Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,494   Online: 987
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    highpeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    833
    Images
    71

    Tri-X low contrast, why?

    I shot a roll of Tri-X rated at 320ASA, the day was cloudy. After developed in 1:50 Rodinal at 20*C for 11.5 min, I got a low contrast negtives. Is that because the less development time or becuse this roll of film has been passed twice under the airport X-ray machine. I am asking is because Tri-X always give me good results before.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    dr bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Annapolis, Md
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    871
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by highpeak
    I shot a roll of Tri-X rated at 320ASA, the day was cloudy. After developed in 1:50 Rodinal at 20*C for 11.5 min, I got a low contrast negtives. Is that because the less development time or becuse this roll of film has been passed twice under the airport X-ray machine. I am asking is because Tri-X always give me good results before.

    Thanks.
    I have processed TXP in almost the precise way you described. I have no problem with contrast. I usually use an ISO of 200 however, and employ the Zone System to make decisions of exposure. Therefore it seems possible that your contrast may be representative of the scenic conditions and your camera setting giving a reduced density instead. Have you tried printing this negative yet?
    I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
    Truly, dr bob.

  3. #3
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,908
    Blog Entries
    1
    Cloudy day = lower contrast
    Less development = lower contrast
    Add the two together pus possibly a low contrast subject and you are bound to get low contrast negatives.
    Also, the film is underexposed if you used an EI of 320. Try an EI of 200-250, and increase development time when photographing under soft conditions.
    Jim

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I am not sure that the film would be underexposed much under low contrast conditions at an ei of 320..........yes it might drop the shadows a touch but this would not neccessarily result in lower contrast......but deep black shadows. ISO tests are strictly governed and I am in no doubt that film is downrated under real world conditions (primarily due to higher contrast conditions and hence reduced development also employed). Flat conditions generally means that box speed is often suitable to give you a chance of some blacks! Inspecting the neg will show whether it is underexposed. Is there clear rebate in shadows or detail where there should be detail? As for dev time, how dense is the neg in the densest parts? Compare it to your other Tri-X negs.

    99% of the time when I have flat negs it is a combo of flat scene with insufficient development. Worst of all is when I overexpose and have too little development. This combo would render a flat scene flat beyond belief.


    Sounds more like under development to me.......

    Key question is:

    Have you used the same film in the same dev for the same time temp etc as above before?

  5. #5
    highpeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    833
    Images
    71
    Thanks again for your help. Since you didn't mention anything about the effect of airport X-ray on this film. I guess the flatness is because of less development.

    Tom, I didn't shoot Tri-X at this speed before, I generally shoot it at 200 or 400. 200 gives me the best result so far. I think I will stick to it. Once I tried at 1600, the grain is amazing .

  6. #6
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    I assume, then, that the time you used for EI 320 was the one that you've found you like at EI 200? That would make sense that it's lower contrast than you expected, then.

    And TXT @ 1600 has nice, tight, punchy grain, I've always thought. I prefer it for that speed in low contrast situations, or even up to 3200.

    allan

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Lobsta
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    Underexposure, underdevelopment or both.
    My Verito page

    Anyone can appreciate a fine print. But it takes a real photographer to appreciate a fine negative.

  8. #8
    highpeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    833
    Images
    71
    I attached a picture here. I think it was under developed.

    Thanks again for everybody.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 200532421343613551.jpg  

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    141
    Images
    7
    It looks like what it is; a nice photo taken on a cloudy day. It's fine. I wouldn't change the developing time at all.

  10. #10
    Saganich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Images
    176
    Your dissapointed because there isn't enough snap in the buildings or the sky is blown out? It is difficult to get'em both. A split grade print will look fine.

    Chris
    Chris Saganich
    http://www.imagebrooklyn.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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