Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,628   Online: 706
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    28
    Oh, I see that you're right. I'll wait until I do the develpment time tests of course.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    28
    I shot my 35mm film and segmented it into three and as you suggested developed it at 10%, 15% and 20% less time. I also shot a roll of 120 film to do the first Zone 1 test.

    Took them into the photo shop but when they were put on the light table you could see a faint line of slightly brighter tone from end to end on both films. I put the gray card up in what I was sure was a secure shadowed area but I guess there was reflection from my shirt or something. The photo shop guy said there wasn’t any use doing the test with the film in that condition and to shoot it again. So that’s what I’ll do.

    I went to Radio Shack Saturday and didn’t find any batteries in the 1.3v area. Both the salesman and I looked and then he said he’d have the company email me. But then I went over to a camera repair shop (been in business for 35 years and I’m guessing he knows his business) and he said it didn’t matter that the battery was slightly above 1.35v the camera would just take what it needed.

    He took the camera in the back and put a photo cell behind the shutter I think he said and tested my meter. He said that during the brightest part of the day that my meter would indicate one stop low but in the morning and evening it would be right on. He also said that when it was in aperture priority that it had compensation abilities that would keep it on the money at any time of the day.

    I asked about adjusting the meter but he said that it was very difficult to get it exactly right and he’d recommend just leaving it as is and adjusting my ASA to .64 during the day.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    117
    Images
    8
    Are you developing your 35mm and 120 at the same times? Ilford has different development times for the same film at different sizes for some films. If the 35mm development time is shorter than the 120 then a simple 10% reduction may not be enough of a move to see much of a change.

    Just a thought,

    Parick
    "Hey, I don't tell you how to tell me what to do, so don't tell me how to do what you tell me to do!"-Bender Bending Rodriguez

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    28
    I'll check on that difference in devel time on the two films thanks. Everything is shot and developed I'll take my three segments of 35mm in to be evaluated tomorrow afternoon.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    28
    I re-shot my gray card at about 6:30 at night, plenty of light. I made sure that there were no reflections on the card.

    I moved in close, lens set at infinity (50mm) and when I got a reading I opened up my f stops three which should bring me to Zone 8. Film is Ilford FP4. Camera 35mm.

    I cut the film into three segments. I checked my temps with two thermometers, they agreed on 68 degrees.

    My standard development time with D-76 at 1 to 1 is 8.5 minutes. I developed segment one at 10% less or 7 minutes 39 seconds, segment two (15%) at 7 minutes 13 seconds and the third (20%) at 6 minutes 48 seconds.

    I took them in and the densitometer readings were as follows.

    Film base 26

    At 7m39sec Zone 6 was 184
    At 7m13sec 172
    At 6m48sec 167

    The last time I did this test the film base was 34. Why would it be different this time? The difference between 184 and 172 is 12 and from 172 to a 67 is 5. It appears that the effect of less development time becomes less as I decrease the time????

    Last time after film base was subtracted I got two separate readings for Zone 1, both were 43 which provided me with 0.1.

    I am not sure if I should subtract 43 or 34 from the above numbers but even it I do it appears that I need to decrease the development time further still.

    Can anyone advise me at this point? I will NOT give up until I have all this correct!

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Peter,

    Congratulations, now you are getting somewhere in your testing. To answer your questions, you need to subtract the .34 off your zone VIII density readings to arrive at a true Zone VIII density. Yes you are correct that further reductions in development time are in order. If you truly want to get this right (I encourage you to do so), then you need to shoot and develop another roll of film in the same way that you shot and developed this last roll.

    I would suggest on this next roll that you again cut the roll into three segments developing the first at 5 minutes and 15 seconds, the second at 5 minutes and 45 seconds and the third segment at 6 minutes and 15 seconds. Have the densities read as you have to this point. Subtract the fb+fog from those densities and we'll see where you are when this is done.

    This final test should give you densities that will allow a final development time to be determined.

    While you are shooting this roll for Zone VIII development time determination, you might shoot another short roll with a Zone I through Zone XI exposure. Do not process this until your densities are read on the development time test roll.

    Once the correct development time has been determined, then I would suggest that you process this short roll with the Zone I through Zone XI exposures at the development time which has been determined. Once this is done then I would suggest that you take the negatives (Zone I through Zone XI exposures and contact print this on a grade three paper (either graded or VC). This will then tell you how your densities will lie on the papers characteristic curve.

    Let me know if you have questions about this procedure.
    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. #57
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  8. #58
    Jorge Oliveira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Brazil
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    614
    Yes, i was out with my camera and shot about one dozen times (don't remember exactly).
    In my case, from a series of 6 I shot in rapid fire 3 were lost.
    One (and only one) of the 4 batteries was diyng, checked with a meter.
    The ones I've shot at a slow pace were OK.

    Jorge O

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    28
    I see that a number of replies have been posted that I wasn’t alerted to. I apologize for not responding.

    Eric my friend from the Barnbaum workshop is Agnes or Aggie who has posted farther down here in this discussion. We will be meeting for lunch tomorrow but thank you for the offer of the development times.

    David, I’ll try what you’re suggesting also perhaps. I’d like to see how some of this looks on graph paper. It would help me understand when I look at film and paper graphs. I understand the “toe” and “shoulder” as identifiers but not the significance of a slopped graph or a very abrupt vertical line from toe to shoulder.

    As far as changing backs… I’ve been thinking about something else. I can feel when the film is almost completely wound up, leaving just a small leader or tongue exposed. I measured a roll of already exposed, developed film, and put some tape on a 12’ ruler which allowed be quite easily to segment my film into three equal portions.

    I don’t see why I can’t turn any roll of 36 into three i.e. n, +n and –n, sacrificing six frames for my cuts. I could do this OR NOT with any roll of film and make my development changes on just the portion that I needed to.

    I made my shots this evening i.e. one role at Zone 8 and one roll with two sequences of Zone 0 to 11. I’ll develop according to instructions and take it in for the densitometer tomorrow. Now that I am writing this it occurs to me that since I took my in camera meter readings at 6:30 at night that that perhaps I shouldn’t have left my ASA at .64. As I was told by the camera repair guy my meter will be correct in the morning and evening. But I will proceed, fingers crossed and all that.

  10. #60
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,288
    Images
    20
    Contrast increases with the slope of the straight line portion of the graph. A high contrast film for microfilm work, for instance, would have a slope that is nearly vertical, rendering all tones as either black or white, with very little in the middle. If you developed a conventional film for N-2, the curve would rise very slowly, reaching your normal Zone VIII density further out at Zone X.

    If you can work out a system for cutting film into strips without risking frames and you don't mind leaving some blanks in there, that could work.

    Another alternative is to swap rolls, rewinding and leaving the leader out between them. When I've done this, I would mark the last frame shot on the leader. The downside of this approach is increased risk of scratching and dust.

    Using multiple 35mm bodies is another approach, but it means carrying around three bodies.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 6 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