I've been thinking about this for a couple of days. And I think it is probably objectively true. I also realized that part or all of my feelings about various films and cameras might be due to synesthesia rather than objective judgment? I guess it didn't occur to me that my brain would do to film and cameras what it does to numbers, months, days, etc. but apparently it has. Unless, of course, it is commonly known that Delta 100 is a lovely older lady and Tri-X is a grizzled old kind of gruff fellow. So yeah, that is how my brain works. Good times...
Originally Posted by Vaughn
Also? I lovingly refer to my husband as Eeyore. It takes all kinds.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
When you say underexposure what I hear is under exposure and over development which may well blow highlights. Underexposure and over development was the combination to avoid in my text books now they are called uprating...
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Uprating film only works when you don't blow highlights and can recover the shadow data reasonably. even then I don't like the resultant prints you might be better going to digital for available darkness. Kodak cancelled T3200 cause not enough people were using it, think they are all digital, cept for me and thee.
The second bath allows you to trade off high light burn against shadow data retention within limits. But it is not easy to decide the time in 1st and 2nd bath for optimum results, You are on your own unless some one else can help you. Id hope some one could provide details of their procedure for trix
But please try and read the Barry Thorton link I posted earlier.
You will note it is evangelical rather than trying to help you understand but in his words
Simply use your normal standard developer (T-Max, ID11, llfotech, HC110, Econotol, Perceptol etc.) for half to two thirds of the maker’s stated time as Bath A, drain it off, and use the teaspoon-measured Bath B for 3 minutes at the same temperature as Bath A. You may have to fine tune Bath A time by experience. For all 2 baths stop and fix afterwards in the usual way after Bath B, but not between the two baths
in my words which may be more difficult to follow
If you have almost burnt the highlights in 2/3 the time then they are a lost cause - your goose is cooked
If you have not then the borax will continue to develop the high lights until the dev agent (e.g. metol) or its accelerator/activator (e.g. hydroquinol - for ID11) are exhausted. However the % increase in density is not going to be large with a modern thin emulsion cause the density is large already and there is not much dev absorbed in the thin film, and lots of silver salt wants to change to silver in the high lights... the development rate would slowly reduce to zero, probably well before the 1/3 elapses.
In either of the (if) cases above the shadows will continue to develop for the same amount of developer capacity i.e. a larger % increase in density (than the high lights) cause there is much less density already, and not much silver salt activated. This would continue unless the activity is terminated before the developer is exhausted by the subsequent stop bath or rinse water and fix. note there could be a bit more capacity in the shadows to start with and if the shadows were really black the developer would not be doing anything apart from trying to raise the fog level.
The mid tones get an intermediate increase.
So leaving the film in the 2nd bath will pull the shadows up as much as the film and dev allows, you have some choice in both e.g. D3200 or Trix , Microphen or D23...
Note Barry says this is a divided developer technique - which it is is not in my opine as the D23 that Ansell was using is a perfectly good developer. And I think Barry's bath 1 will work ok as well without a 2nd bath, as it is a near clone of D23.
I use D23 and its clone/near cousin POTA sometimes when I detect I have goofed on film range, cause each (D23 qnd POTA) will retain high lights. POTA will under cook high lights unless you have a Bikini Atoll shot - H bomb test site, only done it once as an experiment - the POTA.
If you have density measurement kit like a scanner, test strip and want to spend time then you can confirm what the objective effect is exactly, for your film, your developer and time in 1 and bath 2 is but instead you may want to first consider.
If I know I have a sunny day (and the met office is reasonable at weather predictions)
- I only pack single coated lenses, because they reduce the range of the light hitting the negative, compared to multi coated. This is not just me Cosina Voightlander make some lenses in both MC or SC for this very reason... You could do that too. If you know you have street lights that are bright but dark shadows you would be better with SC lenses, in effect you are also preflashing the negatives, an effect I don't get...
- I pick a wide range film like trix or HP5 currently I'd use Eastman 5222 Kodak doublex cine which is soft working, (about a years supply in fridge, given it is dull normally here) D3200 (or T-MAX P3200 I know it has gone) would be better for you, I have used D3200 once or twice at night.
If I think I might have transgressed then I use D23 which stretches the films dynamic range, without a second bath (as Ansell was using, D23 is a normal low contrast dev)
If I have really been bad bad I develop for less time in D23 and the rest in Borax similar to Barry's suggestion quoted above (as Ansell was using)
More normally I'd use Rodinal or Microphen with Forma 400, Kentmere 400 or APX400S cause they are cheaper, and we dont see the sun often.
So you may want/need to use SC lenses, D3200, D23 and two bath, each produces a little bit of margin, but you still may be negative in exposure latitude.
If you get to wet print you will find an underexposed negative is not as easy to print, split grade, mask, burn, dodge mean you need really good records or a reprint takes the same again, or longer if you are out of practice.
But if you uprate HP5 or Trix to 3200 then most of the picture will be in the toe of the film and I normally don't like prints from such uprated film cause they look unnatural, subjective perhaps, and still difficult to wet print reasonably. I can get the same bad effect without up rating and I don't like it.
I also suggest reading about Ansell exposure technique, understand it, alter it to suit your work practice. it is another gambit for over development, cause you underexposed. You need to get the exposure as near correct as you can cause you have negative margin, or bracket if your subject allows. I use a Weston meter and zones for my exposure.
You wont burn high lights easily with POTA but I think it was slower (1/3 of a stop) than D23, D23 is about the same as D76. But POTA followed by a borax bath may be the best option depending on your subject brightness range. I will try this combination for you if you ask, but I would not know what brightness range you need or how dark your shadows are. I do sometimes do night shots, so it would not be a waste for me. With D23 I use 2/3 and 1/3 for 20 mins at 20C.
You would need a micro scale to 0.01 gm to mix POTA or D23, the scales are cheap, a few storage containers for liquid stock, powder free inspection gloves for D23 just in case your are allergic, note it is safer than D76, POTA is safer still, (but POTA has zero storage life), even the borax is now considered a hazchem.
Nothing of this is extreme, just how much contrast do you need, how much effort do you want to expend, to allow more acceptable uprating?
Not doing some of these is like going up stairs bump, bump, bump,... to parody AMilne... I already do some for street shooting.
Of course, Winnipeg Manitoba, where the original Bear who arrived in London came from.
Originally Posted by MattKing
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville
there is a whole network of suppliers, Recall that Illford had to spend a chunk of change to tool up to make their own cassettes when the supplies became unreliable. I really wonder how many chemicals for the various brands come from suppliers like ferannia Chemical?
Kodak traditionally controlled most of their supply chain. (and in Gorge Eastman's day, a redundant supply chain just in case) but I am sure that there are little things from Kodak Park in almost every film manufacturing plant.
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville
White River, Ontario! I've been there and it's Winnie's home for sure. The name Winnie come's from Winnipeg which was Harry Colebourn adopted second home.
Originally Posted by cmacd123
Last edited by JW PHOTO; 12-06-2013 at 10:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
So it seems I have been somewhat enlightened about Winnie the Pooh. It originated in Canada somewhere and I don't recall till the early 70's before I ever heard of it down here in the southeastern US. I suppose it was probably something on PBS, such as PBS was at that time around here. So long story short, since I was already nearly grown by the time I heard of it, I know nothing about it and the characters. And if I were to watch what they're aiming at children now, I'd rather not even see. I'll bet Winnie the Pooh was mild compared what's on these days.
Originally Posted by JW PHOTO
It is a classic series of stories that first appeared in books published in England in the 1920s.
Originally Posted by Tom1956
If you didn't have any exposure to the stories while you were a child, you were a child deprived.
And as the reference I linked to above ("The Tao of Pooh") indicates, the children's stories written by A.A. Milne have a lot of wisdom for adults as well.
In the 1960s, the stories were licensed to Disney.
Like Tri-X, Winnie the Pooh (and Christopher Robin, and Piglet, and Eeyore) are icons in themselves.
Anyone on APUG ever photographed a Heffalump?
“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
And don't forget Tigger!!
I have to agree with the deprived childhood. You must go to the Library immediately and catch up on this serious literary gap. I suggest you take along a child or grandchild (yours preferably but someone may be willing to loan their own to you for a short time) to properly explain all the finer points of finding your way around the Hundred Acre Wood!
Thanks, but I never liked story books. Always preferred books where you could learn how to do something.
Originally Posted by Pioneer
Ahhh, I bet you enjoy the occasional storybook. Even how-to books can turn into storybooks. I read Capa's autobiography, that was a true storybook!