Gast Hey Mirko, What do you recommend for EFKE KB25 at 25 ASA with studio flash lighting? A49 or HRX2? Cheers Robert Robert Van Brustum[EMAIL] robert@vanbrustum.be[/EMAIL]
MirkoBoeddecker Robert, HRX2 isn’t on the market yet. Everything we know has come from Spur. At our stand at Photokina, he will be showing photos and will be on hand to answer questions. The old HRX wasn’t ideal for Efke. It was a perfect developer for HP5 and similar films. The new one is better, but probably still best suited to HP5. I haven’t had a chance to try this developer yet. So, at this stage, A49 is still my personal developer of choice. The times in our guide are a bit too short because many people were overdeveloping the film. If you have perfect conditions in your studio, you can use 5 minutes instead of 3, but it’s best to do a test first. I can also recommend R09 because it produces sharper and more brilliant results (though with more grain too). Regards, Mirko
Gast Thanks Mirko, I use the KB25 (at 25 ASA) mainly in the studio with flash lighting. My development times for A49 1+1: - 2 films in 500 ml: 7.15 mins - 1 film in 300 ml: 6.45 mins This way I can make superprints on fibre-based papers such as Fomatone Classic, Ilford WA, Classic, at grade 2–2.5, in Moersch Warm paper developer. Recently I’ve had great results with KB25 at 50 ASA, using natural light (outdoors), Neofin Blaue, 2 films in 15ml of developer + 485ml water – 9 minutes, agitation: 3 seconds per minute. I tried developing a film in the studio using Neofin Blaue, but the result was very disappointing: stonewashed greys as skin tones. I always give the film a 1-minute water bath before developing. Does this sound reasonable to you? Thanks for the help Robert
Gast "The times in our timetable are a bit too short because we had a lot of people overdeveloping the film." You’re practically encouraging your users to overdevelop! Hello Mirko, Have I understood this correctly? You are ‘controlling’ how users work by attempting to correct a common user error (overdevelopment) through incorrect information (times that are too short in the table)? Or am I completely off the mark here? I don’t agree with this approach. Admittedly, I personally mostly work with A49 in 1+2, so your specifications for 1+0 * factor xy are just starting points for my own experimentation anyway. Nevertheless, you should specify times that lead to usable results if you ADHERE to them. Not specifications that lead to usable results if you IGNORE them. I realise full well that there are no universally binding development times. BUT – “Too short” is a clear statement: “Too short”. So, as I understand the language, outside the realm of the acceptable. Warm regards, and I would appreciate some clarification! Christian
