Collin ...
Kodak makes lots of developers. A typical, standard developer is
D-76. "By the book" could indicate one of two, or possibly three,
dilutions. However, since you're unable to give lots of detail, and
neither Bill nor I can see the negs (are they thin? Are highlights
blocked? How's shadow detail?) then I'd suggest increasing
development time by 10% and see what the results are. Do not change
the agitation pattern, the temp, or anything else. Just increase
the time and, if an agitation cycle would fall in that increased
time, then agitate.
Do not use Acufine until you've resolved this situation. Jumping
from developer to developer will not solve anything.
BTW, did you print the negatives, or just view them? Negatives can
surprise you. They may look flat, thin, or low in contrast, but they
may print beautifully. Which then begs the question, what paper and
paper grade are you using? What paper developer are you using?
What time/temp are you using to make the prints?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> Per the inquiries from Shel & WW: In the Plus-X work I've done, development
> was with the standard Kodak chemicals and by the book. That produces some
> nice fine grain but also some low contrast. I'd like to improve that contrast
> characteristic with same exposure setting. Normally I rated it at 125,
> also by the book.
> Would Accufine be a better developer for this purpose than the standard
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
