Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,579   Posts: 1,545,742   Online: 919
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,400
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Tofek View Post
    Yes, my prints have always been muddy and I'm beginning to realize it. So it's likely my fault. And my agitation is very soft too, I agitate two times, gently, every minute. So it may also come from here. Anyway I prefer increasing the dev time rather than changing agitation, it became such a habit that would be harder to change.
    Btw, I also tested the exposure, and I'm seeing a fog on the supposd zone 0, at 100ASA. By how much would you increase the ASA rating ? I must admit that I don't want to bother with thirds of stops and skip directly at 200ASA...
    I would suggest increasing your agitation somewhat - how about four gentle cycles each minute or two gentle cycles each 30 seconds?

    That will help remove local developer exhaustion from the list of potential causes for your low contrast negatives.

    An inaccurate thermometer is another likely cause. As long as your thermometer is consistent, you can (within limits) compensate for potential inaccuracy by increasing development time. If the thermometer is inconsistent it needs to be replaced.

    I'm not exactly sure I understand what you are saying with respect to Zone 0 exposure, but if you are wanting to increase the exposure, you need to decrease the Exposure Index ("EI") set on your meter.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    70
    The thermometer should be acurate, it isn't old and is quite precise (0,2°C).
    As for agitation, as I said I prefer to change time not only for the habit of agitation, but also because the grain will be bigger with more agitation (you'll tell me not to use Rodinal if I want small grain... ).
    Concerning the zone 0. I made the exposure test : meter a wall (zone V) and close the diaphragm 5 stops to get to zone 0. If correctly exposed, there shouldn't be fog, if I understood well. But there is some, in my case. Which means that I over expose the negative when setting my meter at 100ASA. That's why I was talking about increasing the EI.

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,400
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Tofek View Post
    The thermometer should be acurate, it isn't old and is quite precise (0,2°C).
    As for agitation, as I said I prefer to change time not only for the habit of agitation, but also because the grain will be bigger with more agitation (you'll tell me not to use Rodinal if I want small grain... ).
    Concerning the zone 0. I made the exposure test : meter a wall (zone V) and close the diaphragm 5 stops to get to zone 0. If correctly exposed, there shouldn't be fog, if I understood well. But there is some, in my case. Which means that I over expose the negative when setting my meter at 100ASA. That's why I was talking about increasing the EI.
    With thermometers, precision and accuracy are two separate issues.

    It could be precise, but not calibrated properly.

    And with respect to agitation and Rodinal, I think you will find that if you keep the cycles gentle you will continue to minimize grain.

    Unless you have a light leak, the fog comes from the film and development, not exposure. Increasing the exposure will raise your shadow detail above the fog, whereas reducing exposure will cause more detail to be obscured by fog.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    70
    But I don't get it then...I thought that zone 0 should have zero fog, zero silver reduced., as it is said in Barnbaum's book ?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,758
    No. There is always a minimum silver density. Image density is the net density above the film base+fog density.

    And if your prints are muddy, check your safelight, and check your darkrooom and enlarger for light leaks. Safelights are not always safe.

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    No. There is always a minimum silver density. Image density is the net density above the film base+fog density.

    And if your prints are muddy, check your safelight, and check your darkrooom and enlarger for light leaks. Safelights are not always safe.
    Agree.

    You can do a simple test by simply turning off the lights and check for light leaks. If there are any, plug them, until your darkroom is safe.
    Then make a print without the safelight on. If the prints still look the same, then you don't have a light leak problem.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    931
    All the advice pre-supposes that your negs have shadow detail where you want and expect it of course. If not, then increase exposure too.

  8. #18
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,331
    Images
    343
    I would suggest that having to print on grade 5, or any high magenta value for multigrade is not a good idea. Why not try and adjust your camera exposure and negative development time/temperature until you can consistently print on grade 2 or with zero filtration on multigrade?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #19
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,225
    You already did the test ["I usually print on Grade 5"] so just increase film development by 25% to give you some more leeway so most images print on grade 2 or 3.

    Explanation: Development time tests are to save time and money. Otherwise you need to do experimentation by shooting typical scenes and, processing negatives without knowing if they will be printable on the commonly available paper grades. Since you have already done that experiment and determined your negatives print on grade 5, there is no need to go backwards from there.
    Last edited by ic-racer; 08-28-2013 at 04:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    70
    I wanted to do the tests anyway, to understand a little more what's happening, why the contrast is low, how much should I increase the time etc. But I see your point.

    For the fog however, I don't see why there should be more fog on a field exposed as zone 0 than on a field which received no exposure ( lens cap on ) ? That's the case in my test, and it proves that the light meter didn't give me zone 0 exposure (respectively zone V) but a little more (overexposure). Isn't that correct ? I'm trying to understand...

    Thanks for the replies guys

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