Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,432   Online: 850
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Also, while I won't beat the proverbial dead horse regarding the risks associated with stand development, I still think it is important to do proper testing for uniformity. Usually the examples people post (aside from being high in contrast with poor shadow detail) are fairly "busy" images in which uneven development might not be immediately visible. But as with any extreme development technique, tests with more uniform, featureless tonalities should be done to ensure you don't end up with unexpected problems at some point.
    Great explanation…and great advice!

    Do you push film a lot? What techniques do you prefer?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,872
    I don't push.

    If I were going to push, the technique would depend on the situation and how far underexposed the film is. For example, if I needed maximum speed and needed to keep contrast down, I'd use a formula like (T)FX-2. Another option people seem to like for pushing and/or contrast control is Diafine. On the other hand if contrast is not a big problem, I'd keep it simple and go with plain old D-76 or a similar solvent developer.

    For good information on pushing black and white films see page 18 in the following Kodak publication:

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...Pubs/o3/o3.pdf

  3. #13
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    565
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    There's a difference between underexposing and pushing, isn't there - although the terms seem to be often conflated.

    Stand development isn't a "push" though, surely?

    One of the effects of stand development is to reduce overall contrast, whereas the whole point of a push process is to increase contrast in an otherwise underexposed negative. Or have I grossly misunderstood something basic here?
    Pushing is to try to get more speed out of your film, or underexpose and overdevelop. This always creates increased contrast, as the shadow-details hardly move, while highlights keep on developing throughout.
    Stand development (for a long time), is a way of developing, where you don't agitate/agitate very little.
    What happens, is that the developer in the highlights gets exhausted, so development stops, while the developer in the shadow areas, still have some "umpf" left and keep on working on the little data left in the shadows.

    So, while you do this, you reduce highlight-development considerably, while the shadow-areas gets loads of time to be developed.
    (This is also considered to be, correct me if I am wrong, compensating development, Rodinal seem to be pretty good this, although HC-110 also works for stand development).
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    282
    Hey guys, here are some examples from my test roll. I used a 1+100 concentration of Rodinal for 120 minutes. Agitated for the first minute and then four times every 30 minutes after. I really like the results, I plan on repeating the experiment in the near future to make sure I didn't just get lucky






  5. #15
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,468
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    29
    You could cut the film in two and try both recipes. If you don't want to, go for the real stand developing @100 minutes. Not agitating at all might cause some streaking.
    Go for it!
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,049
    Tron, I take it these are scans of the negs. They look pretty good. Certainly the highlights seemed to have been tamed. How much shadow detail is there in the dark cupboard door over the shoulder of the lady and in the dark areas either side of the white car?

    There appears to be very little but there may be more in the neg than appears in the scan and anyway it could be the case that Tri-X pushed to 1600 would have lost shadow detail in any developer.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  7. #17
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Looks good just don't over agitate and if you're adjusting afterward, either printing, or computer, keep the contrast reasonable. The highlights are bit punchy in some of the images with strong contrast.

    I don't personally use Rodinal for pushing, preferring to use XTOL or D-76 but it should be alright with somewhat minor loss of effective speed.

    Nice EK btw.
    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

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,872
    The highlights don't look tame to me. Also I still recommend testing these techniques with uniform exposure as it will help reveal uneven development. The first scan shows what looks to me like uneven development, but it is always difficult to judge based on scans as it could simply be a scanning issue. You don't want to find out you're getting uneven development when you later shoot some type of landscape and end up with an uneven sky.

    Not trying to discourage anyone. Just make sure you know what you're getting before you apply any new technique to serious work.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The highlights don't look tame to me. The first scan shows what looks to me like uneven development, but it is always difficult to judge based on scans as it could simply be a scanning issue.
    Not trying to discourage anyone. Just make sure you know what you're getting before you apply any new technique to serious work.
    It might be that that you see what I cannot without help. Which areas contain "untamed" highlights and what are the areas of uneven development?

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by TheToadMen View Post
    You could cut the film in two and try both recipes. If you don't want to, go for the real stand developing @100 minutes. Not agitating at all might cause some streaking.
    Go for it!
    That is a pretty good idea actually. Might give a large enough sample size without having to use all 10 (or 12) frames for me. I think I'm going to stick to semi-stand for now since (from what I've read and from what you said) not agitating is more likely to cause streaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Tron, I take it these are scans of the negs. They look pretty good. Certainly the highlights seemed to have been tamed. How much shadow detail is there in the dark cupboard door over the shoulder of the lady and in the dark areas either side of the white car?

    There appears to be very little but there may be more in the neg than appears in the scan and anyway it could be the case that Tri-X pushed to 1600 would have lost shadow detail in any developer.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser
    Thank you, yes these are scans from my Epson V500. Didn't want to use the "s" word on here since I know scanning is a touchy subject for many here on APUG :P. The negatives honestly don't show too much more shadow detail in the portrait, but there is a little more shadow detail in the negative of my car shot. That could be because the cabinets are pretty dark and the light coming into the room didn't help much.

    I agree without a doubt that some shadow detail was lost when pushing this roll. But for some reason I really like the inky blacks look :P

    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Looks good just don't over agitate and if you're adjusting afterward, either printing, or computer, keep the contrast reasonable. The highlights are bit punchy in some of the images with strong contrast.

    I don't personally use Rodinal for pushing, preferring to use XTOL or D-76 but it should be alright with somewhat minor loss of effective speed.

    Nice EK btw.
    Have you tried Microphen for pushing Tri-X? I've had some decent results. Unfortunately I still need to give D-76 a try too.

    Oh and thanks . That was the last comment I thought someone would have on here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The highlights don't look tame to me. Also I still recommend testing these techniques with uniform exposure as it will help reveal uneven development. The first scan shows what looks to me like uneven development, but it is always difficult to judge based on scans as it could simply be a scanning issue. You don't want to find out you're getting uneven development when you later shoot some type of landscape and end up with an uneven sky.

    Not trying to discourage anyone. Just make sure you know what you're getting before you apply any new technique to serious work.
    I totally understand what you mean by experimenting before applying a method to serious work, that was the point of this thread. As far as highlights, I'm having a hard time seeing where the highlights are not "tame." The shot of the trees probably has the best highlights out of the three so I'll focus on the other two. Are you talking about the bit of the counter top in the kitchen shot as well as the front bumper in the car shot?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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