Historical Film Brands With Common Manufacturer

Alan Clark said:
If semi- stand development gives you the results that you seek, then of course you should keep doing it. When I tried it, I did it in a direct comparison test with the method I have outlined above. Developer was Pyrocat HD. And I could see no difference in the finished prints. So I no longer do semi-stand. And I no longer use Pyrocat HD because I can't easily get the raw chemicals like I used to be able to do. I don't find this a handicap because other comparison tests showed me that ID11 diluted to 1+2 or 1+3, and Perceptol diluted 1+3 gave results that were every bit as good -almost identical in fact- to Pyrocat HD.

Alan
Click to expand...

I've also gotten really good compensating effects from D-23 1:1, again with semistand. I think the larger truth here is finding something that works and works consistently is more important than trying every single little variation on a theme.
 
Here’s a thought.
Few of the H&D curves I’ve seen have uniformly straight portions. Changing exposure will move the mid-tones (or any other part of interest) onto a more desirable portion.
I haven’t checked this experimentally so it may be nonsense, but it seemed plausible.
 
David M said:
Here’s a thought.
Few of the H&D curves I’ve seen have uniformly straight portions. Changing exposure will move the mid-tones (or any other part of interest) onto a more desirable portion.
I haven’t checked this experimentally so it may be nonsense, but it seemed plausible.
Click to expand...


It depends on where you are starting. If your midtones start down in the knee, yes, increasing exposure would move them to a better place. But if they are well distributed in the first place with, say, Zone V, being about in the middle of the curve, increased exposure will move them up, but not change much about the inter-zone spacing. That's because the straightest part of the "curve" (log-log wise) is in the middle.

Again, I think people should find the process that works for them and their way of seeing. Whether it is theoretically justified is more-or-less irrelevant so long as they get the results they want. It's far less important to be accurate than to be consistent.
 
Ian Grant said:
Adox CHS II is an entirely new emulsion it's not based on the EFKE (or original Adox) films, however it's designed to have similar characteristics. It's a much better film.

Ian
Click to expand...

One (rather late) followup here: The Efke 100 was actually ASA 200 daylight as you (or someone else here) pointed out. Given Adox CHS 100 II is a new film intended to be similar to the Efke, should I take its nominal ASA to be 100 (my guess is "yes") or is it such a faithful reproduction of the Efke that it's daylight speed really is 200?
 
Adox CHS II is an entirely different emulsion to the old EFKE films, Adox/Fotoimpex give the Daylight ISO for their films.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top