarly when ppl talk of speed lost especially with Rodinal what they mean is when shot at box speed, even if the latent image is there, Rodinal wont develop up to the densitiy its meant to be in the shadows - then you start rating your film lower to give the shadows more light then adjust devlopment times as not to blow out the highlights. Althought you may not want to use the zone system reading up on it help think about these things

casualphotophile.com

Mastering the Zone System - Part 2: Film Testing

In part two of his Mastering the Zone System series, Cory dives into the process of testing film to determine correct film speed and dev times.
casualphotophile.com casualphotophile.com

I've had all the same considerations and took me a long time to pick one keep it simple and work with it for a while

If you dont want to use Rodinal look at 510 pyro ( I dont care for its staining properties) as its full speed and long lasting ( stains anything tho so best for darkrooms only - not white bathrooms!)

You can extend the economy of all your powder developers in different ways.

You can make D23 from two powder chemicals so effectively infinite shelf life
XTOL, Xt3 will last 12 months as a stock solution and you can always put it in smaller bottles for less air or try replenished
Ilford HC lasts forever

Dont tell the people over at other forums but I honestly dont think it matters, coming from myself who has spent too much time on this.

1. Try Rodinal : Shadows too dark then give more exposure, highlights blow adjust times, too grainy, lower speed film, cant lower speed then move onto

2. Kodak HC110 or equivalent, if it gives you want you want great!

3. Rinse and repeat

Now after all my waffling one of the best things you can do is pick a couple of films and 1 dev and learn to love it and understand it

or equally if you love trying new films then go for it, itll all look good in HC110

For LF all I use now is Foma 400 and Rodinal and for 35mm XP2 and send it off for c41 dev

Have fun! and at the end of the day similar to a conversation about 35mm the forum elsewhere no one will ever look at a picture and go " they should have used XTOL"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D76 (or ID11) is an excellent all purpose developer. It will give you great results with most films available on the market today, mostly because it's considered a standard and film's response is often measured by manufacturers using D76 as a developer - so many mainstream films have been tested to look good with it. Even the ISO definition of film speed (ISO 5800:2001) uses D76.

As for grain - you don't mention the film format you use. With 35mm, the choice of developer has an appreciable effect on grain presentation. The visible impact of developer on grain structure decreases, or is less visible at normal printing sizes, as you go up in negative size though. I regularly use Rodinal with my 6x6 negatives or bigger, and get almost invisible grain with 100 ISO film, and really minimal grain with 400 ISO. What really affects grain perception with larger formats is IME exposure and development errors: overexposure and overdevelopment can result in a noticeably 'grainier' negative.

Personally I would concentrate on one developer and learn it inside out with your film of choice. A much bigger effect on contrast is given by development time, rather than developer type. Experiment with development time all other variables being equal to reach a contrast optimum with your film and lighting conditions of choice.

If you wanted a alternative at all costs I'd go for a liquid, high-shelf life developer such as Adox Rodinal (which corresponds to the last Agfa Rodinal formula and keeps for ages without any particular care), which I personally prefer to use in 1:50 configuration, regularly inverted every minute.
 
Last edited:
@acrobatic_Citron thanks so much for the detailed answer. I will have to read again to understand a few things as I’m not familiar with a few terms. Need to read in the morning when my brain functions the best:thinking:
acrobatic_Citron said:
Now after all my waffling one of the best things you can do is pick a couple of films and 1 dev and learn to love it and understand it
Click to expand...
trypdal said:
Personally I would concentrate on one developer and learn it inside out with your film of choice.
Click to expand...
:agree:Yes that's the goal

trypdal said:
you don't mention the film format you use.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry i should have mentioned it from the beginning, i'm shooting 35mm. I have about 18rolls of bulk rolled film, kentmere 400. So not much choice in regards to the film.
So with the Developer i have at the moment (ilford perceptol) if i reduce the developing times (lower dilution) i should be getting lower contrast negatives?

Another question about contrast, since I've got all the attention of the film gurus here:banana:(which i really appreciate by the way).

DSC_0266_1.jpg
see the above wet print, if my negative had lower contrast (same exposure just lower contrast due to developing process),
Would it make it easier to print (in terms of dodging and burning)?
What i'm trying to say is there was a big difference in exposure times between the sky and the tree.
I had to expose the sky for about 35 secs and the tree only for 8 secs (to get the above result).
I just have a feeling (cant explain it) that a lower contrast negative would be easier to adjust than a high contrast negative.
Hope it makes sense, if not then i'd better stop posting and start taking more pictures:LOL:
 
Last edited:
Wayne mentioned ID11/D76. This is the standard developer, that it's said every black and white film made has to be adjusted to give good results with. You can get finer grain, but with a loss of film speed. Higher resolution, but with more grain etc. etc.

If you want to do a little more reading round, read The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop. If you just want a few snippets, look up Eberhard effect. As an associated aside, the Photoshop unsharp mask has it's origin in the unsharp mask technique used in the darkroom.

Acutance developers work by edge effects, and agitation reduces this. So Rodinal in a tank with continuous agitation means no acutance effect.

My own background: when I started, I used Johnson's Universal which came in what they called a "pactum" - a packet that cost 1/3d back in 1959. Then I moved on to Johnson's Unitol. "one ounce, one film, one use" - simples, as meerkats say. Discontinued, of course... During this time (1960s) I also used once or twice Acutol, Acutol S, Promicrol and Microphen. I think I may still have a tin of the latter in my darkroom. After a break with slides, I came back to back and white with a determination to only use a developer which a) came in liquid form, b) had a published formula and c) was one shot.

Both exposure and development affect grain - more = more in both cases. Reticulation if mild can appear to be grain.
 
If printing in the darkroom, you should be aiming to produce a negative that will print well on a normal grade of paper. Paper comes in different contrast grades (or multigrade, where the colour of the light is used to adjust contrast). You then have the problem of the number of different tones that the paper can handle. If you can find an old edition of one of Michael Langford's books, you'll see how much tonal compression takes place on the paper. From memory, I think it's also in mine. Alas, if you go further you may find that you can get better separation of highlight and shadow tones simultaneously with inkjet printing :exit:

If you have a very low contrast negative, and adjust with a higher contrast (harder) paper, you run foul of having a more restricted range of tones available. Low contrast negatives are easier to scan.

Characteristic curves for films stop at a density of around 3.0, not because they can't go denser, but because the darkroom papers can't handle this range of contrast.
 
www.talkphotography.co.uk

Advice on developer for B&W

I am about to start developing and scanning my own black and white films, but I am unsure which developer to go for. I will be mostly shooting Ilford FP4 and Acros 100, and want to keep grain to a minimum, with a nice range of tones and decent sharpness. I would prefer a liquid developer. Can...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Marino said:
Would it make it easier to print (in terms of dodging and burning)?
What i'm trying to say is there was a big difference in exposure times between the sky and the tree.
Click to expand...
To add to what Stephen has said above, something we need to do is understand paper is actually quite limited in the dynamic range it can print - from memory 7 stops, 5 grey and paper black and white so yeah scenes with sky and then dark shadows will always probably be a lot of burning. When you are ready read up on contraction and expansion but dont bog yourself down as it wont really matter for 35mm as all the frames will have widly vaying contrast

For your above print I'd perhaps look at split grade printing which will allow you to tackle the highs and lows at different contrasts, more control and will save you burning times
 
Your memory matches mine :) on the range. The contraction of tones as you go from subject to film to paper is frightening.
 
Only just seen this thread, but this is my tuppence... (and I agree with the pick one or two films and stick with them!)

I spent quite a bit of time with Rodinal, HC-110 and Ilfotec DD-X. I was very surprised how images came out depending on the film I was using and depending on whether I'd pushed it or not. Film format also makes a difference as grain is a lot less pronounced in larger formats (because you're scanning a physically bigger thing).

At 35mm for example, HP5 looks (to my eyes) complete garbage in Rodinal, ok in HC-110 and fantastic in DD-X. If I want a contrasty look though, I'll push a stop and dev in HC-110. If I want a "normal" look, I'll go DD-X. If I want to go silly, I can get excellent results from HP5 at 3200 in DD-X. In HC-110 the grain and contrast aren't as well controlled to the point of being (to my eyes) fugly.

Tri-X is by nature a more contrasty film, and by devving it in DD-X (for me) it removes the character, so I'll go HC-110 for all my Tri-X film. These are pretty much the only two black & white films I've tested exhaustively with the three developers mentioned.

I now have both DD-X and HC-110 in the cupboard. I reckon my HC-110 is probably 3 years old at least and is fine, so shelf life isn't a problem. DD-X needs more developer per tank (I use 1:4 dilution), and I shoot a lot of HP5 so I tend to go through this quite quickly, removing the issue of shelf life for me. It's roughly triple the price per film of HC-110 though, so not cheap at all, but well worth it to me.
 
@Marino - the diagram below has been doing the rounds on the internet for a while now. Perhaps it can give you a few more good pointers.

You mention you use Kentmere 400 in 35mm. Rodinal will have a very noticeable effect on the grain on this film in this format. You need to decide whether you like or not the sort of 'pictorial' effect you will get.

As much as I like Rodinal, I think it really shines with medium or large format (mind you - other people love it with 35mm - look for examples of street photography on TriX in Rodinal 1:25 for that classic gritty 'reportage' look).

For Kentmere 400 I prefer Xtol 1:1 (one shot) or sulphite developers (D23, D76, Thornton's two baths)

I think Kentmere 400 in D76 or ID11 1:1 is a great start. I'd settle on that and tweak times until (as @StephenM rightly suggests) you achieve optimal contrast for grade 2 paper printing.


kodak_developers.gif
 
Last edited:
Who designed that table, why would they have increasing going left, had to read it twice :ROFLMAO:
 
trypdal said:
truly annoying, I agree!
Click to expand...
Also, who conducted the tests, how were they conducted and assessed, who evaluated the results?

I think we should be told! ;)
 
I just looked at my Kodak Darkroom Dataguide book, and it listed the Kodak developers with verbal descriptions of speed, contrast and grain. ("Normal speed, higher than average grain, normal contrast" etc..)
 
Wow, I’m lost now…That’s too much information:p, you guys are really helpful. I think I’ll go over the information again to educate my self a bit more. But it looks like i have to adjust the way i shoot. Maybe try scenes with lower contrast instead of trying to compensate in the developing and printing process.
 
Don't get bogged down in the detail. In my very limited experience, there's not a lot of difference between different developers (and I can't say I've noticed much difference between different black and white films, except for grain either). I'd choose a developer based on convenience for you. In my case, that's a liquid one shot with long shelf life. You may have different priorities (such as cost).

If you develop according to the manufacture's instructions, being careful with time, temperature and agitation (all of which affect the result) you should be fine. I will throw in one complicating factor. Enlargers come with either condenser or diffuser heads (please no one complicate this with cold cathodes....). Colour heads will be diffusers. Diffusers give a lower contrast, and development time controls contrast, so manufacturers may specify the gamma that the development gives. Gamma is a measure of the contrast - needs to be higher for a diffuser enlarger. If you scan (which you aren't) higher contrast makes for more problems.

Contrast in the scene should rarely be a problem with black and white (with my subjects, it NEVER has been for me). In printing, never "snatch" a print because it looks dark enough. Give full development according to the instructions otherwise you get a dull flat print (been there done that more often than not myself). And the late Barry Thornton said that virtually everyone who came on his print workshops overdeveloped their films by 15% or so.
 
Marino said:
Hey all,

Only recently I learned from online sources that the film developer affects the grain and contrast of the negative.
My main criterion of choosing developer was the price.
After developing a few times i have different needs from a developer.
First is shelf life and second is yielding low/normal contrast and hopefully grain that’s not too harsh.
Can i have it all or do i have to compromise?
So far I’ve used Kodak d76 and ilford Perceptol. I’m happy with the results but i have a feeling these developers are expensive and shelf life isn’t the best(i read even opening the lid of the bottle it’s stored even affects the potency of the developer).
To be honest i haven’t noticed much difference (i haven’t compared side by side). But after looking online a video comparing developers one significantly increased the contrast, especially when diluted (rodinal i think).
What’s your thoughts?

Marino
Click to expand...
I have been around the photographic clock a number of times and decided that what you need is to standardise where you can. For film I develop everything in Ilford ID11 which when mixed and then stored in brown glass bottles has a shelf life of at LEAST one year. The last 500cc bottle I finished was closer to 2 years old.

ID11 or Kodak D76 are very much the same being formulated around the same time in the mid 1920's but the Kodak version is a shed load more expensive. Opening the bottle to pour out a smaller quantity for dilution will not affect the storage capabilities.

ID11 is a moderately fine grain developer and if used at the 1 to 1 dilution that Ilford suggest also gives you a mild acutance affect (sharpening) effect that Rodinal gives. I can print a 12x16 image using ID11 on virtually any B&W film with very little in the way of obvious grain. If you use a 'fine grain' developer the fine grain is obtained by a solvent effect by the developer softening the grain edges. You cannot tell this just by looking at a negative , it only becomes apparent with big enlargements and fine detail in the sky such as twigs on the a tree become slightly indistinct and a bit mushy (A bit like porridge.)

As for a compromise I would say ID 11 will serve you very well. It is a good all round developer for use by amateurs and professionals alike. Some of the pre mixed Ilford developers have a very short life once the bottle is opened. I am thinking of Ilfosol 3 which once opened will deteriorate in as short as 3-4 weeks.

I do like Rodinal diluted at 1-25 or 1-50 but the grain becomes very obvious and can destroy fine detail and in it's undiluted state it will last almost indefinitely. There was an anecdotal story that a bottle of the original Rodinal was dug up having been buried under rubble in Dresden, many, many years after the war finished and it was still perfectly usable. How true that is, I could not even hazard a guess, but I knowing that Rodinal when fresh is a pale colour and after a year it turns dark brown and possibly partly crystalize as well -but it will be OK.
Developing colour and B&W to give a standard (AKA good) result is down to accurate temperature and time. Keep them the same and you are 75% there. Don't mess around with different times/dilution/temps. It is doubtful that you will improve on the manufactures recommendations and they spend a lot of cash on getting them right.
 
Last edited:
trypdal said:
@Marino You mention you use Kentmere 400 in 35mm. Rodinal will have a very noticeable effect on the grain on this film in this format. You need to decide whether you like or not the sort of 'pictorial' effect you will get.
Click to expand...

Kentmere 400 can be really nice in HC-110 dilution E (1+47). This was taken at box with a Pentax LX and SMC Pentax M 135/3.5...

2310BPLXBW22 Horse.jpg


Not the greatest image but no serious grain, nice tonal gradations, AFAICS...
 
Rodinal said:
Ilford ID11 which when mixed and then stored in brown glass bottles has a shelf life of at LEAST one
Click to expand...

This is good to know - I feel one thing Ilford gets wrong is its too conservative with shelf life in trying to ensure ppl always get max results or cant blame the dev

6 months in full capped containers
1 month in a half full tightly capped container.
4 months in a deep tank with a floating lid.
1 month in a deep tank without a floating lid.

How on earth can a closed bottle even if half full have the same shelf life as an open tank!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the question was about developers…yes..And then something else…and then i forget.. and now I’m sat thinking i really should go out and take more pictures :wacky:
.
.
I’ll buy Bellini HC110, it doesn’t look like i can find the original Kodak. But apparently it’s the same as the original. On the plus side development times are in the massive dev app which is extremely handy. It also has times for pushing kentmere 400. Will be handy as i shot a full roll yesterday and used iso800 in the settings instead.
I’ve bought Bellini chemicals for the printing process in the past and had no complaints.

acrobatic_Citron said:
This is good to know - I feel one thing Ilford gets wrong is its too conservative with shelf life in trying to ensure ppl always get max results or cant blame the dev

6 months in full capped containers
1 month in a half full tightly capped container.
4 months in a deep tank with a floating lid.
1 month in a deep tank without a floating lid.

How on earth can a closed bottle even if half full have the same shelf life as an open tank!
Click to expand...
I started thinking about self like after reading the above, i didn’t want to take any chances with expired developer.
 
I'm concerned about you mentioning pushing film. Was this deliberate underexposure by a stop, or accidental?

Putting my inexperience cards on the table, exposing a film at at higher than box speed is underexposing it (unless you happen to know that your camera had slower shutter speeds than marked, or the apertures are incorrect (and yes, with large format lenses at least that can happen). And I have yet to see a book on film and development that says you can ever get more than about half a stop increase in speed by changing development/developers. There are ways of breaking this law by preflashing the film; there are intensifiers you can use to increase negative density to make printing easy/possible. But pure developer or change of development time/agitation/dilution? I don't say it can't be done; just that I haven't done, and find the theory that you basically can't persuasive. And that's not to say that having done it, a skilled printer couldn't salvage a linen (rather than silk) purse from the sow's ear.

Film speeds are determined by ISO by the exposure required to achieve a specific density in the negative for a specified subject. The development is carefully fixed to ensure a level playing field. Before the early 1960s, the ASA speeds had a safety factor built in, to allow for amateurs getting the exposure wrong. This was removed, and rated film speeds were doubled literally overnight by removing this. From then on, there was no margin for error...

Now step back even further in time, before all this scientific mumbo jumbo about "density of 0.1 above base and fog". Kodak originally set their speeds empirically. A series of negatives of the same subject, at all kinds of exposures from way above to way below, and made the best possible print from each negative. These were then assessed. As you might expect, an equally good print could be made from different exposures by a skillful printer, so what they did was look for the exposure that gave the best print that couldn't be distinguished from the next up in the exposure sequence. In other words, they set the film speed at that which gave the best print with the least exposure.

As a result, I've never risked pushing a film. Except once. The results were dire. I've seen pushed images on here and other fora, and to my eyes there is usually a loss of shadow detail (which is what one expects from the science) even if the contrast isn't excessive.

I'll now seriously contract myself by stepping into my real world experience of printing via scan and inkjet. I have two 5x4 negatives that are massively underexposed, to the extent that although I kept them, I was certain that they were developed while unexposed. I then saw one day by chance when holding one at an angle to the light that there appeared to be a very faint image, visible only obliquely. Out of interest, I scanned it. The resulting histogram shows gaps everywhere - not a continuous range of tones by any stretch of the imagination. But the scan did reveal an image, that gave a very flat, muddy toned but recognisable image. My moral from this is that if you step outside the darkroom, you can retrieve the irretrievable.

But I'm still concerned about rating film higher than box speed; I habitually rate FP4 at 80 to get negatives I like. Which might be inaccurate shutter speeds, my development methods, or meter error. Knowing all these things can affect the density, I'm happy with personal EIs (exposure indices) but don't regard this in the same light as pushing. I am, of course, effectively deliberately overexposing to get negatives I like.

Rant over. I'll go back to sleep and wait to be shot down for heresy.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, i hope it’s not going to end up an absolute catastrophe.
I couldn’t get a decent shutter speed (1/30 is the lowest i can go) and then changed the ISO on my nikon FM2 to ISO800. So yes it was deliberately underexposed.
I looked the article on the link below:
alysvintagecameraalley.com

Developing Adventures - Pushing Kentmere Pan 400 to 1600 - Aly’s Vintage Camera Alley

If your passionate about all things film photography and vintage cameras then you'll love Aly's Vintage Camera Alley. Here Aly reviews vintage cameras up to 100 years old. She shoots with color and black and white film and shares how to develop them at home. Check it out!
alysvintagecameraalley.com alysvintagecameraalley.com
I really wanted to shoot film yesterday and iso 400 was way too slow.
Well if the pictures don’t end up looking decent I’ll learn the hard way…
 
And if they do look decent, you'll have learned that I can be safely ignored :D

P.S. I'll look at the video. I usually don't bother much with them, preferring books.

But out of interest, I used PanF at 50 ASA all year round in the 1960s, only swapping to HP3 for dull weather sports. So I'm curious as to what people photograph that requires these high film speeds, as clearly they must be doing things I never considered.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
And if they do look decent, you'll have learned that I can be safely ignored :D
Click to expand...
I hope so, or else the model (my wife) is going to be extremely disappointed.
I felt like experimenting at the expense of my wife’s patience :LOL:
StephenM said:
But out of interest, I used PanF at 50 ASA all year round in the 1960s, only swapping to HP3 for dull weather sports. So I'm curious as to what people photograph that requires these high film speeds, as clearly they must be doing things I never considered.
Click to expand...
In my case i shoot indoors with a terrible low light lamp and I was simply too lazy to bring in more light.
I’ll update about the results even if it’s a disaster:exit:
 
Marino said:
I’ll buy Bellini HC110, it doesn’t look like i can find the original Kodak. But apparently it’s the same as the original. On the plus side development times are in the massive dev app which is extremely handy. It also has times for pushing kentmere 400. Will be handy as i shot a full roll yesterday an
Click to expand...
Well, my recent experience suggests things might not be as dire as Stephen suggests. I recently took 2 rolls of 135 Kentmere 400 at EI 800 and asked The Darkroom to push processing one stop (no time to dev myself, for, reasons...). I'm not saying the results are perfect, but not at all dire AFAICS. I'd happily do it again. HP5 seems to be a film that a lot of folk push to EI1600 and above; the results get quite contrasty (perhaps that means loss of shadow detail), but sometimes that's a reasonable trade).
 
Well it was one of these cases that i wasn’t too concerned about contrast grain or shadow/highlight detail. So I’m hoping it’ll be fine.
Tried to buy bellini yesterday but the postage is nearly the same price as the developer. I live in belfast and i only have wex photo. Bummer but I’ll just have to get over it and just buy it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top