Re: [Leica] Re: B&W film

["Bresler" <bresler@oeonline.com>]

Tom- Could you share your Divided-76 formula with me?  I've used Diafine
with T-Max 3200 for a 6400 push for years.  I've always liked the sharpness
and reasonable grain of that combo but I would like to try a 2-bath
designed for normal speeds.
Thanks---Bill Bresler

- ----------
> From: TTAbrahams@aol.com
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:  B&W film
> Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 11:37 PM
> 
> Richard, I have been using TRI-X since 1957 and probably developed it in
just
> about any configuration of chemicals available. I do a lot of playing
around
> with other films and somehow always come back to Tri-X. It is not a
perfect
> film, but it can always be printed. The Delta 400/Agfa APX 400/Neopan
400/HP5+
> are all very good films, but they cant really do anything that Tri-x
can't do.
>  I use a divided D-76 with Borax as an alkali developer in the 2nd bath,
cheap
> and very good, not to temperature sensitive and virtually impossible to
blow
> the highlights with overdevelopment. I have reduced the Sodium Sulphite
in the
> A bath down to 50gram/1000 ml as I find that this gives me a tighter
grain.
> Excess of Sod/Sulphite mushes up he grain. I tried FG-7 but didn't like
it for
> my shooting. 
>  The Tmax films are probably very good, but I have never gotten along
with
> them, they seem to be films for severely controlled light situation,
studio
> etc. In real life they tend to blow either the shadows or the highlights.
> Murder to print.
>  I use the Delta 100 for a lot of slow shooting, very good film and sharp
as a
> tack. Really shows off that expensive Leica glassware that we use.
>  If I were you I would pick up some 100 ft rolls of Delta/Agfa/Fuji/ even
Tmax
> and shoot some tests and try them in some different developers. if
nothing
> else it keeps you shooting for the fun of it and it is educational. Some
films
> work very well, the Delta 400 is nice and tightgrained, the Agfa APX 400
is
> too contrasty for me and the Fuji 400 is no match for the Fuji Neopan
1600
> rated at 800.
>  I have a standard test that I do on any film, I shoot it at
manufacturers
> rating and develop it in Rodinal 1: 100 for 20 min ( agitate twice/60
sec).
> This gives me an overall view of the film and what it can do. the Rodinal
> gives very sharp grain and reasonable contrast and printable negs. This
> establishes a baseline for further experiments. I will load up 4-5 rolls
in
> cassettes, each a different film, shoot them all in a very short time,
same
> camera, same lens and run them in the rodinal 1:100/20min. It is amazing
what
> differences they will show. It is also easy to extrapolate the correct
time in
> some other developer this way. If your Tri-X looks good in this soup (
and it
> will) any of the other films that needs more or less time can be adjusted
for
> use with the FG-7, by adding or subtracting time from your Tri-X times.
>  I do these tests about once a year, run through 6-7 different films, 100
feet
> of each, various developers, exposure indexes etc and then I normally sit
back
> and say" Well, the Tri-x is still my favourite and you cant go wrong with
D-76
> either" We might bitch at Kodak occasionally, but let us remember, they
also
> got somethings right and Tri-X is one of the things. Is it only me,or is
it
> something about Tri-X and Leica M's that is a particularly good match?
> Tom A