Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:56 AM 1/8/02 -0800, you wrote: >1. Highest Acutance: >FX1, HDD, Beutler, Neofin Blue, some Pyrocatechin developers. > >2. High Acutance: >Patterson VX39, & Acutol (FX 14), PMK, FX2, Formulary TFX-2, FX37. > >3: Good Acutance (slightly higher than D76 but not as high as categories >1 or 2): >Dilute DK 50, HC-110!?, Rodinal, Unitol, FG7.* > >4. Solvent developers strongly diluted: good Acutance but less than >category 3. >D76, FX15, D23, Microdol X, Perceptol all diluted 1:3 or 1:4. They say >Kodak Xtol is a special case, offering a speed increase at that dilution >and unusually high sharpness for a solvent developer." > >Our developer discussions on the LUG have been involved with categories >3 and 4 as that is what we are all using. >So many of us are using category 4 developers when we should be perhaps >using category 1! Perhaps. But if we called Category 1 "high graininess" developers who'd want to use 'em? One of my standard developers has been D-76H 1:1 and 1:3. At some point in my fiddling around I've shot the same subject on Delta 100 with the 50 Summicron at about f8 and developed the film in my standard, FX-39, TFX-2, Xtol at various dilutions and Rodinal 1:100. In 11x14 prints at a "normal" viewing distance I don't see grain from D-76, I can barely see it from Xtol 1:1 and I can readily see it from FX-39, TFX-2 and Rodinal. But I don't see any significant difference in sharpness; if fact the D-76 print might appear a little sharper because it looks smoother. At some point in trying TFX-2 I directly compared it to Rodinal 1:100 both with printing and examining the negs at 30X; results were, to my eyes, identical so I didn't see any point in continuing with TFX-2 rather than Rodinal, which I always have on hand. John Hicks jhicks31@bellsouth.net - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html