Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,298   Online: 916
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,076
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by menos View Post
    Thank you guys for the overwhelming flood of comments!

    Some were really helpful, but I think, my point was not understood entirely.
    Unfortunately I cannot switch to 3200 ISO films - the costs are absolutely prohibitive (+ sourcing them locally in 120 is impossible).
    I do not have more exposure (and frankly do not care about better tones at ISO 200, as it is not available to me for when I need ISO 3200).
    When I want better tones and have more exposure, I simply use Tri-X at 320 or just shoot digital.

    …and simply wanted to hear about these minuscule effects from the experts, so I can improve upon the developing I do now.
    I am no expert but I can say that sourcing Ilford Delta 3200 film in 120 size in Shanghai is very easy. Where are you getting your film now? I must assume that you know of the camera mall on Luban road. There are several film stores on the 3rd floor and the one I go to has always had Delta 3200. I have not bought any in quite a long while so I guess there is a small chance things have changed. But I would be seriously surprised if it were not available anymore.

    Good to see another Shanghai poster here!

  2. #12
    menos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Shanghai
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18
    Hey RattyMouse - the name sounds familiar !?

    Yes, you can buy local but it does cost me between 10-15 RMB/roll more than TriX, which I import mostly in bulk from the US or buy local when prices are ok.
    After I went through many different films, I simply standardised everything on just TriX and HP5 for film and shoot the rest in digital.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,076
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by menos View Post
    Hey RattyMouse - the name sounds familiar !?

    Yes, you can buy local but it does cost me between 10-15 RMB/roll more than TriX, which I import mostly in bulk from the US or buy local when prices are ok.
    After I went through many different films, I simply standardised everything on just TriX and HP5 for film and shoot the rest in digital.
    Been to DPR? I'm a bit of a legend there I'm afraid.

    OK, you said earlier that it was impossible to source locally so I just wanted to point that out (that local sources are available).

    Are you a photographer here in Shanghai by profession or just a hobbyist like me?

    Edit: I looked at your website. Your photography is of exceptionally high quality.

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    menos I don't think we missed your point. I'm not suggesting that you change materials if you are really getting what you want but you are expressing the desire to open up the shadows and increase sharpness. Your chosen materials are simply bumping their physical limits. The fixes that are most effective are more exposure or more sensitive materials.

    Yes, changing the dilution of your D76 can change the look slightly. Diluting the solution can reduce the solvent effect of fine grain developers so a change in perceived sharpness/detail can technically be gained. It is worth playing with.

    With fixing it is normally either complete or not, there's no good middle ground. If it isn't complete, it can negatively effect your results, but that is a significant processing mistake in my world. I check my fixer before each run and typically it clears my test strip in 30-40 seconds but I still fix for 5-7 minutes to make darn sure there are no leftovers. If the clearing test takes longer than 45 seconds I toss that batch of fix out and start with fresh.

    As to the effect of agitation changes, here is a link to an article that can give you a little insight into how agitation can be used. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,079
    use a single coated lens instead of multi coated

    the single coated flashes the shadows that would otherwise be clear so a little more detail appears

    and

    a post bath of borax

    http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barryth...ckler2bath.htm

    this will improve the shadows a little and is easy

    if you mix up the D76 yourself alter to the Adox Borax MQ formula or ID68, D76 is too general purpose, a set of micro scales is cheap.

  6. #16
    menos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Shanghai
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18
    @ RattyMouse, thank you certainly ;-) Le't call it passionist though - might be more fitting.

    @ Mark: thank you very much for the link - this is exactly the kind of direction I was looking for. I am going to experiment with agitation during the next batch of developments and see what I can find.
    As you (and others) have commented though, it looks to be more like a combination of indeed more exposure (I will not get around it seems) AND a well balanced more frequent agitation to keep the negative curve more flat for better highlight protection.
    I will also look into a more thorough technique in noise reduction during digital post processing (I do practise a hybrid workflow and print entirely digital).

    @ Xmas, this is a very valid point and I am one of the people who very much prefer vintage lenses over the latest modern breed of perfected optics among others for the reason of a lower contrast.
    Regarding the STÖECKLER TWO BATH, this will be something I have to save for later when starting to experiment indeed with different materials.
    I wonder, if it is indeed applicable for heavy push processing to 2-3 stops over box speed, which is what I am doing at the moment.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,079
    Sorry don't do more than a simple post Borax bath for 5 minutes with D76.
    It should not compress shadows and may get some more detail out of zone 0 - 1. Borax is a wash aid insect killer easy to obtain?

  8. #18
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,988
    A little preflashing might get more shadows up off the toe. I've never tried it but it might be worth a shot. For that matter it might raise some below-threshold shadows up TO the toe where you'll at least get something.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,079
    Hi Roger

    That is how single coated lenses work. The effect is adaptive on scene contrast.

    Use a deep lens hood and no filter contrajour you don't need flare.

    I carry two sets of lenses MC and SC all great painters had more than one brush?

    But I use Microphen or ID68 rather than D76 (about 1/3 of a stop) and a borax post bath rather than overdevelop, id meter HP5 at 650 for zone0. If Ansell can use Borax so can I.

    When It gets too dark I overdose with latte in coffee shops with WiFi. Negs are pigs to print or s#&&, if I don't.

    Noel

  10. #20
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    You are on the right track Xmas but their is a real difference in effect between pre-flashing and the effects single or uncoated lenses provide.

    First, flare (internal) is the effect that causes the effect you are speaking of. Controlling the amount of flare using a hood is a good idea. Both types of flare can be used creatively, regulating good vs bad though, is an art.

    As I understand it, internal flare (from say uncoated, single coated, or dirty lenses) tends to bleed into adjacent areas around the bright areas (or the dirt), it doesn't affect the whole frame equally. If the highlights are far right, the shadows far left may not get any extra exposure from the internal flare. This can help the print by keeping blacks black.

    Internal flare reduces contrast mostly between bright subjects and their immediate surroundings and that may require extra development of the film or printing at a harder grade to look right. Those fixes may make menos's problem worse; it's an artistic choice that menos will have to play with to see.

    Pre-flashing by contrast affects the entire frame and the effect is most marked in the low tones, contrast in the high tones is relatively unaffected. Less development or more normal paper grade may be used to get the desired result.

    Both approaches can produce very nice results.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "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