Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don Dory wrote: > Jeffery, > With scanners picking up any flaw in a negative I've found that I can not > afford to not use a hardening fixer. Just pulling a negative out of the > sleeve can leave enough of a scratch that I have to heal the wound before I > print it. Don, I always thought that the hardener only mattered while the negative was wet/damp. Once dried, it is hard again. I know Fomapan is so soft when it is wet that a hardener is recommended by many. I don't use one. I am just very careful with wet negatives. I haven't noticed anything once they are dry and sometimes they can really get held back in the negative sleeves by suction. But thanks for the warning. I'll keep my eyes open. > As to Rodinal, with the higher speed films I mostly use, Xtol 1:2 or 1:3 > works better magic for me. But I think that I will try Acros in Rodinal > 1:50 to see if I can get better tonality than I can with Xtol. I think > that > the increased edge effects will work to my advantage. I'll find out in the > next couple of weeks. Heresy, I will be using a tripod with an M and > modern > glass to see just what can be done on some abstract images with 35mm. I don't know ... Xtol 1:2 and 1:3 is pretty nice. Acros is also very nice right out of the box. Recently I've shot a couple with Rodinal, well, Calbe R09, the original "Rodinal". It is different, but I don't know how. Its standard dilution is 1:40 as an equivalent of 1:50. Last week's paw: http://www.dlridings.se/paw/2006/44.html But probably more significant (that is, Rodinal's contribution to the result), the portrait of Ewa: http://www.dlridings.se/paw/2006/41.html I don't think I'll use it for 35mm anymore. It is a bit too much of a good thing. Daniel