[pure-silver] Re: Film In Dektol

  • From: mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:41:13 -0700

Tim maybe a bit, but when I compared Dektol to D76 I was surprised at how many of the different ingredients were common to both.  Everyone's idea of good is a different, but with a well exposed and sharp image to begin I am often surprised with the modern films and paper the results 35mm can produce.  It's not the right tool for every job, but every time I think 35mm is a thing of the past, something seems to remind me of its biggest advantage.  It's mobility allows images in places and times that would be very difficult if not impossible to get any other way.  A great image you can only enlarge to 11x14 or maybe even 16x20 is far better than missing it with another format. In my personal situation the biggest limiting factor usually is between the ears of the idiot pushing the shutter button.

Yes I have a 4x5 but I find I rarely use that.  I don't take the 2 1/4 out that often either because the gear I have weighs a friggen ton and it slows me down.  The older I get the more respect I have for those past that carried their darkrooms and cameras on the backs of mules to get those priceless images from days gone by.

I am beginning a project that will involve using every format camera I have every two weeks for a period of a couple of months.  I want to see how forcing myself from using the same thing all the time affects my overall outlook on my work.  I figure making myself use my 4x5 would slow me down and make me think and plan ahead better when automation and other aids like roll film tend to make one work quicker.  I want to see how the 6x6 format changes my perspective when using other size films.  I have a 35mm with no meter, and that has to be used with only exposure estimates.  Yes I have a handheld meter and it works great but what fun would that be. 

After a few months, I plan to do something like this in the darkroom.  Some way to push myself in new and different directions.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Film In Dektol
From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 11, 2009 8:07 pm
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:24 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Film In Dektol
>
>
>> Last week I needed to do a quick test on a bulk film loader I've owned
>> for years but never used before (I almost never shoot 35mm). I loaded
>> a 10 exposure cartridge of Ultra 400 (which I'd also never used) and
>> exposed it at ASA 200. However, I didn't much feel like doing my normal
>> film development since my sink was full of trays for print processing at
>> the time. So ... I decided that, for my purposes, I could just develop
>> it in Dektol. I dug around and found a suggestion of 90 seconds @ 68F
>> so that's what I did.
>>
>> I just finished making a print from this and I'm really surprised.
>> I figured that the Dektol would be overkill, really grainy, and generally
>> just wrong for the film. I was, um ... wrong. The print looks *really*
>> good - at least technically - it was just a test shot of no particular
>> artistic merit. The grain is very restrained and the acuity - at least
>> at 8x10 - is more than adequate. With *very* careful exposure and
>> processing, I've gotted usable 11x14s from 35mm, but this makes me want
>> to experiment more to see what I might be able to get out of Dektol.
>>
>> So, what say ye? Have any of you gotten good film results with Dektol?
>> Am I just getting better-than-expected results because Ultrafine 400 is
>> some magic emulsion heretofore unknown to me?
>> --
>
> Many years ago, when newspapers still used large format film it was
> common to develop film in print developer. This was usually Kodak D-72,
> about the same as Dektol. The reason was simply that one didn't need two
> set ups for film and prints. The film used was nearly always
> orthochromatic so the common red safelights worked for it as well as
> paper. Kodak used to give developing recommendations for D-72 for press
> films. The main problem with it is that its so active that the
> developing times tend to be very short. It should be used in trays with
> constant agitation to avoid uneven development. Actually, the short
> development time was an advantage in press work.
> Dektol is probably not the ideal film developer but its no grainier
> than Rodinal, maybe less.
> c.1943 development recommendations for press films were:
> Dilute 1:1, with no agitation develop about five minutes. With agitation
> for about four minutes. For less contrast dilute 1:2.
> There are charts showing development time vs: gamma and temperature
> for several films of the time. The gammas are generally much higher than
> would be used now, i.e., greater than 1 where modern negatives are
> usually developed to gammas of around 0.6 to 0.8. Development times are
> around 90 seconds to three minutes. Keep in mind that many older films
> required substantially longer development times than modern films.
>

I wonder if the shorter dev times contribute to less visible grain.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: