Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,776   Posts: 1,516,691   Online: 1205
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    [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.

    Donald,

    Sorry, finger trouble I'm afraid, I meant Zone IV as you so rightly pointed out.

  2. #12
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Nige
    Les, I think (and hope!) he was talking about under and over exposure, not development.
    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.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB
    Photomc, could you describe your semi-stand process for 1:100, please? Also what agitation do people generally use. (Once I've determined the exposure I may well do a second roll processed at 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 with various agitation patterns.)

    Also, what do you look for when comparing negs?

    Frank
    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.

    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)

    Mike Castles
    Mike C

    Rambles

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,950
    Images
    1
    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.

    regards, Nige

  5. #15
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Frank, With Roy that makes at least 2 of us now waiting with baited breath for your results. OK I admit I'm addicted to Rodinal but I hope the neighbours don't spot me measuring it out with a syringe
    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.
    Gadget Gainer

  6. #16
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    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%.

    Questions:

    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!

    Best regards,

    Frank

  7. #17
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    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,

    Frank

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by TPPhotog
    Frank, With Roy that makes at least 2 of us now waiting with baited breath for your results. OK I admit I'm addicted to Rodinal but I hope the neighbours don't spot me measuring it out with a syringe
    Do NOT inject...I'm talking of BITTER experience (although feeling quite developed)

  9. #19
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    Frank,

    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.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB
    Okay, here's the plan for the weekend:

    I just hope that after all this it isn't a let down!

    Best regards,

    Frank
    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.

    Good luck and Thanks for sharing .

    Mike Castles
    Mike C

    Rambles

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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