Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,761   Posts: 1,516,104   Online: 891
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68

    ATP "vs" Kodak TP; Please Look And Explain Something Unusual...

    As you might have read in the previous thread I shot some ATP and developed in HC110 and Rollei RLC. Did the same with the Kodak TP.

    Something strange happened with the TP and ATP in the RLC developer and I'm not sure what it is. It looks like some sort of liquify-photoshopfilter applied in the unsharp parts but it's in the negative for sure. I first thought with the TP that it had something to do with its too short development but then I noticed the same thing to occur with the ATP as well... I really can't explain it.

    First batch:
    ATP & TP developed for 6 minutes in Rollei RLC. ATP treated as a 40 asa, TP treated as a 25 asa. TP really underdeveloped so the contrast has been a bit enhanced in photoshop. I think it will be quite printable though as the "effect" looks pretty cool to me so I'll definitely will give that a go.
    ATP has not been photoshopped except for dust removal and I made the landscape photo a little darker.

    Second batch:
    ATP and TP developed for 5 minutes in HC110. Same asa values. ATP a tad overdeveloped as I lost some detail in the highlights. No changes in photoshop except for dust removal.

    The grain seems with both films a lot less when developed in HC110 then in the RLC but maybe I did something wrong...and I'm looking at scans...

    I will post some impression pics:

    ATP in HC110:




    TP in HC110:




    ATP in RLC:




    TP in RLC:




    Last edited by Contrastique; 06-04-2008 at 02:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    187
    Looks almost like some kind of funky reticulation.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,113
    It might be a lack of agitation effect.How did you agitate the film?
    The pyrazolidone type developers are subject to this, it is mentioned in the Film Developing Cookbook.

  4. #4
    Iwagoshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NorCal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    455
    Images
    17
    Wtf?? Definitely not the same results as Fotohuis, see post

    Sorry but I have not used RLC so I don't know its nuances. If all else fails you might try and PM Fotohuis directly. But the HC-110 seemed to work OK.

    Terry

  5. #5
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Johnson View Post
    It might be a lack of agitation effect.How did you agitate the film?
    The pyrazolidone type developers are subject to this, it is mentioned in the Film Developing Cookbook.
    5 seconds every 30 as with every other film I process.. Have to check about the pyrazoli-something developer you mentioned...have never heard of that...

    Yes Terry, I have seen the photos from Fotohuis, that's why I got even more surprised... have to try a second batch and then maybe..well...I don't know. I first would like to know where this comes from. I just bought 9 films to take to Berlin and I woudn't want each of them to end up like this. I mean, it's pretty fun for a time but not with all films.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,113
    Pyrazolidone is just shorthand for phenidone and its newer derivatives that may or may not be used in some of these low contrast developers.
    In the original phenidone based type like H&W Control, the oxidation product of phenidone is an inhibitor of development that needs to be removed by agitation.It is these early types of low contrast developers that are discussed in the Film Developing Cookbook.

  7. #7
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Contrastique View Post
    really underdeveloped so the contrast has been a bit enhanced in photoshop
    The images are posterized.

    I would take a guess that you have drastically underdeveloped the negatives, scanned them so that only a few levels exist in the scans and then expanded in PhotoShop. The scanner you are using probably, like most scanners, doesn't deal well with very limited dynamic range source material. So yes, you have in effect put the images through a PhotoShop filter.

    What do prints - real analog ones made in an enlarger - look like?

    For scanning problems you might want to take the thread to http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/home.php.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  8. #8
    Contrastique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    176
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    The images are posterized.

    I would take a guess that you have drastically underdeveloped the negatives, scanned them so that only a few levels exist in the scans and then expanded in PhotoShop. The scanner you are using probably, like most scanners, doesn't deal well with very limited dynamic range source material. So yes, you have in effect put the images through a PhotoShop filter.

    What do prints - real analog ones made in an enlarger - look like?

    For scanning problems you might want to take the thread to http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/home.php.
    The Kodak yes, has been underdeveloped but the ATP for sure not.

    Believe me, this IS in the negative itself. I really couldn't believe what I saw and blamed the scanner at first, which I couldn't really believe either as I've literally seen thousands of negatives scanned with it and not just mine and have never seen anything like this before, so took a closer look at the negatives and to my surprise it's really in them. My boyfriend took a look as well as he couldn't believe it himself.

    "What do prints - real analog ones made in an enlarger - look like?"
    Sorry...
    You mean like, what do they look when being printed through an analogue process..? I don't know, I haven't tried just yet but when I have I certainly will post them.
    Last edited by Contrastique; 06-04-2008 at 06:32 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Got something wrong...

  9. #9
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Could be the Sabattier effect (pseudo-solarization). Usually caused deliberately by exposure to light partway through development but I think there are chemical causes too.

    Bob.

  10. #10
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,140
    Images
    20
    I like Bob F.'s answer. I'm not sure what causes it either as a chemical effect. Solarol is a print developer designed to produce this effect chemically.

    Did you develop the two films together in RLC or reuse the developer? Maybe there is something in these two films that combines to form a fogging agent that is effective in RLC but not HC110.
    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 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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