What's the best B/W paper you've ever used? ... Agfa? ... Ilford? ... Kodak? ... Fuji? (Page 5): But, you see, Dennis ... grain WAS a negative thing, if you get my drift ... Nowadays...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DennisC. wrote:

There was plenty of grain, decent lighting, shooting tight so you didn’t have to crop much and textures helped hide the grain. Grain was never looked at as a negative thing, it was amazing to be able to shoot in low light without using flash.

Seagull was a beautiful paper, a sales rep came to our school and demonstrated it, plus gave out free samples. I was using Ilford Gallery, but switched to Seagull after trying it, plus I think it cost less.

But, you see, Dennis ... grain WAS a negative thing, if you get my drift ...

Nowadays, with Digital - they call that Noise ... you have to shift with the times, I guess ...

Frankly ... I'd rather HAVE excessive grain than excessive noise ... in fact, there's FAR TOO MUCH NOISE - in today's music!!!!!

therwol Loc: USA

Chris T wrote:

Dennis ... no trouble with grain, using Tri-X pushed that high, huh?

Ah, I remember Seagull ... sort of a luster finish - right?

I used to push Tri-X that high in Acufine developer with little increase in grain compared with shooting it at ASA 400 and D76. It seemed to lose some of it's tonal range, but it would get the shot. Does anyone remember Kodak's 2475 recording film? It was rated at ASA 1600 and could be pushed to 6400. Salt and pepper grain. Used it only twice. Way too much grain for me. If I needed 6400, I'd figure out something with a flash.

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

therwol wrote:

I used to push Tri-X that high in Acufine developer with little increase in grain compared with shooting it at ASA 400 and D76. It seemed to lose some of it's tonal range, but it would get the shot. Does anyone remember Kodak's 2475 recording film? It was rated at ASA 1600 and could be pushed to 6400. Salt and pepper grain. Used it only twice. Way too much grain for me. If I needed 6400, I'd figure out something with a flash.

I started to mention recording film earlier, but felt I’d already hijacked this thread. My reaction was usually, “ping-pong ball grain.” It was hard to come by, but when I did I only shot @ 3200. I got usable images, but nothing worth saving beyond the next issue. It didn’t matter what I souped it in—‘76, Acufine, HC-110,—heck I even trashed a couple of rolls by experimenting with Microdol, and Rodinal.

I wish I had a couple of rolls for those who complain about noise at ISO 1600 with today’s DSLR’s.

Ahhh, the good ol’ days

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Acufine3200 wrote:

I started to mention recording film earlier, but f... (show quote)

Someone wrote earlier, about folks complaining at excessive noise at ISO 800 (actually, it might well have been you, Acu) and now you write pretty much the same thing about excessive noise at ISO 1600 ... all of which has prompted me to do another Topic Post on the excessive noise "ceiling" ....

I'd really like to know what ISO levels - continuously bring about excessive noise. With cameras today, now attaining ISO numbers in the millions - one has to wonder how far we can go with today's sensors, w/o running into noise levels, we find unacceptable ....

Microdol - for me ... always brought me some very fine-grained images, with Tri-X - shot at 400 ASA. It also worked well with Ilford HP-5, shot at 650 ASA.

When I found myself shooting with Plus-X, or Panatomic-X ... I always souped in D-76. It was just habit, I guess, after years of experimentation ....

therwol Loc: USA

Acufine3200 wrote:

I started to mention recording film earlier, but f... (show quote)

Well, I guess "we've" hijacked the thread. I still have some of those old negatives somewhere, but I don't feel like pulling out a million contact sheets to figure out which ones they are. I didn't save any prints. Not worth saving. I used Microdol quite a bit, even diluted to minimize grain. I can't say that it made a huge difference, but grain or no grain, Tri-X beat them all for the tonal range, and it just had a "look." I hated Plus-X for always blocking up the highlights, and I felt that the pictures I took with Panatomic-X just looked flat to me.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Acufine3200 wrote:

I started to mention recording film earlier, but f... (show quote)

Please don't feel like you're hijacking anything ... on my Topic Posts, Acu ... you are welcome to expound all you want to ... please feel welcome to do so ....

I appreciate the input ... makes me feel like my Topics are welcome, and rewarding to some ... and that's all that matters ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

therwol wrote:

Well, I guess "we've" hijacked the threa... (show quote)

Therwol ... if you mean, between you and Acufine ... don't sweat it ....

If you mean - between the three of us ... relax ... I can't hijack my own thread - now, can I?

Plus-X wasn't so good with highlights, was it? ... When I wanted something "medium speed" - most of the time, I found myself some FP-4 ... much more satisfactory.

Caranx Loc: Atlanta

Chris T wrote:

Caran .... now, you've brought up an interesting aspect, which I've also used as one of today's two Topic Posts ... does chemistry really affect the outcome?

If so, could you please let me know how?

Does Kodak Dektol affect Agfa paper differently than its own? ... Does Fuji chemistry affect Ilford paper differently than its own? ... If so, how?

Chris, I wish I could recall all that info but that was more than 40 years ago! I know I used D-76, Dektol, Ilford chemistry and anything I could get my hands on back then. Tried film developer on paper and experimented with different dilutions, additives and temperatures to create different effects. Had all that "research" written down but its all gone now...hurricane in '86. Only have a few prints from back then. Sigh

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Caranx wrote:

Chris, I wish I could recall all that info but that was more than 40 years ago! I know I used D-76, Dektol, Ilford chemistry and anything I could get my hands on back then. Tried film developer on paper and experimented with different dilutions, additives and temperatures to create different effects. Had all that "research" written down but its all gone now...hurricane in '86. Only have a few prints from back then. Sigh

Oh, what a shame, Caran .... see, now we all have computers, don't we? ... And with Cloud-based back-up services ....

So, even if another hurricane hits ... we always have off-site means to recover our data, once we have acceptable replacement hardware, if needed ...

It's all changed everyone's working habitat - so-to-speak .... sorry you lost all that when the hurricane hit ... you must have been devastated, at the time, huh?

D-76 and Microdol-X were/are Kodak's two fine-grain film developers (the latter, particularly) and Dektol was Kodak's paper developer ... still is ....

Ilford provided some top-notch films to compete with Kodak's Plus-X and Tri-X - in the form of FP-4 and HP-5 .... which were said to have had greater latitude when developed in their own film developer - which, for the longest time - was quite hard to come by ... so, most still used the Kodak film developers on Ilford's films ....

But, as you've so well pointed out, minor changes could be made in push and pull processing, by alternative dilutions .... and this can still be done, today ....

freddusel Loc: Nashville

Oriental Seagull

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

freddusel wrote:

Oriental Seagull

Did you prefer the Lustre finish, Fred, or the Matte?

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

Chris T wrote:

But, you see, Dennis ... grain WAS a negative thing, if you get my drift ...

Nowadays, with Digital - they call that Noise ... you have to shift with the times, I guess ...

Frankly ... I'd rather HAVE excessive grain than excessive noise ... in fact, there's FAR TOO MUCH NOISE - in today's music!!!!!

I didn’t mind the grain, since it was 35mm. When I made the switch to commercial work, most of it was done on medium and large format, no more grain issues.

Digital noise can be a problem, although it can help some images with texture or banding issues. I use it now and then when restoring old photos.

I agree that today’s music is a lot of noise, now I sound like my parents. Seems like a lot less talent today than the 60s, 70s & 80s music.

freddusel Loc: Nashville

I used matt about 20% of the time and luster for the remainder. I now print exclusively in carbon transfer and no longer expose under an enlarger.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DennisC. wrote:

I didn’t mind the grain, since it was 35mm. When I made the switch to commercial work, most of it was done on medium and large format, no more grain issues.

Digital noise can be a problem, although it can help some images with texture or banding issues. I use it now and then when restoring old photos.

I agree that today’s music is a lot of noise, now I sound like my parents. Seems like a lot less talent today than the 60s, 70s & 80s music.

It's this switch to digital encapsulations, and away from real band use. Bands created a live feel to the music, even when they recorded in studios.

Nowadays, everything's done with synthesizers, and computers. It's cheaper than hiring session musicians, and paying royalty fees to each participant.

But what you wind up with - in most cases - with folks who really don't know what they're doing - is - just - a lotta noise. Yesterday's music was more simple.

Digital noise is ALWAYS a problem ... there's so damned much of it, in almost everything I shoot. I am overly noise-conscious, now, and see it in everything.

How do you actually USE digital noise, Dennis ... in restoring old photos .... I don't get it ....

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Caranx wrote:

Chris, I wish I could recall all that info but that was more than 40 years ago! I know I used D-76, Dektol, Ilford chemistry and anything I could get my hands on back then. Tried film developer on paper and experimented with different dilutions, additives and temperatures to create different effects. Had all that "research" written down but its all gone now...hurricane in '86. Only have a few prints from back then. Sigh

Yeah, I lost my logbook in the hurricane of 1979, otherwise known as my first divorce.