I can make a 'pleasing print' by my tried and true test strip method but I wanted to try out some methods I've read here which others swear by (and perhaps others swear at??).
I know I had some development problems when I was first setting up. I changed from open tray (which were perfect if scratched) to a JOBO 2553 tank rotated not used for inversion or other methods (which gave uneven development / streaks and generally drank developer) to now settling on the BTZS tubes which are giving me the best results for my purposes so far.
That neg was not one of the BTZS developed one it was JOBO drum
(aside: I'm keeping the drum to cope with C41 in future as I think I can mix in both 120 and 4x5 sheet in it, but I've given up on it for black and white).
yes, I really like this idea too, but the problem (which you also identify) is that when I'm out for a day hike and I have only 5 holders with me its really more frustrating to find that
- after taking 3 or 4 shots and I start to warm up and then come across good subject matter and need to use my compact digital to even have an image
- rather than come home with a few unexposed sheets
I've just bought a 6x12 roll back to help with this problem
if something looks wrong it probably is
I just repeated the process this morning and get perfect prints with no effort on a #4
the problem? -> I diluted the dektol 1:1 (like my d-76 film process ... like a moron) instead of 1:3 for my tray process.
well, while I'm on the subject ... I buy dektol as a powder and make the stock solution as per the kodak directions. I normally put 1:3 of dektol into the tray and develop the print for 3 min. I don't do many prints and discard when finished.
anyone have any thoughts / suggestions on this? (incase my mind is not working on other areas ... sigh)
A good negative is one that you can make a good print from. It doesn't matter what grade of paper you need to make that good print.
As someone already wrote, forget the rules. Just look at the negatives and prints. The only requirement is that you FULLY understand the exposure/development relationship.
Looking at your negative, best as I can on a computer screen, it appears that your negative lacks sufficient contrast. An understanding of the exposure/development relationship quickly indicates that you needed to increase the development time for this negative. Had you been developing by inspection, you would have immediately realized this and given the negative more development.
Michael A. Smith
I was surprised to find that even that didn't have the densest area being as dense as the element of a light bulb I photographed and developed normally. I'm sure that there is some substantial difference between the snow and the filament brightness.
Film it seems handles quite an amount of exposure before it hits a wall.
The issue for me now is how this negative (and its range of density) can translate to the print (and just how far it can go).
I've been restricting myself to one film (ADOX) one developer (D-76) and one paper (MG IV portfolio) just so as to not get confused.
I wish I could compare numbers with people as I find that easier to reconcile with.
I'm not sure I'd use the image of a light bulb filament as an absolute standard for evaluating negatives. I presume you processed that too.
Similarly, I'm not sure a snowy scene is the best for getting the hang of a "normal" developing time, etc. A scene composed of really dark and really bright elements and probably a rather extreme contrast may lead you astray. A set up with a full range of mid tones as well as a modest representation at the extremes would be the easiest starter.
I think that comparing numbers with someone else is less useful than what you are doing now; doing prints and finding out where you can improve. The numbers are good for a lab, but won't do the important work of creating a proceedure based upon your results.
Given that you needed grade 4 to get a good print, maybe you need to push your film developing time further to build enough contrast so it works better on grade 2 or 3.