Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,959   Posts: 1,523,028   Online: 1265
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605

    Overdevelopment or Metering Issue?

    I just developed some TXP 120 in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes at 20 C, inversions for 10 secs at the start of every minute. I got the development time off of Massive Development and the negatives are horribly dense, with little detail in highlights (the shadows should be easy to print). The scan is just an inverted negative, no adjustments on automatic exposure. I suspect that I have overdeveloped the film and that the chart is wrong; the insert with the Rodinal says 13 minutes but that is for Tri-X, not TXP.

    1) Do you agree with my assessment that it is over-developed? If so, what is the "correct" development time for TXP in Rodinal (otherwise I will go back to my ID-11)? I know I can fine-tune developing by extensive testing but since I had to wait 4-6 weeks to get the last 10 rolls, I would prefer less testing, not more.

    2) Given that the film is now dry, is there a method of reduction? Can I use Farmer's Reducer(?) or another solution to reduce the development, probably evenly across all zones or am I needing to write off these reels as less-than-ideal? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that reducing should be done as soon as possible after development and is near impossible once the film completely dried (48 hours).

    The other idea I toyed with is my Minolta Spotmeter is off but all of the negatives are off by the same approximate amount, leading me to discount the idea. I am taking the meter to work (the local camera shop) tomorrow and testing against the 3 meters I have in store but it is a possibility. I have 2 shots that I bracketed and all three exposures have similar problems, where as if it was metering problem you would assume one exposure would be much better than the other 2.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails TXP.jpg  
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  2. #2
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Check the frame numbers and film info placed on the film edge at manufacturing. Check them against a roll you know was exposed and developed properly.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    The contrast is a little high so a little over developed
    for the chosen paper grade. Likely the high density is
    due to over exposure. Dan

  4. #4
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

    Is every neg on the roll dense? If you only spotmetered for one or two shots (if I read you right) then its overdeveloped.

    Farmers reducer is for paper and might weaken the negatives. But since they're shot anyway this might be a good time to experiment.
    Last edited by Christopher Walrath; 05-25-2009 at 07:54 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,926
    Images
    9
    Kevin

    No one here can tell you exactly what EI and development time to use. We don't know you meter, shutter, mix of your developer, how accurate your thermometer, and how you process film. Then add what type of enlarger you have, lens, paper and developer you use.

    We could give you a ballpark guess to get you started, but it wouldn't be anymore precise than the information you've already found on the web.

    Buy one of fred pickers little books for 4 or 5 dollars off ebay. There is a very simple test for film speed and then a test for proper development time based on YOUR process and equipment.

    Once you complete these two tests, you won't have to guess if someone's development time or EI will work for you.

    Taking this guesswork out of your process will improve your final prints.

    Mike
    Last edited by mikebarger; 05-25-2009 at 01:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #6
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,082
    Images
    189
    I actually think the negative looks pretty good given that the scene seems to be very, very bright and "hot". I would have used a sunny f16 exposure in that scene as a possible control. That said, a bit less development would have favored more detail in the highlights to be sure. I've found the massive development chart times a good deal too long for my work (Delta 100 in D76 1:1 exposed at ISO 100 works well for me when developed for 8.5 to 9 minutes whereas the MDC suggests 11 to 12 minutes.) The good thing is that you now may know the likely outcome of the long end of the film's development lattitude.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,095
    Images
    270
    I have used the Massive Dev Chart times before and they were OK for TXP. However, as other have said, it is impossible to advise, since we don't know what you metered for (and the accuracy of the meter etc). I think the negative looks perfectly printable, and the contrast is fine. I would take a film, shoot white wall, and do a test, and that should put your mind at rest. Remember that TXP is a difficult film in bright conditions due to the short toe it has (at both ends)...I know that does not explain the over exposure necessarily...but if you metered for the shadows (Zone III) it might. The fact that your bracketed shots show no difference tells me the metering or the camera setting is the contributor...since even over development would show the bracketing effect. Rgds, Kal
    Kal Khogali

    www.kal-khogali.com


    Visit my Photo Scrap Book

    www.shutteringeye.wordpress.com


    "Wake up, dream, and photograph what you have seen.
    Don't wake up, photograph, and dream of what could have been."

  8. #8
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    If "the shadows are easy to print", as in looking like a correct ZV exposure, then the negatives were overexposed. The negative shown has no shadowed areas that would have an detail, so you would have to look at another frame.

    If the shadows are normal(ish), the highlights are dense and the frame numbers are extra dense, then the negatives were overdeveloped. A problem with super-concentrates like Rodinal is that there is a good chance for making a dilution error - diluting 1:25 instead of 1:50.

    If all the shots were metered with the same meter then a metering error is a definite possibility. Lots of room for error - leaving the ASA at 100 for instance. If you took notes (or have a good memory) and the exposure you used wasn't close to sunny-16/sunny-11, as jovo mentions, then metering is the culprit.

    If they were all made at the same shutter speed then a shutter problem is a possibility. Or a sticky aperture.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  9. #9
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Shangheye View Post
    if you metered for the shadows (Zone III)
    If the black windows were chosen for shadows that would explain a massive overexposure. This scene would do best with averaging metering - I would even say no metering, just expose at 1/500 at f11+.

    I have found the zone system and spot metering can often lead me far astray and out of the realm of common sense.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    2 more cents:
    I agree with Nicholas in that using Zone System methods for film testing can be misleading, especially if you are not so good at judging zones (I have had this problem). A possible option would be to use Jovo's suggestion of the Sunny 16 rule; use f/16 under bright sunny, midday conditions with the shutter set at film speed. If testing, you would bracket this around box speed, then see which one yields shadows of good detail. Then test developer times once the film speed is established. As Mike says, Fred Picker's book is a good, straight forward conversationally written text (his editorializing can be entertaining too).
    About the scan - a straight scan never represents anything in the darkroom for me, even if I adjust the scanning control to fill the range from the neg, even from a perfect negative, at least for me. This could be a perfect negative underprinted. You said it is horribly dense, but that is a judgement we all can make differently. I think it is Bruce Birnbaum who recommends the heaviest possible negatives, to capture as much information as possible, to give the most options in printing, long enlarging exposures accepted in the deal.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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