Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,497   Posts: 1,543,085   Online: 997
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    413
    HC-110 is fine for pulling, but b/c it's so active the times for pulling can get short, so people tend to recommend against it. But if you already use it succesfully for normal development I don't think it will cause you any grief to pull with.

    I personally try to keep all my times above 6 or 7mins to account for small errors. So if my pull times are around 5 mins, I usually do one of the following to bump it back up: Reduce agitation. Reduce water temp. Or you can increase dilution.

    HC-110 and Plus-x is NICE imo. A great look.

  2. #12
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,000
    Images
    2
    So I guess increasing dilution would also help then? I've been doing dil B (1:8) up to now.

  3. #13
    CBG
    CBG is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    894
    Another answer is a speed losing developer - I gather many glycin only developers lose a stop or two. If I recall correctly, Anchell and Troop say that with pure glycin developers, a speed loss of about one stop can be expected.

    C

  4. #14
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,000
    Images
    2
    I'm limited to: D-76, HC-110, TMAX developer, Super-Prodol & Microdol. Maybe XTOL, too.

  5. #15
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    665
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by IloveTLRs View Post
    I'd like to use HC-110 if possible. Is that not a good developer for pulling?
    Absolutely! I use 1:100 in a one shot and I get great stand/semi stand results. I use dil-b times and multiply by 4.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    413
    I use HC-110 at 1:50 and 1:75 and get times I think are great to work with.

    A reference page someone here on apug put up awhile ago regarding HC-110 at 1:50: http://www.jasonbrunner.com/hc110.html

    D-76 is obviously very very flexible too, use it between 1:1 and 1:3 and see what you like!!

  7. #17
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,000
    Images
    2
    Thanks for all the suggestions, I'll try it out over the weekend

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1
    FP4@50 in D-76 1:1 for 8 min @ 68F...beautiful

  9. #19
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Yes you can pull them, and yes you can do it with HC-110. The best developer for starting to experiment with pulling is always the same one that you use for everything else. Consistency and relative judging ability will matter much more than the properties of any one developer over another.

    However, if you want to do this without affecting the contrast you normally get, just use ND filters.

    As for finding your "true" film speed, it will depend on many things, and the true speed of anyone else does not do you much good due to variables up the wazoo. Your film speed depends on EVERYTHING. Not only are there innumerable variables in equipment, technique, and the details of your process, but there are also different ways to determine a working EI, and various subjective things, such as WHAT YOU WANT YOUR PRINTS TO LOOK LIKE, the most important one of all.

    Rating a film a such and such an EI that works for someone else won't necessarily get you better results unless we know for sure that your metering technique involves proper incident metering, grey card metering, or tonal placement; not in-camera metering read directly off of the entire composition. There are too many ways that an in-camera meter reading off of the entire composition can give you less-than-ideal results. The simple fact of the matter is that if you rely on a direct reading from the entire composition using an in-camera meter, your best EI will be different for each shot, so NO EI is correct for the whole roll. You can't really finely judge your results if you are using an in-camera reflected meter to decide an exposure via metering the entire composition, because each shot will be off in different ways depending on the brightnesses of various elements of the composition. In order to establish a working EI that consistently does you right, you have to establish consistent metering techniques, first and foremost. My suggestion for 35mm, barring spot metering, is an incident meter, or its reflected equivalent: grey card metering.

    Once you have picked a consistent way to meter, then I would start tweaking your EIs to see what happens. You can really get slick by shooting a boring test roll of a grey card. If you want to do a test to find a working EI for YOU, the following is one method. It is basically the way explained in "The Negative", but you do it by eye from a print, instead of using a densitometer on a negative alone. Read if interested, and skip it if not. (It is long and boring.)

    Set the card up in mid-day daylight, making sure it is illuminated perfectly evenly. (A sheet of neutral white diffusion material may help with this.) Put your camera on a tripod, focus your most-frequently-used lens on infinity and fill the frame entirely with the grey card. Make sure you are casting no shadows onto the grey card.

    If you have decided to use a reflected meter (this includes your in-camera meter), meter the grey card with it, making sure that the grey card is the only thing metered. If using an incident meter, lay it on top of the grey card to take your reading. With the meter set to box speed, take the meter reading, and look at your recommended set of equivalent exposures. Pick a shutter speed that will let you stop down five stops from your meter's reading. Set your shutter to that speed, and your aperture to what the meter suggests using at that shutter speed. Using your aperture, stop down five stops from your meter's reading. Put your lens cap on and make an exposure. Take the lens cap off. Make another exposure. Using your aperture to control exposure, make a series of exposures at half-stop increments (or third-stop if your camera allows it) until you have reached the end of your aperture scale.

    Given an initial EV of 12 (diffused direct sunlight estimation on a clear day), with ISO 100 film, you have an exposure of '250 at f/4 that will let you stop down five stops (if your lens maxes out at f/22). Therefore, make your first exposure at '250 at f/22, second exposure at f/16-1/2, third exposure at f/16, etc. With an f/1.4 lens shooting in half stop increments, you will take 17 shots.

    Go ahead and try your second most used lens on and repeat the series of exposures.

    Develop the film exactly as you intend to do so in the future, for the manufacturer's recommended time. Same water supply, same developer, same dilution, same agitation routine, same timer, same timing of pouring, draining, and stop bathing.

    Develop a piece of your favorite enlarging paper out in the light so it becomes maximum black. Dry it and keep it in your print viewing area.

    Now, using whatever filter or grade of paper you want to call "normal" for yourself (most say grade 2 or filter 2 or 2-1/2, though you can use whatever you want as your "normal"), make a direct-contact proofsheet of the test film (no negative sleeve), making sure that your negs are tightly in contact with your enlarging paper. Print the strips from the first lens until the empty frame (the one that was shot with the lens cap on) is ever so slightly lighter than the same maximum black as your piece of paper that was developed out in the light (all after drying, of course). Now, start bracketing your print exposures by the second. Add second by second until you reach the exposure that finally makes the empty frame match your maximum black piece of paper. Pay no attention to any other frame when doing this. Only look at the frame that you absolutely know received NO exposure whatsoever. Once you have that exposure, make a full contact sheet and let it dry.

    Now, look at your series, starting from the blank frame. Count how many frames it takes until you can barely notice a difference in tone between the empty frame and another frame. If the difference is visible on the first frame after the empty frame, you shoot your film above box speed, as this frame should be maximum black if the working EI was the same as box speed. If the difference is visible starting on the second frame after the blank frame, you shoot your film right at the box speed of 100. If the difference is visible the third frame, you shoot it at EI 50+1/2 speed (just call it EI 64, since with neg film, being a hair over will hardly be noticeable). If on the fourth frame, you shoot it at EI 50. If the fifth frame, EI 25+1/2 speed (call it EI 32). Sixth frame, EI 25, and so on and so forth. (This is all assuming you used half stops for your sequence. If you used 1/3 stops, your result will line up perfectly with an EI.)

    Now, count up five stops from the last frame in the sequence that appears maximum black. Compare that frame to the tone of your grey card. If the frame is lighter than the grey card, your development time is too long, and vice versa.

    Now, for fun, do the same thing to find an EI with the shots taken with the other lens, and see if the results are the same. They may be, and they may not be, as different lenses often have different t stops than the f stops indicate. (For instance, take the old Canon 200mm f/1.8 versus the new Canon 200mm f/2.0 IS. The older lens should let in only 1/3 stop more light than the newer one, yet due to the fact that the IS lens has more elements, the old model is actually 2/3-stop faster. I know a guy who has personally tested this using a digital camera.)

    Well, that is a long explanation of a densitometer-free test method to find an EI, with a rough normal development test built in. I prefer it to a densitometer, because you use your own eyes viewing a real print to judge the transition from maximum black. Far more practical, IMO, than looking for 0.10 over FB+F on a densitometer.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 04-15-2009 at 04:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

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