|
|
|
-
First (and badly) developed film for 25 years - need advice
Good morning!
Here's hoping somebody can help 
I've not developed a film for 25 years, have recently sold my digital and gone back to film.
The detail below is from a frame using Kentmere 400, developed in D74 1:15 for 7 mins, fixed in AG Plus for 6 mins, and scanned from neg on a HP Scanjet 4850.
The entire frame is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fish95th/8309433923/
I don't ever remember (ok, it was years ago) with ID11 ever seeing this effect. Can anybody comment on this? - I'm sure there's something I've done wrong - and I think the frame is rather low contrast as well - suggesting that 7 mins was too short? The packet suggested that Kentmere at 320 should be 5.25 mins (and HP5 at 320 fr 5 mins), yet elsewhere a D74 datasheet gives (for example) HP5 400 1:15 at 8.5 mins.
-
I had some weird effects not unlike you have when I left the Digital ICE enabled when scanning B&W negatives. The question is, do you see it in the negative or only in the scanned image?
-
Well I can't enlarge the negative enough to see - however I did rescan using Vuescan - lower resolution than the non-ICE HP sofware and the effect seems to have gone - so I guess it must be the software - which has no setting for B&W negative - only colour (unlike Vuescan). Thanks for suggesting that! Looks like I'll be buying a copy to activate my Vuescan trail!
Seeing as I'm paranoid however - I am right about the neg being too low in contrast?
-
The contrast looks ok to me, as rendered in the flicker post, but it's a little hard to judge from a posted scan. You can tweak the contrast by increasing your agitation or the total development time. Getting to a time that fits the way you would like the negs to look will take a little experimentation.
To boost the contrast a little, try adding 30 seconds to 1 minute to the development time and see how that looks.
Most scanning questions are OT for apug, but you will find lots of help for that in the dpug sister site (www.dpug.org)/
-
bdial - thanks for the response. The negs do have that 'thin' look so I'll play around with the timing.
The scanning, btw, is really only a temp measure until I can clear a room and get the Durst enlarger setup and so on. I wanted however to get confident with film processing before going back to printing.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
It is very hard to decide what is right/wrong with a negative by viewing a copy on a home monitor. I have no idea how true the image is on my monitor. But to me it does look underdeveloped. ICE and film negatives do not mix, either. Good luck. I am gathering everything I need for a home darkroom and going to start making dip and dunk prints and negatives. I think film is an improvement ver digital.
-
The weird artifacting definitely is introduced with the scanning; like mentioned, make sure ICE / infrared dust removal is turned OFF in your settings.
-
 Originally Posted by rawhead
The weird artifacting definitely is introduced with the scanning; like mentioned, make sure ICE / infrared dust removal is turned OFF in your settings.
That's the same problem I had when I scanned my first roll. I thought the ICE was suppose to be a good thing.
-
Originally Posted by DSLR
I thought the ICE was suppose to be a good thing.
.. but NOT with Ag containing images!
-
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
.. but NOT with Ag containing images!
What's AG? 
|
|
Adv Reply
