Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,514   Posts: 1,543,629   Online: 1118
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,357
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    This is why I always caveat my explanations of film speed and development schemes with "this is what works for me". I am well aware of the fact that my film speed and development practice have evolved out of the particular combinations of taking and processing gear that I have, and the films and papers I use. I'm still aware of it because I only recently made some major changes in my work style, to accommodate the kind of work I wanted to do, and those factors are fresh in my mind.

    I think many of us forget this because we get so used to our particular setup and workflow that it seems second-nature, reasonable and "obvious" - it's obvious to us, so obvious we've forgotten all the intermediate steps, because we do it every day.

  2. #22
    mikepry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Salem, Wi (By Milwaukee)
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    413
    Images
    40
    Well.......... I just got through devoloping another roll I shot today and tried 1:200 and have to say (here's the kiss of death) the negs look pretty darn nice. More to what I feel should print nice. I didn't want to change more than one thing at a time during this (sort of) testing but I did make two exposures of each scene ..... one at box speed (200) and one at 100. The box speed looks spot on. So we shall see how they print. Now, may I drop a bomb here .........

    Being new to film scanning I have found that you can pretty much scan anything and get an acceptable image with Photoshop, etc , but to make a good print I think is a whole different thing, at least for me as I am not the greatest printer (with an enlarger). My stronger point is alternative/contact printing. So having said that and not to sound snobby, I am looking at images posted on the web using a film scanner with a whole different light. My question is this ....... do you view negative scans in a different way than prints?
    "EVERY film and paper is good .......... for something"
    Phil Davis

  3. #23
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    But when you find that box speed will not work for you, is that after you have calibrated your equipment? I would never deny you the right to calibrate your whole setup by adjusting ISO setting to make your pictures be what you want them to be, but could you, or in fact would you, say dogmatically that the same setting would work for me? Given enough experience, most of us will begin to suspect shutter or f-stop errors if they are there. I am not telling you anything new, and in fact you should forget I mentioned it, but maybe some of us should consider when we make recommendations that the other guy might have to use twice box speed to get the same result you get with half. Maybe their equipment is not up to snuff. It happens even to Leica. That is why the older ones have shutter curtain adjustments.
    Well yes, all things being equal, which they may not be, as you well point out. On the other hand, your shutter, stop calibration, or lens transmission would have to be grossly out of whack to result in half rating an emulsion, and the manufactures box speed would still be merely a serving suggestion for your fubared camera, and incorrect as far as their testing goes as well.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 10-30-2007 at 10:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by mikepry View Post
    Well.......... My question is this ....... do you view negative scans in a different way than prints?

    Yes, to me a scan is an electronic representation of a negative or a print. When I scan something I try to adjust it to mimic the real print, or how I envision the negative will print, but much is missing or distorted. The "back lit" effect of a monitor is where it first goes skeewampus for me, the lack of tones and dmax is next, and the nagging feeling that it looks completely different on a Jujixto monitor compared to my Miasushii, not to mention Bill and Steve's concerning gamma. If I show you a print, there it is, exactly as I intended it.

  5. #25
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,287
    Images
    301
    This is why I do semistand development with practically all my roll film and 35mm. It evens out the difference between frames and is incredibly helpful if shooting in varying lighting conditions. That's one answer to Ray Heath as to why using 'exotic' techniques. I claim it isn't any more difficult than regular development, but holds a few advantages.
    If you've got good shadow detail, you have probably not over-exposed, but rather over-developed. I have used 1+100 for semistand, but with agitation every three minutes. My time was 16 minutes with FP4 (at 70*F and EI 80). Negs look great, although I prefer using Pyrocat for even more controllable highlights and a bit more punch to prints on graded paper.
    Try again, I hope things work out for the best. No reason they should.
    - Thomas

    Quote Originally Posted by mikepry View Post
    Thanks all, and JB, I love the hunt. I figured I overdeveloped and will tweek one varible at a time. I'm just spoiled using BTZS with sheet film...... and the reason behind my interest in semi stand was that I wanted to have a tool that will will yield "acceptable" prints from all the different lighting situations found on a 36 exposure roll. I wasn't by any means a Fred Picker groupie but I certainly agree with him (and you) on eliminating, or changing only one thing at a time.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #26
    mikepry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Salem, Wi (By Milwaukee)
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    413
    Images
    40

    Getting a Grip on Rodinal

    Well I just couldn't dial in the semi stand development for the life of me. I was getting very eratic results making it impossible to formulate a logical timeand dilution. Very strange as I am very methodical in the darkroom. So, I started using the 1:50 and have gotten much better results. I have settled in at least for now with 8 min agitating GENTLY for the first 30 seconds and then 10sec every minute after that. I am rating it (Fomapan 200) at 160 but I maybe will drop my developing time some more as the negs are still pretty contrasty and the highlight densities are on the edge. I don't want to bring my film speed up anymore as I'll lose my shadows. I can print through using MG paper and split filter printing which is what I do anyways but still I may go down to 7-1/2 min and see what happens. I know that doesn't line up with the norm as far as dev. times go but am using a very old camera (Leica lllc) and since there is no meter in the camera, my Minolta incident meter. What's interesting to note is that the late 1940'sSummitar is not a contrasty lens so I think 8min is a tad strong. Everyones system is different in terms of calibration and what not so the shorter dev. time doesn't really concern me. I just wanted to report in and thank everyone for taking time out of their day to respond to this post.

    Here is an image of the back of my house I have done with the 8min time. It is a scan from a print. It was a very bright and crystal clear autum day and I wanted to see how far I could go with the tonal range. I am happy with this combo and look forward to having some fun with it. Thanks again.



    Leica lllc/5cm Summitar
    Fomapan 200 @ 160
    Rodinal 1:50 @ 8min
    Ilford RC MG Brilliant

    Peace,
    Mike
    "EVERY film and paper is good .......... for something"
    Phil Davis

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,287
    Images
    301
    Looks good, Mike. I'm glad things worked out for you.
    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #28
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Since the subject was mentioned in passing, I'll ask it here. What is a good definition of "gentle agitation" and what is its virtue?
    Gadget Gainer

  9. #29
    mikepry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Salem, Wi (By Milwaukee)
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    413
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    Since the subject was mentioned in passing, I'll ask it here. What is a good definition of "gentle agitation" and what is its virtue?
    Well, It's kinda like trying to tell someone how to wiggle their ears. Gentle is not rough or not robust. I don't know any other way to explain it. Maybe 4 or 5 inversions in a 10 second period is what I ended up doing. As far as it's virtue, and I should say it's virtue for me in my darkroom ............ when I didn't agitate gently my results were substandard. When I started easing up on the method of agitation I started to get much, much better results. I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from.

    Mike
    "EVERY film and paper is good .......... for something"
    Phil Davis

  10. #30
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I wonder if others have different interpretations. The problem that agitation is supposed to solve is uneven distribution of active ingredients, and it must do so in our case before the distribution becomes uneven enough to cause uneven development. If unevenness is desired for some esthetic purpose, it usually is not random unevenness but somehow proportional to density of the developed image. That is something we cannot control in the way a painter controls the image, so we hope the developing solution does it. Periodic agitation, it seems to me, should be vigorous enough to restore the distribution of active ingredients to initial conditions before the random changes induced during agitation can produce unwanted random changes in the image.

    The products of development cause local changes in the development rate that may wander from place to place due to local changes of specific gravity. Every chemical reaction is likely to cause local changes in temperature as well as chemical composition that result in changes of specific gravity. These changes have rates that are generally reduced as the concentration of active ingredients is reduced, so we have learned that we can extend the time between agitation periods by using less concentrated developers.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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