Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,617   Online: 1008
      
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 137
  1. #51
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    I think I have an observation re this film that many have repeated but I want to articulate as a side coversation, this film needs to be very tightly exposed and developed. Any over/under exposure and/or over/under develop will blow the highlights or lose the shadows, consequently would it make sense to suggest that this film be developed in a diluted developer because as Field has shown, +/- 30 seconds in stock (in his case Tmax 1:4) can greatly affect outcome? Developing this in say replenished Xtol (which is really like 1:1) or Tmax 1:9 might be the name of the game? I bet this film needs a specific dev time for sunlight (which I have yet to do) vs a overcast gray day, and therefore with such little wiggle room, diluted might be the only way to keep this somewhat fickle film in control (like a wild stallion)?

    Mark - I love that power plant shot, I think I need a #12 for sun. Thanks for the info re Sexton, I need to pick that up! It does help contextualize what we are seeing from the sunny crew (you and Rick) and the shady crew (Field and I).

    Hope more post - John (Grumpy) you get you film in that neat camera yet?
    Last edited by zsas; 05-06-2012 at 09:14 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Tripe'oh
    Andy

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    568
    Andy, I agree with everything except the part about over exposure. I do not find that to be too much of an issue once you get the development time down.

    I haven't found the develpment time to be a problem with straight Xtol. My replenished time is 7' at 70 degrees vs about 6' for fresh undiluted. I'm perfectly content with my replenished developers, but had wanted to find a 1:1 time to share. My initial 1:1 trial was so far off I didn't have the energy to explore it, so just worked for an undiluted time for fresh to match my replenished (I was curious anyway how my stock was holding up).

    I think some of the apparent finickiness of the film is from general underexposure. Once you get enough exposure, the development isn't as hard to sort out; and once you get the development sorted out, overexposure isn't a big deal (up to maybe a stop or a bit more). Highlight detail holds well, but as Richard indicated, the shadows go away very quickly.
    Last edited by Mark Crabtree; 05-06-2012 at 09:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #53
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Very great explanation! Think I have been consistently under exposing (my prior 3) until this recent roll that was spot on, I see why I believed it to be dev when it was more exposure.

    Anyone prewashing? I have found it to be not needed, but I cd be wrong
    Andy

  4. #54
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,920
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Very great explanation! Think I have been consistently under exposing (my prior 3) until this recent roll that was spot on, I see why I believed it to be dev when it was more exposure.

    Anyone prewashing? I have found it to be not needed, but I cd be wrong
    I did not prewash. I will say however that the bright almost iridescent orange-pink fluid I saw when dumping the HC-110 was quite beautiful!
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #55
    Field's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    146
    When I pre-wash it comes out out HOT pink. Unfortunately my last test roll was in a dirty tank or something (I got to check or wash more carefully when sharing a lab with inexperienced people). I can say that 6:00 at EI25 is pretty darn good. No blow outs that are out of control, shadow detail not bad (improved greatly in some areas). I'd say in the 5.75-6.00 minutes is PERFECT at EI25. A few pictures are gold as far as value range (like maybe better than my belovid Adox/Efke and not as contrasty in the middle grays, so it might print even better). Well I'm being hopefull because Adox/Efke does not grow on trees.

    I need to translate my times to a more dilluted state so I can get it right in there. It appears so long as my camera meter is accurate then the pictures at proper development are going to be very good. I even got some clouds by not developing too much; wtihout a yellow filter. I still like the yellow filter affect though.

    Hard to say for sure but maybe even at EI50 or EI100, the right development time might be just as good as EI25. It seems to take charge even more than exposure from what I can tell. Considering that development time can black out shadows, blow out whites, or make the picture barely there.

    Unfortunately to say orange filters appear to massacure the film. You'd have to choose to do an entire roll with orange filter at a different development time. It appears the film reads it like you've lowered your EI to 12.5, instead of 25, when shooting at 25.

    Part of me wants to think, ugh what a pain, but the other part clearly knows that this is EXTREMELY VASTLY CHEAPER THAN SHOOTING SLIDE FILM and only just as finiky.

  6. #56
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Field View Post
    Orange filter vs. no filter OM2n 28mm f3.5 lens.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/6222653...7629961032651/

    That was at 6.75 in Tmax 1:4. Clearly no filter needs even more time... so far only the yellow filter seems worth using. I'm not sure how much to increase development for EI25 filterless, but everything is vastly blown out.
    Yeah that orange is really contrasty, and no filter was too weak, looks like great filters are the standard yellow #8 (K2) and Mark tried a #12, which also looked great. I suppose a 9 and 11 wd be grand too, not sure much more than the #12 wd work out as swell as those between 8 and 12?
    Andy

  7. #57
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Field View Post
    Part of me wants to think, ugh what a pain, but the other part clearly knows that this is EXTREMELY VASTLY CHEAPER THAN SHOOTING SLIDE FILM and only just as finiky.
    When life gives you lemons (err Cinerex....)

    Great work Field!
    Andy

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    64
    Wow, so glad to see some great results so far! My roll of Cinerex arrived a week or so ago and I'm looking forward to shooting some, but my bulk loader still has a little bit of Foma 100 left in it even after spooling up all the empty cartridges I had laying around. The GAS in me is saying "Go on ebay, bulk loaders are cheap just get another one!" but I'm trying my best to conserve funds and fight that urge.

    I know its been mentioned a few times, but has anyone experimented with Rodinal yet?

  9. #59
    Field's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    146
    Not yet, I have some. I plan to try and transfer my Tmax times to it. The Tmax is free for me most of the year, the Rodinal is not (but it takes soooooo little of it, it is the most economical stuff I could probably use).

    It might allow less development times because of the contrast Rodinal tends to produce, and there for keep shadows and highlights better. But it could hard to keep it under.

  10. #60
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,920
    Images
    1
    Yes, bulk loaders are SO cheap. $8-10 sometimes. I have 4-5 of them with film at any given time. Usually a slow option (Pan F or some really old film that needs to be shot slow - i.e. some HP3 at the moment from July 1963!)), then something like Tmax 100 or Fuji SS, and of course some 400 speed tri-x or HP5. And I do plan on trying some of this Cinerex with Rodinal in the next couple/few weeks....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc2edh View Post
    Wow, so glad to see some great results so far! My roll of Cinerex arrived a week or so ago and I'm looking forward to shooting some, but my bulk loader still has a little bit of Foma 100 left in it even after spooling up all the empty cartridges I had laying around. The GAS in me is saying "Go on ebay, bulk loaders are cheap just get another one!" but I'm trying my best to conserve funds and fight that urge.

    I know its been mentioned a few times, but has anyone experimented with Rodinal yet?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin