Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,930   Posts: 1,522,186   Online: 1101
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
  1. #11
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    It's been so long since I used HC110 that I don't remember what dilution E is. When I did use it, it was at 1+31, and TRI-X at about 8 minutes runs in my mind as about what I used. I do remember getting some good shots of guest artists from my principal oboe chair at dress rehearsals. Oboes often have long rests. This was before 1980, mostly. Stage lighting is rather harsh, but not too strong, so there is a conflict between exposure and development. You want to get the most shadow detail you can without blocked up highlights. Maybe I can post an example later.
    Gadget Gainer

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    It's doubtful that it's the water. You don't mention anything about your darkroom method so its impossible to tell what's wrong. Expose and develop a roll of film using the box instructions for exposure and development. Forget anything like the zone system. Then tell us the details and the results.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    213
    the concert pic was developed in hc110 dil. h (1+63 - half of dil.b -therefor doubling the development time gives approximatively the correct time), for around 30 minutes, because it was exposed at 1600asa, agitation: 3x every 3 minutes.
    i think the picture looks fine, pretty much as i wanted it to be... ok there are some minor flaws, like the face is a bit too dark and there could some more detail in the chest area. but those are only in the digital one, they are fixed in the real print.

    i'm only wondering why i have to use such a high grade under those circumstances: hard concert light, push processing... everything that gives a lot of contrast usually. and i would expect to use a lower gradation than normal under those circumstances.
    and why would developing longer help my dark tones? since the zones 1,2,3... pretty much stay the same, even during extended development. my highlights are fine, only the dark tones at low gradation trouble me.

    and my enlarging lens is a rodagon 1:4 80mm

    and i just checked, i'm sorry, i confused the dilutions. i use H not E.

  4. #14
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,234
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    for one thing, cutting the dilution in half does not yield a 1:1 time ratio increase - I'm not sure what the exact factor is, but it is probably at least 1.25:1. When your negative already has such a contrast range as it does in a concert photo, it is more likely to work well printed contrasty, because the tonal ranges are not continuous - they're in peaks and valleys. You've got a bunch of tones in the blown-out highlights, past Zone 9. Then nothing. Drop down about three or four zones to zone 6, and you pick up density ranges again, to about Zone 4. Then you've got nothing until Zone 2, then nothing again. Because of the peaky nature of the lighting, trying to print at a lower contrast grade is going to make the image look really bleah, because it won't reproduce what's in the negative. You're trying to put information on the print that is just missing altogether from the negative.

  5. #15
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,531
    Images
    15
    I was taught that from 1 to 5, 3 is normal 2 is soft and 4 is hard. 1 and 5 are extreme. PE, what you said sounds very familiar; fact or myth?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by phritz phantom View Post
    maybe it's the water here.
    my development times are usually a lot longer than those suggested on the box or at internet sources (digitaltruth, unblinkingeye...).
    i develop trix at 200asa for 9,5minutes in hc110 dil. H.
    and 400asa for 17min. -- for n-development.
    (although i don't agitate much, 3 inversions every 3 minutes)

    i should run a test using distilled water.

    edit: thanks for the replies & suggestions.
    My times with Tri X are 6 min 15 seconds with dilution B. The attached image is made from a Tri X negative developed as indicated and printed on grade two. To answer your earlier question of how to develop a print at grade one or two, increase the density range of your negatives. That means increasing time, agitation, temperature or decreasing the developer dilution.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Sentinels.jpg  
    Last edited by Donald Miller; 12-21-2006 at 05:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  7. #17
    Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hall View Post
    I have printed my roll film on a condenser enlarger with a contrasty enlarging lens at grades 3 to 3 1/2 for years. I find that it gives me really good contrast at that stage.

    I would expect thin negatives with that little of agitation. Do a test roll with the same time and agitate twice every 30 seconds and try a print. I think this will give you an idea of how the development goes.

    Most times on Digital truth are for those who agitate much more than every few minutes.
    I suggested more time because I use reduced agitation, and for me, the first variable I would change would be the time. However, increasing the frequency of agitation, leaving the time the same is also a sound suggestion. I guess there are as many methods as there are photographers, and in the end, the results are what matters most. I think that the best suggestion I can offer phritz is to only change one variable at a time in order to avoid confusion about how the results were obtained. And take lots of notes so you don't forget what you did when you finally do get results that you were trying for.

    Mike
    When the chips are down,

    The buffalo is empty!!!



  8. #18
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Interestingly enough, I have never seen this mentioned before on APUG, but at one time, most paper manufacturers suggested the use of grade 3 as the standard for enlarging due to the flare encountered when enlarging negatives.

    And, they suggested going up in contrast grade as magnification increased.

    Has anyone else heard of this from way back when?
    This is the way I learned it too.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by phritz phantom View Post
    i can't get a decent black at grade 1 or 2. ...mushy grey.
    Likely you are using a diffusion enlarger AND a VC paper.
    Your specific combination may be working against good
    contrast at normal grade. Your dial or knob may read
    4 or 5 but you may actually be printing lower. Your
    negatives may be ball-park grade 2 for a genuine
    grade 2 paper and provide good blacks.

    I've seen one set of VC curves where grade
    differentiation did not occure untill dark gray
    densities developed.

    Try a Graded paper; they differ also. Don't forget
    the diffuse light source. Maybe Grade 3? Dan

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    Likely you are using a diffusion enlarger AND a VC paper.
    Your specific combination may be working against good
    contrast at normal grade. Your dial or knob may read
    4 or 5 but you may actually be printing lower. Your
    negatives may be ball-park grade 2 for a genuine
    grade 2 paper and provide good blacks.

    I've seen one set of VC curves where grade
    differentiation did not occure untill dark gray
    densities developed.

    Try a Graded paper; they differ also. Don't forget
    the diffuse light source. Maybe Grade 3? Dan
    sounds interesting. i was thinking about trying to rule out the enlarger.
    i do have a pack of maco "expo g" paper, which is grade 2. so i'd have to use a different enlarger, only using white light (without the filter box) won't be enough?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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