Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,856   Posts: 1,583,024   Online: 960
      
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 118
  1. #61
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,822
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBrowning View Post
    Thanks. I highly doubt I developed more than 15 rolls in it. I had 13 marked down but looking at where I may have made a mistake I thought it was a possibility. As for contaminating A w/ B I doubt it happened but again there is a possibility.
    I once measured the amount of liquid being carried over between two bathes in a Jobo 1520 tank. With normal pouring I had about 15 ml liquid carry over, only with prolonged pouring and shaking I could cut this number below 10ml. These experiments were done with empty spindle, so expect even higher carry over when film is on your spindle. If we assume you carry over about 20ml per dev cycle, you will quickly see that after 15 rolls your Bath B will have profoundly changed its composition. Your bath B turned into D-23 with Carbonate/Kodalk/Borax/whatever.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  2. #62
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,822
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    There is a great difference between achieving full detail in the dark shadow areas (IF that is what you want) and achieving a good looking print if the shadows are unimportant to you. If the deep shadows are unimportant for how you want your photographs to look then your criteria in choosing a developer will be different. Crawley's FX-37 gives fantastic separation between the lower mid-tones and the bright highlights.
    Modern films can trivially handle many stops of overexposure, remember that single shot cameras contain ISO 800 color negative film and no exposure control at all. Every stop overexposure will give you a stop more shadow detail, but the question is whether you can bring all that detail into a print. Prints can show about seven stops of dynamic range, into which you have to squeeze the 10-15 stops of dynamic range that your film can hold. Since your shadows don't reach brighter tones in your prints, we can safely assume that you don't give them more than three stops of dynamic range in your prints, and that's all your neg needs to hold.

    I am a bit confused about your statements that devs which give you full speed lose shadow detail. Isn't the definition of full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure? I accept that you get pleasing results with BTTB and your exposure regime, the results speak for themselves, but this seems to be one of the cases where by coincidence a wrong explanation leads to desirable results.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  3. #63
    David Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    505
    I am a bit confused about your statements that devs which give you full speed lose shadow detail. Isn't the definition of full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure? I accept that you get pleasing results with BTTB and your exposure regime, the results speak for themselves, but this seems to be one of the cases where by coincidence a wrong explanation leads to desirable results.
    Hi Rudeofus,

    The point that I was trying to make is that the level of desired shadow detail has a direct impact on how each photographer would define the effective speed of a film in combination with a particular developer and the tonal range that they wish to achieve.

    Of the developers that I have used (by no means an exhaustive list) I have only found Cellar-Stella to deliver as true increase in film speed. By a 'true increase in film speed' I mean that it retains the level of shadow detail that I want at a higher EI than other developers give me.

    I have found that, insufficient exposure for the important shadow areas results in insufficient shadow detail irrespective of whether I have used D76, HC110, a different replenishing two-bath, Perceptol, Crawley's FX-37 or BTTB. Therefore, for my purposes none of these developers deliver full speed.

    However, the point that I was making about FX-37 and other developers that are claimed to be full speed is that, whilst they do not (in terms of what I want to achieve) deliver full speed, they do something else that is very useful. They deliver superb tonality with the remaining information on your film. By 'remaining information on your film' I mean that the photographer has chosen to loose the dark shadow information in favour of being able to get the image that they want and are using a developer that will give them excellent tonal separation across the dark mid-tones to the highlights (this, for example, is something where BTTB does not do a good job and is not the correct developer for this way of working).

    Why would photographers choose to lose shadow information but still wish to have negatives with a dynamic tonal range? There are many reasons that range from needing to do this because of low light levels/needing to use a particular shutter speed through to it is how they want their images to look like (i.e. photographs that look like Ray Metzker's high contrast images or Daido Moriyami's or Anders Petersen's, etc). Naturally, this way of working is as equally valid as my, or anyone elses, way of working.

    In conclusion, I have found the developers that I have used which claimed to deliver full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure actually do not deliver this within the terms of what I want to achieve. For a photographer working differently, these developers may well deliver full speed within the terms of what they want to achieve. Everything is relative to what one wants to achieve.

    To sum up, for the results I want Tri-X developed in D76 needs to be rated at an EI of 200 with the processing very carefully controlled to avoid blown out highlights. To get results like Anders Petersen you load up Tri-X in your Contax T3 shoot at ISO 400 and stew in in the developer to get a punchy tonality from the darker mid-tones through to the highlights. In my case I would say that D76 delivers half box speed. In Petersen's case he would say that D76 delivers box speed.

    Bests,

    David.
    www.dsallen.de

  4. #64
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,822
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    To sum up, for the results I want Tri-X developed in D76 needs to be rated at an EI of 200 with the processing very carefully controlled to avoid blown out highlights. To get results like Anders Petersen you load up Tri-X in your Contax T3 shoot at ISO 400 and stew in in the developer to get a punchy tonality from the darker mid-tones through to the highlights. In my case I would say that D76 delivers half box speed. In Petersen's case he would say that D76 delivers box speed.
    I'm beginning to understand where you come from: you want good shadow detail and very controlled highlight density, so you can print without much burning&dodging. Since your scene brightness ratio is quite high, you would have to pull process (= underdevelop) with most regular contrast developers. Underdevelopment will give you reduced ISO speed, which explains your Tri-X/Delta400 @ EI200 ratings, and the claimed speed loss with Xtol and FX-37. The film developers which gave you acceptable shadow detail together with reduced highlight density were low contrast developers like Celer Stellar, and two bath developers like BTTB.

    Now looking at BTTB, since it uses exhaustion phenomena to reduce contrast while shadows are fully developed, there is no reason that it has to lose a full stop of film speed. The reason it does that is because it starts with D-23, which is a fine grain, speed losing formula, and bath B can only recover some of the emulsion speed that was lost in bath A. AFAIK there are plenty of two bath formulas that not only give full speed, but that would also give full speed for your purposes.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  5. #65
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,594
    Did you mean fine grain instead of speed in the last sentance...
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  6. #66
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,822
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    Did you mean fine grain instead of speed in the last sentance...
    The way I formulated this was quite intentional: several developers that give box speed to must of us won't give David Allen box speed because he would need to underdevelop in order to control highlight density. A developer like e.g. Diafine would give controlled highlights AND full speed. Likewise, Michael R.'s low contrast developers give full speed and reduced contrast, although with a straight curve.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  7. #67
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,594
    Thanks. May I know if I replace sodium metaborate with sodium carbonate(increase in contrast and grain), am I still under developing or what magic do sodium carbonate bring.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by john_s View Post
    But don't we generally find that setting meters to a film speed of half ISO about right in just about any normal developer (unless we're in a distinctly low light indoor situation)? I regard half ISO to be the real speed even with Xtol, Pyrocat-HD and, in the past, others.
    Speed depends on how it is defined. So no, the real speed is not half the ISO speed. The primary reason most of us rate our films at half ISO speed in general purpose developers is because it has become the tradition to base a personal exposure index on criteria set out by Adams etc., which include a larger safety factor against underexposure.

    Everything is subject to the way we run our tests, use our meters, "place" metered values, develop the film, print the negatives, etc. Given all that, under normal circumstances all we can really say about it is "I rate my film at EI xxx".

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    I'm beginning to understand where you come from: you want good shadow detail and very controlled highlight density, so you can print without much burning&dodging. Since your scene brightness ratio is quite high, you would have to pull process (= underdevelop) with most regular contrast developers. Underdevelopment will give you reduced ISO speed, which explains your Tri-X/Delta400 @ EI200 ratings, and the claimed speed loss with Xtol and FX-37.
    I don't know, I'm reading a lot of very questionable things regarding exposure, film speed, shadow detail etc. here.

  10. #70
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,822
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I don't know, I'm reading a lot of very questionable things regarding exposure, film speed, shadow detail etc. here.
    David Allen is one of these guys who deliver results, regardless of how flawed their underlying theory is. I therefore attempted to shed some light on his theories and what may be the true reason for his observations. Based on that he may be able to improve his process if he cares.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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