Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,769   Posts: 1,484,213   Online: 880
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,958
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    You are going to run into a lot of confusing information, because some people meter at 200 to ensure extra exposure in the shadows, while others meter at 200 in order to ensure highlight density with pulled development.

    IMHO, it is better to approach the question in a different way:

    1) Choose your development based on the contrast you want; and then
    2) Choose your metering EI based on the development you have chosen, and whether you want to manipulate shadow or highlight density.
    Read that post very carefully. You pick a film contrast based on the contrast in the scene and the contrast you want to achieve on paper. That tells you the development time. Once you have your development time, you will then achieve a particular film speed. The formal expression of this approach is BTZS, which you can read about in Phil Davis' book.

    It's worth keeping in mind that a B&W negative is basically not going to suffer in any way whatsoever for a 1-stop over-exposure. So you can expose it anywhere from 200 to 400, process it normally (as if it was 400) and get good prints from it. So in the common case, NO reduction in development is actually necessary when shooting at a lower EI.

    Usually people shoot at lower EIs because the contrast of the scene mandates a reduced development time. Say you have deep shadows and glinting highlights and want to maintain detail in both areas. Reducing development can help you get there (it has other side-effects but we'll ignore that) but the reduced development means that the film needs more exposure in order to not come out too thin and unprintable. For example, I sometimes shoot Pan-F (a contrasty ISO50 film) at about EI16 to EI25 because I like to reduce the contrast.

    So I think you have the causality backwards in your head. Instead of thinking "I wish to shoot at 200, how long do I develop for?", the approach is usually "I need to reduce contrast this much, how much exposure do I need?"

    The "I want this speed" approach is really only taken for pushing, e.g. because you don't have enough light / shutter speed / aperture to get the photo without pushing. Note that pushing to higher EIs doesn't magically increase the film speed, i.e. Tri-X "pushed to 1600" doesn't achieve ISO1600 sensitivity. What happens is that a mid-tone will still come out as a midtone, some shadow detail will be lost and highlight detail will become un-printably bright. So pushing generally works best in scenes of very narrow dynamic range.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,812
    Hi....

    If you want to rate the Tri-X at 200, you can surely do it. Since that will result in twice as much over exposure than rating it at 400, most folks will reduce development time to get the density in more less normal/typical range. But this isn't required. You can develop it normally and end up with a dense negative. Sure, it'll take longer exposure time to PRINT but it will print fine, nevertheless. You get more detail in shadow. It's one thing to over expose, and it's quite another to reduce development time. They don't necessary have to happen in a pair.

    I've pulled Tri-X to 200 many times. When I'm in very contrasty environment, I'd do it. I typically reduce development time by 20% using D-76. It makes some difference but not great big difference. It tends to print flatter which actually is an intended effect but it doesn't always suit my needs. I hear people talk about rating this film at EI 200 will do something magical to their image. It does NOT... You get more detail in shadow... which you can easily do by exposing more manually.

    Once, I did this test. Take a film. Shoot normally in a controlled enviornment and a scene that includes 18% standard. Over expose by 50% and 100%. Under expose by 50% and 100%. Develop each normally, -20%, +20%. Print using the same contrast filter and time it so that 18% standard look identical in all prints. They printed very similarly. Nothing magical happened. Yes, there were differences but slight and difficult to tell.

    I'm sorry my post is sort of random but that's my experience.

    I had more fun with pushing film. I've done Tri-X to 1600 and had quite a phenomenal result. THAT was fun.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  3. #13
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Aside from all the zone-system type stuff, 400TX@200 or 250 w/ D-76 1+1 is a pretty classic combo. Is 9:00-9:30 not working for you?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  4. #14
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    I guess this is another one of those things where my age seems to show. I've heard it all and seen it all with the experimenters and all that. Then a light bulb in my head goes on and I see clearly through all that. What I see is that the chemists and engineers at EK Company are second to none. I'm sure that their work is exhaustive., and they pin it at 400 in D-76. Like corn flakes and milk, they're made for each other. I take this as the definitive word.
    Well, im confident in my opinion that any processing info published by kodak or ilford or whoever should be used just as a guide, and not definitive info, they are in no way supposed to be limiting or restricting. The chemists and engineers at EK company are second to none to themselves, everyone works differently to create their own style through experimentation. whos to say theres only one way a perfect negative should look like?

  5. #15
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Not wanting to be a thread hog, I'll limit my posting to answering Matt and then stand by. To pull the speed and contrast, I would choose Microdol 1:3, and to push I'd say Acu1 or Acufine. These are legitimately well researched and quality products and they suit their purpose better than any home-grown idea.
    i thought i have heard microdol has been discontinued? I use microphen to push regularly, would you know the difference between microphen and acufine?

  6. #16
    K-G
    K-G is offline
    K-G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Göteborg , Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    i thought i have heard microdol has been discontinued? I use microphen to push regularly, would you know the difference between microphen and acufine?
    Ilford Perceptol is almost the same as Kodak Microdol.

    Karl-Gustaf
    Karl-Gustaf Hellqvist

    www.heliochroma.com

  7. #17
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    Hi....

    If you want to rate the Tri-X at 200, you can surely do it. Since that will result in twice as much over exposure than rating it at 400, most folks will reduce development time to get the density in more less normal/typical range. But this isn't required. You can develop it normally and end up with a dense negative. Sure, it'll take longer exposure time to PRINT but it will print fine, nevertheless. You get more detail in shadow. It's one thing to over expose, and it's quite another to reduce development time. They don't necessary have to happen in a pair.

    I've pulled Tri-X to 200 many times. When I'm in very contrasty environment, I'd do it. I typically reduce development time by 20% using D-76. It makes some difference but not great big difference. It tends to print flatter which actually is an intended effect but it doesn't always suit my needs. I hear people talk about rating this film at EI 200 will do something magical to their image. It does NOT... You get more detail in shadow... which you can easily do by exposing more manually.

    Once, I did this test. Take a film. Shoot normally in a controlled enviornment and a scene that includes 18% standard. Over expose by 50% and 100%. Under expose by 50% and 100%. Develop each normally, -20%, +20%. Print using the same contrast filter and time it so that 18% standard look identical in all prints. They printed very similarly. Nothing magical happened. Yes, there were differences but slight and difficult to tell.

    I'm sorry my post is sort of random but that's my experience.

    I had more fun with pushing film. I've done Tri-X to 1600 and had quite a phenomenal result. THAT was fun.
    That made really good sense! I actually took a roll i shot at 200 and developed at 68F d-76 1:1 at 9min and i think it came out quite nice. Its relatively low contrast but none the less it looks nice. Thanks for your input!

  8. #18
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    I know that kodak has in a data chart that you can expose at either 400 or 800 and develop for 400. So if most people would lean towards overexposing one stop and not compensating time or anything, then, wow! How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400, im a little skeptical though.

  9. #19
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,161
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400.
    I don't use lighmeter with my M3, and most of the frames on one iso 400 film are mix of over/under exposed 1-2 stops from 400. They all print in darkroom ok - with little additional work. Only thing is that I must use test strip for every frame. When film is evenly exposed - one test strip can give approximate paper exposure time for all frames.

  10. #20
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400, im a little skeptical though.
    I use this technique with all my films. I use one normal developing regime for each film for 99% or more of my work.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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