HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

alexmav
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:55 pm

HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Post by alexmav » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:56 pm

I've already tested developing HIE with T-Max, Rodinal and D-25 (as described in Anchell's Cookbok) but with very grainy results. I am told HC-110 may help but would appreciate any suggestions from the forum on a FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER for Kodak's HIE.
Many thanks!
Alex


Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:07 am

alexmav wrote:I've already tested developing HIE with T-Max, Rodinal and D-25 (as described in Anchell's Cookbok) but with very grainy results. I am told HC-110 may help but would appreciate any suggestions from the forum on a FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER for Kodak's HIE.
Many thanks!
Alex
D-76 used at full-strength works very well, also Paterson Aculux which is a liquid fine-grain developer.
A good book on the subject is "Infra-Red Photography" A Complete Workshop Guide by Hugh Milsom. Kodak HIE is an inherently coarse grained film, but one that I like very much.

Fotohuis
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:25 pm
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Fotohuis » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:20 am

If you want to try a liquid ultra fine grain developer: CG512

Here is the data:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie ... ltabel.pdf

HIE E.I. on iso 100.
CG512 works on 24 degrees C. and is also sold under Rollei Low Speed developer.
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"

http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/

alexmav
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by alexmav » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:52 am

Thanks folks! The book's already with Santa's Xmas list and I will give Rollei's LS a go. Any ideas on Tetenal's Ultrafin Plus? I am told this might do the trick too.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Post by Ornello » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:55 pm

alexmav wrote:I've already tested developing HIE with T-Max, Rodinal and D-25 (as described in Anchell's Cookbok) but with very grainy results. I am told HC-110 may help but would appreciate any suggestions from the forum on a FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER for Kodak's HIE.
Many thanks!
Alex
This film is not nearly as grainy as thought, if developed much less than Kodak recommends. Try cutting the time in half or even less.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:56 am

Avaliable on this site, We have had a graet deal of success with our Clayton F 76plus Developer.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:23 pm

Lowell Huff wrote:Avaliable on this site, We have had a graet deal of success with our Clayton F 76plus Developer.
I just wonder if Clayton F76 cures cancer.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:47 pm

Mr. Ornello:
No, our chemistry does not cure cancer, nor does it cause cancer. It may just be that our developer formulas are the best thing since sliced bread. Your nay saying and discounting, to the contrary, proves nothing. I have not said that you are a bad person or your preferences are inferior; only that down through the years, in a variety of conditions, we as chemists, know what we are doing. I have not seen where scientifically, you can show the contrary.
If you can prove differently or are afraid to try; that is another issue. I would much prefer to have you as a friend than otherwise, may i send you a sample to test?

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:25 pm

Lowell Huff wrote:Mr. Ornello:
No, our chemistry does not cure cancer, nor does it cause cancer. It may just be that our developer formulas are the best thing since sliced bread. Your nay saying and discounting, to the contrary, proves nothing. I have not said that you are a bad person or your preferences are inferior; only that down through the years, in a variety of conditions, we as chemists, know what we are doing. I have not seen where scientifically, you can show the contrary.
If you can prove differently or are afraid to try; that is another issue. I would much prefer to have you as a friend than otherwise, may i send you a sample to test?
Do not mistake seasoned scepticism for insolence. Your statements could be seen to be merely self-serving endoresements of your own products.

I have used numerous developers in my 42 years in photography. Most differ only in the subtlest ways, except for Rodinal, which is horrid stuff. In other words, with correct technique, one will see only very subtle differences. Far more important is the quality of the negative material itself.

If you told me that Clayton F76 is better than Rodinal, I would believe you, because everything is better than Rodinal, even cat urine. If you swear it's better than D-76, I would ask "In what way is it better"? Most developers offer trade-offs of various kinds, and thus there is no such thing as a "best developer".

I do endorse Paterson developers, even though I have no connection with the company, and in fact dislike dealing with them. The designer of the Paterson developer line, Geoffrey Crawley, just happens to be a genius. Unfortunately, the products are poorly promoted and distribution is rather spotty.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:48 pm

mR. ORNELLO:
I am familiar with the Paterson formulas. I am certain that you will find ours to match up very favorably. If you " dislike" dealing with them, then i know you will be very pleased dealing wiht Jon @ Digital Truth and us.

Ornello
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:05 pm

Lowell Huff wrote:mR. ORNELLO:
I am familiar with the Paterson formulas. I am certain that you will find ours to match up very favorably. If you " dislike" dealing with them, then i know you will be very pleased dealing wiht Jon @ Digital Truth and us.
The reasons I "dislike dealing with them" were described above:

"Unfortunately, the products are poorly promoted and distribution is rather spotty."

I understand that the manufacturing plant to which they contracted production of their developers has been closed, but that they shall be producing developers again soon from a different source.

That said, I remain a loyal customer.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:46 pm

Might i suggest that you offer your loyalty to someone who wants and can earn it! Not leave you with "spotty' support.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:38 am

Lowell informed me that Clayton offered to produce Paterson`s photo-chemicals for them, but the offer was declined.
Champion Photo-chemicals have recently bought the former Kodak Chemical Plant in France, so I would guess that this will make the shipping cost to the UK lower.
I agree that the marketing and distribution of the products need a radical improvement.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:55 am

Lowell Huff wrote:mR. ORNELLO:
I am familiar with the Paterson formulas. I am certain that you will find ours to match up very favorably. If you " dislike" dealing with them, then i know you will be very pleased dealing wiht Jon @ Digital Truth and us.
Lowell, as you are familar with Paterson`s formulas, which are the main developing components used in Aculux, Acutol and FX-39?
I don`t expect you to state formulae, but the MSDS`s on the Paterson website are very sparse and it would be nice to know whether they are MQ, or PQ etc. At least you state that Clayton F-76 Plus is a PQ formula.
I realise that how a developer is formulated is much more important than which actual reducing agents are used, but it would still be nice to know out of personal curiosity.

Lowell Huff
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
Contact:

Post by Lowell Huff » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:53 pm

Hello Kieth:
The formulas were given to me in confidence. As an ethical person and manufacturer, I must respect that confidence.

Post Reply