Lachlan717 wrote:As for testing technique, there are some big holes in your process (sorry to say).
Without spending ages on this point, here are some things to consider:
*Did you scan at the same settings (i.e. the same 0-255 points for each)?
*Different films perform differently in the same soup, just as the same film performs differently in different soups. This is where film testing comes in to play. If you're lucky enough to find a film/dev combo that works first time at box speed, you're set to go. However, many people find that box speed and actual speed for a given developer differ, often in the favour of slower ISO/ASA. Dev time also comes in to play here.This could be the reason for your DD-X results having what you see as better mid tone. You might need to drop your film speed down to, say, 80 from 100 with the D76 and Tetenal*. This, of course, will only be known if you can be bothered running the tests, and, even then, you might not see a difference based on your work flow, end printing type (wet/dry) and/or densitometer testing.
But, the most important thing here is that you have developed confidence in your processing ability! Once you know that your technique is sound enough to get consistent, satisfactory results, you can move in to fine tuning.
*The (previously hidden) photos and their information just appeared. I see now that there are different ISOs in play. I think that they've all produced images that hold good detail; the 64 seem to have better tones in the dark hole in the middle of the fruit, though.
Photomark wrote:Very interesting test , maybe it is not that scientific but that's not as important as the end result anyway and this does give you a good comparison.
Was this all done with fomapan100 film ? I have never used this film but wish to due to the price I can get it for
I would also have liked to seen it souped in FX39 developer as well.
All being said non of the examples you have given look bad , just different.
I had a BTZS kit for 4x5 developing but did not like it in any way , not only that I could put a similar system together from parts from Bunnings for around 10% of the price of a BTZS set.
I am using a thing called a MOD 54 that you can get on eBay that allow you to process 6 sheets of 4x5 in a standard Patterson 3 real tank.
I know the BTZS system is popular and a lot of large format users use them but I have always found them clunky and awkward to use and very prone to uneven development and I think a single film tank is far better, just my choice
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests