Re: [Leica] B&W technique

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@email.msn.com>]

Dear Erwin,
I am shocked to find myself in disagreement with you. I have always regarded
your comments and advice with awe. They have influenced some of my
purchases, and I have been pleased to find you were right.
However, my experience with Rodinal does not jibe with your comments about
its large grain structure and inability to exploit the quality of Leica
lenses. I do think it should not be used with films faster than 100 ASA
because it does cause increased grain clumping in faster films. Ansel Adams
mentions this fact, and my own experience reinforces it strongly. I once
accidently process a roll of T-Max 3200 in Rodinal, and it looked almost
reticulated. What a mess. But with APX 100 developed at 20 degrees C. for 17
minutes you get a lovely negative that shows Leica lens quality at its best.
Stunning. I did some work for an artist, and she just started at the photos
in shock, amazed at thier overall quality. No visible grain. Long smooth
tonal scale, and a myriad of clealnly represented detail. Lovely. Even those
who don't normally "register" when looking at photos are knocked out by tje
results.
But, I know others get great results using a wide variety of products, so
I'm all for diversity of practice and opinion.
Sincerely
Joe Stephenson
- -----Original Message-----
From: Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 2:59 PM
Subject: [Leica] B&W technique


>Several topics on B&W technique popped up on the LUG.
>First of all the best films/developer combo's.
>Some Luggers advice Rodinal for several filmtypes. Well Rodinal is good,
>but its large grain reduces the capability of Leica lenses to render
>extremely fine detail. Its qualities for generating a long tonal scale are
>easily matched by Xtol or others. So forget about Rodinal. It is not good
>for Leica images.
>As mentioned before: the developer of choice nowadays is Xtol or Paterson
>FX39.
>These developer formulae are designed to exploit modern film/lens
>combinations to the full.
>NEVER push B&W films. It may help capture an impossible shot. But the iron
>rule is this:
>if ISO100 is too slow, use ISO 400, if that is not enough use D3200 or TMZ
>with an EI of 1200 to 1600. Above that everything is just myth and personal
>experiemce.
>The best low speed films are  still APX25 and PanF-Plus, very closely
>followed by D100 and TMX, trailed by APX100. APX25 and PanF+ need some
>training to get best results.
>At ISO400 the d400 is excellent as is XP2Super and CN400.
>The PlusXpan is a very charming film: fine but gritty grain, high acutance
>and a very nice look of the '50s. For moderate enlargements (20x25cm) very
>very good.
>The story on presoaking has never been proved scientifically. My own tests
>(densitometer etc) indicate that the whole issue of presoaking is marginal.
>If any result at all if falls within statistical margins of randomness.
>
>The choice of film is maybe less important than the care of matching
>exposure  and developing technique. I did a study of many  different films
>in many different developers and repeted many combinations over the years.
>Results were not always consistent as environment parameters changed.
>It is only valid to make conclusions after many months of using a
>particular film/developer/exposure combo and many small variations of
>paramaters to make sure small differences do not get overproportiate
>attention.
>Do not believe all the claims about special developers and secret formula.
>Chemics is a very straightforward topic.
>Extensive studies have proved that variations in developer chemistry have
>small effects on the total result.
>There is no holy grail here. Just solid experimentation and scientific
sense.
>
>Erwin
>
>