Bonderer
[size=3][size=4]Hello[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]If anyone fancies giving some new film developers a go....[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]In Braunschweig – which is hardly surprising, given that Rollei and Voigtländer used to be based there – there’s someone who enjoys trying out new things. There are several new black-and-white film developers out there that are well worth a try. I’ve used the HCD twice, once with and once without the starter, and have ditched all the other developers except for ADOX Adonal. I’ll be trying the others soon, though.[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]There’s a very good data sheet for this, not just some vague guesswork like with some other developers[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]with times plucked out of thin air. You can tell from that alone that the folks at Spürsinn really put a lot of effort into it. [/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]I hope the host will forgive me for promoting a competitor, but the focus here is on photography.[/size][/size]
[size=3][size=4]Good luck[/size][/size]
KlausWehner
You’re making things a bit too simple for yourself there!
What exactly is so new about this new developer?
What features are there that would make me want to ditch my tried-and-tested developer?
Surely that’s the bare minimum of information a potential buyer is entitled to expect.
Or is that not what this is about at all?
Best regards,
Klaus
piu58
HCD is a phenidone-hydroquinone developer. The latest generation is designed as a modular system, meaning it can also be used as a two-bath developer. Unlike the other ‘foam’ products, there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it.
KlausWehner
Dear Uwe,
You realise this, I realise this – I’m just not entirely sure whether the author does.
Personally, I just find this kind of pushy advertising (no matter who it’s from!) rather annoying – especially when it lacks any factual information.
OK – perhaps that’s just my personal issue :-)
Nevertheless: there really should be a certain standard that isn’t compromised.
Best regards,
Klaus
piu58
But that’s also down to how the product is marketed. Mirko, for example, is quite open about what he does (with his own developments), and he makes money from it too. So it is possible.
“New miracle developer” or “new super film” – at first glance, that doesn’t really tell you anything, except that the supplier wants to make money from it. The photography community has to work out for itself what’s really behind it every single time.
Yet there’s nothing shameful about further developing the tried-and-tested CG-512 and adding a few new features. This information doesn’t harm the newcomer, and we long-time photographers know straight away what class of developer it is, what it can do and what it can’t. But that’s just how the process of trawling through safety data sheets begins.
Wolf_XL
...basically, all this talk of ‘miracle films’ and ‘miracle developers’ is rather childish – they simply, plainly and utterly do not exist. Of course, you can optimise films or developers in a particular direction – but unfortunately, that will never be a pleasure without a downside. You can look at it any way you like – an improvement in one area is guaranteed to lead to a deterioration elsewhere...
Bonderer
Hello
Where has the joy of experimentation gone, the desire to try something new?
I like the soup; others might not, but
practice makes perfect. This isn’t meant as an advertisement for Spürsinn either; they
don’t need that.
If Ansel Adams had had multigrade paper and better film developers at
his disposal, he would never have needed a zone system, even if
the zone counters would now like to tear me to pieces. I’ve been taking photographs for about
40 years and have had a black-and-white darkroom for almost as long. Even at the
risk of making myself unpopular here, the most important thing has always been
taking the photograph and the image itself, and that it’s fun. The people in the
photography clubs – we had them here too – who seemed to get bogged down
in the technical details of a
photo and the question of which film goes in which developer. That was the reason I didn’t join such a club.
No matter what sort of photo it was, instead of looking at the photo, they would meticulously
search for technical shortcomings. For me, it was all about a good photo,
never a technically perfect one. No matter what film or developer, no matter what
camera, no matter what paper – the main thing was a camera, film and chemicals, and
whether it was a Leica or a Revue didn’t matter to me either. The same went for film, and
especially at a time when I wasn’t really earning much, or with a wife and
young children, I bought cheap film and cheap chemicals and paper
— the main thing was that I had something. What mattered was that I had a camera with me
. But I never pursued the hobby with dogged meticulousness; where
would the joy of it all be then? Even the ingredients of a
Developers were and are all the same to me; even a bishop
could have peed in it. If I like the result, I’ll keep using it; if
not, it goes in the hazardous waste bin. Of course, that’s subjective, but when it comes to
taste, there can be no objectivity. Just imagine if everyone
only used Delta 400 and X-Tol – the thought is dreadful.
I much prefer ascorbic acid in fruit or various drinks than in
the form of developers, and who wants X-Tol in their tea?
Take it easy, relax, have fun and be a bit mad. Give something a go
and if you don’t like it, try something else. It reminds me a
bit of *Color Foto* and a gentleman called Motz, who ended up making quite a few verbal
slips during his so-called photo critiques. People were
put down so badly that they surely threw their cameras away afterwards, and
and those poor blokes had even paid for it when they
submitted their photos there. So what’s all the fuss about? If you fancy it, give it a go; if
you don’t want to, leave it be – no more, no less. And a wise
man from the last century put it this way: ‘He who is late...’
And just so I get even more flak, I’ve got broad shoulders,
I’m six feet tall with a fighting weight of 130 kg, including about 1 kg of full beard and hair, so
a proper avatistic primeval beast. I like trying new things; I’ve got a
Heiland Splitgrade on my Kienzle 69 S, bought it as soon as it
first came out and consider it – I’m writing this extra slowly –
the jack-of-all-trades for the SW lab; I also have the TAS processor from
Heiland, which I also think is a brilliant piece of kit, worth every penny
I paid for it. I like being a bit mad, it’s fun and I’m addicted
to it.
Taking photos has always been more important to me than reading data sheets;
the sole aim is a good photo, and that can certainly have certain technical shortcomings
– in fact, for some photos, that’s what gives them their charm and quality.
And what a safety data sheet has to do with the visual impression of a film developer
is completely beyond me.
Professionally, I deal with safety data sheets and they contain a lot of information, e.g. who to call
if I get something in my eye, or what the stuff mustn’t come into contact with, or what to do
if it starts to burn or comes into contact with fire; everything important is there, and it is
regularly reviewed and updated.
But I can’t recall a single developer’s data sheet that says I’ll
like the result.
In any case, I’ll carry on as long as I can, taking photos with great joy, enjoying
photography and being crazy enough to try something new every now and then.
I can only recommend that to everyone. And if you aren’t...
Go mad.
thomas_l
...basically, all this talk of ‘miracle films’ and ‘miracle developers’ is rather childish – they simply, plainly and quite simply don’t exist. ...
How true, how true
TR
Whichever way you look at it, an improvement in one area is bound to lead to a deterioration elsewhere...
I’ve now experienced this for myself. Ultimately, good quality simply means -> large format. You can’t simulate the quality of a high magnification with a special film or a special developer. With small formats, you have to make or find compromises. Although, then again, most of the good, moving images are taken with small formats, because nothing beats content.
Wolf_XL
...it’s just like in real life – there’s no substitute for engine capacity – except for even more engine capacity... ;-) Nevertheless, the same applies here: those who have the skill can still be competitive even with a smaller engine capacity. That’s why you shouldn’t overestimate the importance of technical aspects. Ultimately, if the content of a photo is right, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s technically 100% perfect – and a 100% technically perfect photo still won’t turn a boring subject into a masterpiece...
Wolfgg
Hello analogue enthusiasts,
Film and developer solutions – surely a topic that’s been around since the invention of photography.
Over 40 years ago, I too believed for a long time that there were significant differences in quality between the various film and developer combinations, largely fuelled by magazines. However, I realised that there are indeed differences in the image quality; for example, one developer produces a fine silver grain, another has crisp, sharp edges, or sometimes a flat density curve and sometimes a bulging one – all of which influence the image quality and make one developer or the other slightly more suitable.
One day, however, it dawned on me that the differences between 35mm and 4.5x6 or 21DIN and 17DIN (Agfa IF and ISS back then) or even ‘normal’ film and the softened documentary film of 1977 (Neofin documentary film) are much greater than what could be achieved within a single format with the same speed and all manner of minor adjustments.
Later on, I took the trouble to understand the theory of densitometry/sensitometry, and experiments then showed that it does indeed yield a clearly visible improvement in quality and, above all, guarantees a good result if one deliberately pushes the film’s characteristic curve to its limits using the zone system. The statement “If Ansel Adams had had multigrade paper and better film developers at his disposal, he would never have needed a zone system” is, in my view, incorrect; it has nothing to do with variable contrast paper anyway, as this tends to encourage one not to take film development so seriously. Very good film developers were already available 100 years ago (e.g. Rodinal or the pyro mixtures); the Zone System simply ensures that the density curve produced by the chosen film/developer combination matches the contrast of the subject, meaning the curve is optimally controlled and the film can be printed on Normal or Special gradient paper wherever possible, as these two gradients can reproduce the widest range of tonal values. So nothing about Adams’ approach is outdated even today.
As a word of warning, here is an extract from my ‘developer career’, in roughly chronological order: Rodinal, Atomal, Fabonal, Metatenal, NeofinRed, NeofinBlue, Ultrafin, Emofin, Ilfosol, Microphen, NeofinDoku, D76, Microdol-X, HC110, Perceptol, CG512, and then my own mixtures from raw chemicals (a career not recommended for imitation).
What do I use today? 90% Rodinal, a residue of pyro mixtures made from raw chemicals.
The most important thing, even today, is that you really understand the characteristics of the film/developer combination you’re using and know how to get the best out of it. And it takes time to really get to know a combination.
Experimenting isn’t forbidden, though, if you enjoy it. It just has little effect on the results.
Regards, Wolfgang
Steffen
Hello, Analoger, or shall I call you Michael?
Are you having a bit of trouble selling your developer and now trying your hand at viral marketing? You’d be better off doing that on aphog, where you can play the town crier alongside Hartmut.
Bonderer
Hi Steffen
Yet another one who can read a crystal ball – I’ve never been able to do that. Anyway, my name isn’t even close to Michael.
It’s beneath me to say any more on the matter, but have fun in the cave – or does he already have a horse and cart…
And now he can go and have a good cry to Papa Mirco and get me kicked out. It’s light years away from my…
bernhardmangelsgmxde
That's brilliant news!
