[QUOTE=Donald Miller]Les McLean said "When comparing negatives look at the detail in the shadow areas and choose the negative that clearly shows detail, my prediction is that it will be the neg given -1 stop exposure from the metered reading, placing the shadow on Zone VI."
Les, I don't think that your calculations are correct. My indications are that -1 stop exposure from the metered reading would be to place the shadow on Zone IV. The metered reading would be Zone V placement. +1 stop exposure would be Zone VI placement.
Sorry, finger trouble I'm afraid, I meant Zone IV as you so rightly pointed out.
Originally Posted by Nige
Point taken but that there are times when I under or over expose by 1 stop and less frequently by up to 2 stops. It all depends on the overall contrast of the subject, if I intend to reduce development to hold highlights I over expose to ensure that I will not lose information in the shadows, the amount is dependent on the number of stops of contrast and where I place my shadow.
Take a subject with 6 stops of contrast where I place the shadow on Zone IV, the highlight falls on Zone X which is paper base white. I increase exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop, that's a decision I make depending on the visualisation of the final print, and reduce development by 2 stops or even more to bring the highlight back to around Zone VIII. I know that from the negative this process will produce I can make the print that I want with a little bit of work in the darkroom.
In the same situation but with the shadow placed on Zone II because I decide that I'm happy to have a no detail in there the highlight falls on Zone VIII so exposure and development are normal.
The opposite applies when dealing with low contrast.
Sorry Nige but I still think you are passing on bad practice.
Frank, have processed one roll of 120 and 6 sheets of 4x5, so this is still a work in process. The roll film was processed with the initial agitation for 30 sec (not the normal 60 sec I use for 1:25). Next my process (may not be the one I end up with) was to agitation for 10 secs every 8 minutes of so, this was not well measured (thus not a good experiment in my mind) processed for 30 minutes at 68 deg. (water bath with ice) - I did monitor the water bath temp and would add a small ice cube or two. Temp did not vary more than a couple of degrees. This was done using a SS tank, so temp was constant in the tank as well. I did measure the temp of the developer after it was removed from the tank and it was at 68 F.
Originally Posted by FrankB
Because the tap water was at about 75 F, the stop (did use acid stop bath) and fixer (ilford rapid fix) were chilled to 68 F also, then a tank full of water was chilled and the film soaked in it while the tap water was added slowly.
Process for the sheet film was a little different since the processing was done in trays. Development was for 20 min. at room temp (75 F), the sheet film was placed in the tray one at a time (11x14 tray) so all 6 sheets were processed at the same time (used 1.2 L of developer). Next I literally took each sheet and held it in place while rocking the tray for 30 sec, then repeated the process 2 more time at 8 min. and 16 min. (NOTE: there was NO reason why I chose these times, they are really just random), then into the stop (acid bath again) and fix.
Wash aid was used, then a was for 20 min.
The comments by Les about what to expect are just what I saw, the contrast did increase (or appears that way to me) and the sharpness was surprising to me. I plan to do some additional testing and wish I had a camera that had a removable back so that the same image/exposure could be done on separate rolls (light would be closer to the same)...if this weekend is clear I may shoot two rolls and process one like always at 1:50 with normal agitation and one semi-stand as described above for roll film. Will post my findings then.
Look forward to hearing what your results are.
Thanks (Also Thanks to Les and Donald for providing a more concise description of what to look for)
Les, you're examples are very specific and dependant on the scene. I agree with everything you say BTW, I just don't think it's what Frank is trying to do. Since Frank is shooting 35mm on a general scene, I can't see the point shooting lots of -2 (and probably -1 underexposure) frames with Rodinal. XTOL maybe. I think those frames would be better used on another +3 thro 0 sequence on another scene. I used to do -3 thru + 3 sequences cause that's what the book I was following said, but I've never used the - exposures so believe them to be a waste of time in this circumstance. It will show what happens to the film when you underexpose significantly but hopefully by doing this test Frank is endevouring to expose the film to get that shadow detail we all seem to love. If he's not, I'll shut up now.
That's my theory... so at this stage, we'll have to agree to disagree.
My only comment is that the proper word is "bated", a slight contraction of "abated" or held back. So we are holding our collective breath until we see results.
Originally Posted by TPPhotog
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Okay, here's the plan for the weekend:
I'll either set up a still life or (if I can't stand the embarrassment of displaying my cack-handedness in this area!) pop over to a convenient landscape-shoot spot (there's a black and white painted bridge not far south of me that might do) and pray for consistent light. I'm going to use the F80's evaluative matrix meter 'cos it does a better and more consistent job than I do with a spotmeter and it's also what I'll be using in real life.
I'll shoot two rolls using the exposure pattern that was originally proposed; 1 at metered exposure, then +1, +2, -1 and -2. (I take on board your comments Nige (and thank you!) but I think for the purposes of this experiment I'll stick with the original concept. Maybe in the future I'll run another trial...)
The first roll I'll split in four, processing in one strip in Rodinal 1:100 using the semi-stand method proposed by Mike (or possibly a variation on it), one in Rodinal 1:25, one in Rodinal 1:50 with Les's first agitation pattern and the last in Rodinal 1:50 with Les's second agitation pattern.
The second roll I'll split in four and process one strip in DD-X 1:4. The other three strips I'll process in whichever Rodinal combination I like best from the preceding roll at recommendation, +20% and -20%.
1) Am I pushing it too tightly splitting each roll in four?
2) Can anyone think of anything I've forgotten?!
Thanks to everyone for your interest and contributions. I will, of course, post the results as soon as I have them.
I just hope that after all this it isn't a let down!
Question 3 (just thought of it!):
I've heard somewhere that you should always have at least a minimum amount (10ml per roll?) of Rodinal in the mix. Does this mean that for higher dilutions I should use a bigger tank? (Not a problem if so; I can go up to a 3x)
Thanks in advance,
Do NOT inject...I'm talking of BITTER experience (although feeling quite developed)
Originally Posted by TPPhotog
I think you've covered everything although I also think that you are setting yourself a demanding task given the number of different tests you intend to carry out. My one concern is your idea to divide the film into 4, in my article that you base your tests on, thank you for the confidence, I talk about making comparisons between the different developments/exposures and to do this you need all 5 frames of normal, plus and minus exposure on the same strip. You may run into a problen when dividing the film into 4 because you will cut through 3 negatives and you cannot be certain that each cut strip will have the 5 frames required. I hope you understand this rather clumsy attempt to describe the possible problem. I would be inclined to shoot a 3rd roll of film. If you need any help or just want to talk about the assessment give me a call I'll be home on Sunday afternoon and evening but will be in London from Monday till Friday evening. The number is 01890 850259. On the other hand if you fancy a shortish drive pop across to Northumberland and we can assess them together.
Best of luck.
Frank, do not think you will be let down. Without the extensive work you have planned, my results already show that there are differences. Now, my original plan was to do something quite like you are doing but with Rodinal and Pyrocat-HD. Just have not have the chance to work it all up, even planned to use a gray card, so it would be a bit boring to look at.
Originally Posted by FrankB
Good luck and Thanks for sharing .