HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?
Moderator: Keith Tapscott.
HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?
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
Many thanks!
Alex
-
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
- Location: Plymouth, England.
Re: HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?
D-76 used at full-strength works very well, also Paterson Aculux which is a liquid fine-grain developer.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
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.
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.
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/
http://www.FotohuisRoVo.nl
http://gallery.fotohuisrovo.nl/
Re: HIE; NEED A FINE GRAIN DEVELOPER, ANY SUGGESTIONS?
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.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
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
- Contact:
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?
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.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
- Contact:
The reasons I "dislike dealing with them" were described above: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.
"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.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
- Location: Plymouth, England.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
- Location: Plymouth, England.
Lowell, as you are familar with Paterson`s formulas, which are the main developing components used in Aculux, Acutol and FX-39?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.
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.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA 90061
- Contact: