Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,728   Posts: 1,515,218   Online: 955
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432

    Existing stock of HIE - ways to deal with base fog

    I just ran shot and processed two rather old rolls of HIE - they were at least eight years old if not older. The one roll had been refrigerated/near-frozen the entire time. The other was shot back in 2004, put aside and forgotten until today. Both had a very obvious level of base fog. What's the best way to deal with this on subsequent rolls (I have six left)? Would benzotriazole work, if I'm souping in Pyrocat HD? Any other thoughts? All input and feedback is much appreciated.

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,135
    Images
    20
    More exposure, shorter development, and then try a restrainer like benzotriazole.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432
    Well, after scanning my test roll and comparing it to the roll that was shot back in 2004, I'm pretty sure using that old HIE now is a losing proposition. The old stuff was at least very sharp. The roll I just shot is not only mushy but grainy as hell (noticeably more so than the old stuff).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SegoviaAlcazarIR1.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	128.0 KB 
ID:	53167 (old stuff)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IRTest1.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	216.0 KB 
ID:	53168 (new stuff)

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,135
    Images
    20
    I can't tell from the scans, but are you sure the "mushy" issue isn't just a focus problem? Did you remember to compensate for IR focus shift (after the long hiatus from IR)?
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #5
    Vincent Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Co. Kildare - Ireland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,994
    Images
    167
    I'm shooting out of date HIE for the last few years and am still happy with most of the results that I get. I rate the film at 640 ISO and bracket either side of that by 2/3rds of a stop giving me exposures at 400, 640, & 1020 ISO. I develop the film in ID11 (1+1) for 13 minutes. All 3 shots are printable but I usually select the one that requires least effort. You can check out my work and see what you think.

  6. #6
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432
    I know I'm getting some sharpness loss in the scans from the curl of the film and the fact that I don't have 35mm Betterscanning film holders - I'm just using the Epson holders. But yes, I did focus shift - that was part of the reason for getting the RTS III - all the Contax prime lenses have the focus compensation mark on the barrel. But there is a huge difference in the image quality between the pano shot and the standard 35mm shot that may not be as apparent from the JPEG files as it is when viewing the hi-res scans. I'll re-scan them and post again at higher resolution so you can see better what I mean.

    As to exposure, I set the meter at 800, shot through a Hoya RM72 filter, and tried not only exposing on auto, metering through the filter, but also manual exposure using someone's suggested 1/125 @ F11 or thereabouts (I forget what it was now, but it was fresh in my mind at the time I shot). The 1/125th exposures were super-thin and obviously wrong. The auto-exposed negs look pretty good from an exposure point of view.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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