Ok, my results for the evening
I just wrapped up my developing bonanza. It seems that 64asa in 1:1:100 @20c for around 10 mins seems like the best approach. However, I honestly do not think Im getting the same shadow detail as I have before with rodinal and ID-11. Granted, I am no professor in the field, but I do know how to use the zone system, and how to meter. I can honestly say that I know that I should have gotten SOMETHING where I have NOTHING. In one two instances, I metered a shadow - not a deep shadow by any means - and placed it in zone III. Therefore, I should have texture. However, in three different photos, I have almost absolutely clear negative. This is @ 64asa mind you. In one shot, I gave it an extra stop of exposure, and I just *started* to get detail in the same spot.
Hopefully someone who really knows what they are doing will test this combo out properly and report back to correct my findings. Perhaps these two were just never meant to live together ?
Last edited by SteveH; 03-11-2006 at 06:14 AM. Click to view previous post history.
There would appear to be several possibilities.'
1. The film/developer combination is totally incompatible. Not likely, IMO, but everything is possible.
2. Something is wrong with the developer or with the way we mixed the developer solution. More likely than No. 1, and I could not exclude this possibility without further information. Why? Because film speed, which determines shadow detail, is about 95% in the film. With rare exceptions choice of developer plays a very small role in effective film speed.
3. Unless we do side by side comparisions with the comparison developers there is the possibility that something is off with our metering technique, or with our meter. More likely than No. 1 and No. 2, IMHO.
I don't know for sure what is going on with your tests, but I have compared many, many films in D76 1:1 (same as ID-11) and Pyrocat-HD 1:1, and in every case Pyrocat-HD delivered at least as much film speed, and in most cases slightly more.
When I am confused by the results of comparision testing, either Zone or BTZS, I resort to the old F/16 rule and just forget about Zone and BTZS. To do this, I just expose several negatives identically, on a sunny day, with the sun to the side or behind you, using the f/16 and shutter speed same as film ASA. And I make sure that the scene includes both hiighlights, midtones and shadow. Then develop the negatives in each of the comparison developers for the time that is considered normal. When dry, a comparison of the shadow detail in the negatives will tell us for sure if there is really a difference in effective film speed. The beauty of this type of testing is its simplicity, in that it eliminates from the equation any questions about metering. All films get the same exposure, period. So when you develop the films in different developers, if one of the negatives has more *shadow* detail (and assuming the negatives are developed to about the same approximate CI), then we can be sure that this particular film/developer combinations produced more film speed.
Originally Posted by SteveH
Thanks again for your help. I really don't think anything is wrong with the developer...Its most likely an issue with THE developer (me !). However, one thing that I did notice...Solution 'A' is VERY statically charged. Is this normal ?
I haven't given up on the testing yet. Today Im going to give the sunny/16 a shot, and this evening develop the same shots, 1 in pyrocat-hd, 1 in ID11. Granted, this may not be such a grand test, as I know the exact time needed for ID11. I guess I still am unsure was to what would be considered 'normal' for pyrocat-hd ? Perhaps I'll revert back to the 100asa @ 13min time, as those negs still slightly had better tones. The 64asa highlights I think started to get abit hot.
PS - Perhaps it really is time for me to get a JOBO ?
Shot one roll of this in very low contrast conditions. I shot it at 50 to be sure of shadow detail and dev'ed in XTOL 1:1. The dev time was really short, 6mins or something (got the time from foma I think) a little too short possibly. VERY blue base but think that is normal reading stuff from places on the net.
Re: the loss of shadow detail. I think your pyrocat is dying. How old is it? I had this happen, loss of shadow detail with everything else OK, a week later it was totally dead.
Re: Base Color
I have never found this to be an issue wtih printing using regular developers. Honestly don't see much issue wtih printing a pyrocat developed neg either.
I cannot comment on this, as I ordered my solutions in liquid form from Photo Formulary. I ordered it about a month ago. Judging by the reputation that the formulary has, I find it very unlikely that my pyro arrived DOA. Like I said earlier, the only thing that I have noticed as an abnormality is that one of the solutions is very statically charged. When I go to pour it into my graduated cylinder, a small drop or two will jump across the mouth of the cylinder.
The only thing that I can think of in my mind at this point is that my agitation is incorrect for this type of developer. So far in my short-lived sheet film life, I have used Fomapan 100, HP5, FP4, and Efke 25. I have developed these in Rodinal, HC110 solutions b and e, and ID-11/D-76. I have never gotten any scratching, uneven development, or other 'artifacts'. Also, after a test or two, I have always been happy with the shadow detail/contrast that I was able to achieve.
I develop my sheet films in trays. I have made plexi-glass crosses which lay in my trays to separate the films (I use 8x10 trays, so I can develop 4 sheets at a time). My trays have ridges in the bottom, and the plexi dividers do NOT lie in these grooves, so that the chemicals can agitate through the whole tray. The agitation motion that I use is simular to that of the motion used when processing a print. I do this for 5 seconds every 30 seconds for the whole time of development. However, every 3mins, I lift the films out of the tray and place them back in, just to be assured that no air bubbles have accumulated. I always place the sheets in emulsion up. I use a plain water stop bath, and a non-hardening fixer.
I am going to shoot some HP5 today (if the weather clears), and develop in the pyrocat. I believe that if I have shadow detail as I feel I should, then this would elimate the possibility that my soup is bad.
If the weather does not clear, then I will print some of these negs to see how they look. If so, I will supply some scans later this evening.
Originally Posted by m_liddell
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would like to put here my Fomapan 100 test.
Developer : Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 @ 72░f
developed in tube continuous agitation
Paper ES 1.6
read density in blue channel
I attached a pdf file with my test, I hope, I wrote in the best way these my dates.
I did a photograph using date of my test and It's a good negative.
The next week I'm going to take photoghraphs near Siena, and I'll use this film, so I can write more opinion about this film.
If someone want the winplotter's file send me an e-mail and I'll send you it.
Interesting. I suppose you rated the film @ 100asa.
Being as it seems everyone chooses a roller type of agitation, I am going to be putting my tests on hold (as I have already gone through a lot of film trying to get it right !) until I am able to afford a drum. I have the unicolor base, so Im just awaiting a drum to come along on ebay.
Thanks for the test results. I really appreciate all of your help.
Just to clarify, I do film testing in tubes, individually on a motor base, or when testing four or five sheets, in a water bath with manual agitation. It is the only way, IMO, to guarantee the kind of consistency needed to accurately test films.
On the other hand, for my personal work I prefer minimal and extreme minimal agitation and develop this way whenever practical. I emphasize *whenever practical* because I have not yet found a practical way to develop multiple sheets of very large film, say 12X20, with minimal or extreme minimal agitation.
Originally Posted by SteveH
Isn't that what your bath tub is for .
On a serious note, there is a drum on ebay that looks promising. Hopefully it will become mine and I can get back up to speed with you guys by the end of next week.
Originally Posted by SteveH
Yes I rated the film @100 iso, and I tested the film with Phillips David's method and I did curves with winplotter program.
I probably will develope two sheet films tomorrow night, I took a picture of a old petrol pump, so when I did it I'll give my impression and I'll try to attach a copy of the negative and maybe a contact print of it.