Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,812   Posts: 1,581,556   Online: 976
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Personally, I'd do proper testing to find your EI and N development time and cut out the guesswork. It will save you film in the long run, taking about 4 or 5 sheets to get the EI and perhaps the same again to tune the development time.

    Both these can be done without recourse to a densitometer using the paper max-black method. I see AWH Imaging has put Barry Thornton's site back online as a tribute - there are excellent articles on how to tune your personal film speed and development time on there (which unfortunately, seem to have lost all their formatting, so a bit dense to read).

    Cheers, Bob.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,377
    Images
    3
    Rather than try a bunch of different suggestions to use this or that time or adjust that or reduce the other thing, why dont you just do a simple and standardized series of tests each time you change something in your procedure? This will give you exactly what you want with no guessing, and no time wasted fixing things that arent broken. It takes a few hours, and you will learn a huge amount in that short time. If you are not sensitometry-inclined (like me) check out the Steve Simmons how-to article in the last issue of View Camera.


    Wayne (a recent dropout of the shotgun approach)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,377
    Images
    3
    Well Bob typed quicker than me I guess. But the message is the same.

    Wayne

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by mikefiction
    Tom,
    I am using a handheld lightmeter for both the 4x5 and 35mm exposures. It's across 2 35mm cameras and 3 LF lens/shutters and I get consistant results so I assume it isn't an exposure issue. Yes I do get good shadow detail and I can get prints (I have them printed) from the 4x5 negs ok, but they are just pretty thin. The 35mm look dense, scan and print great.
    I agree with Bob and Wayne. Do testing to determine EI. Just because you are using the "same" film in different formats with the same developers, do not assume the true speed of the 4x5 is identical.

    From your description, I'd be willing to bet you are simply underexposing.

    The other possibility is that the results on 4X5 are correct, and that the 35mm camera is actually overexposing relative to the three shutters you're using for the 4x5.
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  5. #15
    Photographica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F.
    Personally, I'd do proper testing to find your EI and N development time and cut out the guesswork. It will save you film in the long run, taking about 4 or 5 sheets to get the EI and perhaps the same again to tune the development time.

    Cheers, Bob.
    I agree. You really need to do some testing for your EI and N development time The fact that you get similar results with 1:1 solution and stock is really troublesome. Also, I read through the thread a couple of times and couldn't find how long you've been developing your film.

    I have found quite a difference between 1:1 and stock D76.

    For FP4+ 4x5 and D76, I hit almost a 1.0 gamma at 10 minutes (D76 stock) in a Jobo processor. That means for every stop of exposure I give the film, I get a stops worth of density on the negative.

    There are lots of ways to do your calibrations without a desitometer. A step wedge is an economical way to get there.

    Bill

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,403
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Earl Dunbar
    I agree with Bob and Wayne. Do testing to determine EI. Just because you are using the "same" film in different formats with the same developers, do not assume the true speed of the 4x5 is identical.

    From your description, I'd be willing to bet you are simply underexposing.

    The other possibility is that the results on 4X5 are correct, and that the 35mm camera is actually overexposing relative to the three shutters you're using for the 4x5.
    Mike describes that he is getting good detail in the shadows so under exposure seems unlikely although another exposure of about a stop extra should help to confirm this. It seems to be a case of under development, perhaps another developer which is a bit more energetic would help.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I think you are under developing. If you are rating it the same as your 35mm (of course the speeds might be different but prob within 1/2 stop) they are IMO unlikely to be so different that you are now getting VERY thin negs, You say yourself that you are getting good shadow ( like with the 35mm) detail just not enough overall density therefore it IS under development, no question. If the shadows are a tiny bit less but the highlights a lot less (than the 35mm), the required increase in development (which sounds like it could be a quite a bit more required) will result in a touch of extra body to the shadows too.

    Personally, as a quick test to see where you are, add 25% to your dev time, using the same exposure and see what happens, assuming you are not keen to do the usual EI testing. I have done ei testing along the Barry Thornton lines and several others and have found it no more useful than using your eye and a bit of experience...and seeing which negs produce which prints.

    It is not unusual for 5x4 to require longer as the agitation in a conbitank is so much more gentle than that possible with a small tank and this DOES make a difference......just as people who use one reel tanks and shake away find they get under development when using an 8 reel paterson for the first time...as the agitation is more glugh glug than martini shaker!

    Tom

    If

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Just as an addition, be careful to keep that agitation smooth with the combitank as you dont want to pop those bendy sheets from their grooves and find them stuck together and ruined. Keep it smooth and increase time. I learned the hard way and subsequently took to the carrier with glue to make it more rigid.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    For some reason I missed the bit about shadow detail being OK. Still, it's obviously hard to make a judgment without seeing the negs.
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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