Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,867   Posts: 1,583,215   Online: 942
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52
  1. #41

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,150
    Quote Originally Posted by h.v. View Post
    If I had better luck with Ilford XP2, I'd probably switch to that for B&W. But my HP5 and FP4 and Tri-X negs just come out better, with less coarse grain than XP2.
    This is all very strange. I don't think I have seen any other person here on APUG say that XP2+ has coarser grain than HP5+, FP4+ or Tri-X. XP2+ is dye based and whereas trad B&W film can be grainier with over development chromogenic film such as XP2+ doesn't react this way. In fact when overexposed it becomes even less grainier

    Anyone else care to comment on the OP's finding and reasons why he finds this to be the case?

    pentaxuser

  2. #42
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,499
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    This is all very strange. I don't think I have seen any other person here on APUG say that XP2+ has coarser grain than HP5+, FP4+ or Tri-X. XP2+ is dye based and whereas trad B&W film can be grainier with over development chromogenic film such as XP2+ doesn't react this way. In fact when overexposed it becomes even less grainier

    Anyone else care to comment on the OP's finding and reasons why he finds this to be the case?

    pentaxuser
    I'd say it's because he's scanning and not keeping the settings optimized for each type of film? I haven't tried scanning all of those with an eye towards comparison (and that's better discussed on dpug - yes you can get quick answers there, I have).

    If h.v. is willing, maybe he can mail an apugger some frames in question and see what they think. It's a lot easier to diagnose some things with the object in hand rather than a scanned version on the web.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    Yeah, I think it's mostly due to the scanner. XP2 commonly will scan pretty grainy if the scanner isn't optimized for it. I will double check to make sure I am using 1L precisely of distilled (reverse osmosis) water and then 5mL of Ilfotol when I finally get around to processing that FP4 (still haven't had the time, unfortunately)! I will google this, but does anybody have any bookmarked links or anything to really good sites to figure out calibration for a scanner? If you don't that's fine, just want to make sure I get a good source for this.
    Last edited by h.v.; 06-03-2013 at 10:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    cities & citizens - edmonton street photography (mostly), 100% film

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    The base material of different films will have a different colour and appearance, so yes Tri-X is a bit purple-ish in the clear areas that surround the image. This doesn't matter. But how clear that base material is does matter, your negs should be as clear as the lab based negs all along the whole length of the film. If they have an even slightly milky appearance, like a pale fog, they haven't been fully fixed. Look particularly at difference to the emulsion and the clear edging between yours and the labs. If you want to check you can put a strip of your negs back into fresh fix and see if it comes out clearer compared with the rest of the film (but by now it won't rescue the image).

    Look, it may not be the fix, but you do need to eliminate it as this can cause the same sorts of blotches as badly mixed or badly agitated developer. They way to test how fresh your fix is, is to take a discarded film leader (that you would normally throw in the bin), and put a drop of fixer on it. Leave it for six or seven minutes so there can be no doubt the spot has cleared as much as it can. Then drop the whole film leader into the fix and time how long it takes for the rest of the film to clear as much as the spot. If it takes longer than the recommended time your fix is exhausted.

    Steve
    The HP5 from the lab has the same purplish tint that Tri-X normally does. Weird. Beyond that, though, no I don't really notice any 'milkiness'. The only thing is some black marks near the sprocket holes from light exposure. This happens on both the lab processed and home processed HP5. I honestly can't detect anything beyond that. I will try that fixer on the leader idea, that's a good one. Thanks!

    Oh, and that idea about sending one into the lab and one to process at home is also pretty good. I may just have to try that!
    cities & citizens - edmonton street photography (mostly), 100% film

  5. #45
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,020
    If you wash a bit longer you can get rid of the purple tint in the films. Lots of dark sprockets or edges is not a good sign either. Could be a problem somewhere either in camera or with the developing reels/tank letting in light.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    There isn't that much of it. Just sprinkled here and there and it happens on my lab processed negatives too, and from different cameras as well. Well I was at 20°C for 7 mins with tap water after the fix is poured out, then I let it soak in distilled water and Ilfotol for 5 mins, before letting it air dry for 5 mins and then hanging it up to dry.
    cities & citizens - edmonton street photography (mostly), 100% film

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    Alright, I finally processed the FP4 I'd been meaning to do since this past weekend. I won't know till tomorrow if any of the suggestions listed here and elsewhere worked, but here is what I did differently...

    - 2 mins of pre-wash using tap water at 20°C
    - 30 seconds of continuous agitation (including the twisting mentioned here) for developer and fixer at beginning
    - 2 cycles of agitation every 30 seconds after that spread over 10 seconds
    - Instead of tapping the bottom of the tank with my fingers after each inversion, I clunked it against the countertop firmly
    - Made sure I was using exactly 1L of reverse osmosis water and exactly 5mL of Ilfotol wetting agent
    - Tried to ensure that each chemical was exactly 21°C prior to putting it in the tank (I couldn't get it down to 20)
    - Used fresh chemicals instead of re-using stop and fix
    - Properly stirred chemicals in with water in measuring cylinders after initial pour (I wasn't doing that before, just letting it naturally mix)
    - Haven't used a chamois on the drying negs yet, will wait to inspect tomorrow and see if I find any water marks after air drying
    cities & citizens - edmonton street photography (mostly), 100% film

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,150
    I can see nothing you have overlooked but then again I never felt that your original processing was the cause anyway.

    if this doesn't cure the problems especially the graininess then either Ilford has lost the plot at Mobberley in terms of its film production or you need to throw your scanner into the waste bin

    pentaxuser

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,909
    Dear all,

    XP2 Super has virtually no grain, certainly considerably less than a conventional emulsion such as FP4 + or HP5+ it also is the ILFORD film that actually scans the best ( so the experts say ) when the scanner is optimised for it.

    Regards

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    Yeah, I think my comments about XP2 were with regards to my old scanner. I just bought a new scanner a couple weeks ago (so I certainly hope it isn't bound for the trash can ) and recently decided to give XP2 a second go and yeah, it does scan pretty well. It's not grainless, but I don't want grainless anyways. It's less coarse and more graceful. I guess the Epson V600 comes optimized for XP2 out of the box (previous scanner was V500). There's still the issue that I for whatever reason have generally poor results with the images I make on that emulsion except in one neighbourhood of Edmonton.
    Last edited by h.v.; 06-06-2013 at 12:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    cities & citizens - edmonton street photography (mostly), 100% film

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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