Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,271   Posts: 1,534,530   Online: 1030
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24

    Negative evaluation

    I'm going to be running some tests on Delta 100 in Rodinal over the weekend and I thought it might be an idea to glean some of your thoughts on the best way to evaluate a negative.

    For my sample roll I'm planning on using the method that Les outlined in B&WP Issue 2 - picking a shot (probably a landscape, as I'm utter pants at still-lifes!) and shooting it on meter (almost certainly F80 matrix), +1, +2, -1, -2, until the roll's gone. Then splitting the roll in three and processing it on recommendation, +20% and -20%.

    Can anyone suggest any variations on this method? I don't mind burning through a few rolls if I get the results at the end of it.

    And, most importantly, what do you look for when comparing negs?

    Thanks in advance,

    Frank

  2. #2
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,304
    I have nothing to add at this stage Frank but I hope you will let us have a dissertation on exactly what you did on completion of the procedure. I shall look forward to your further postings.
    Roy Groombridge.

    Cogito, ergo sum.
    (Descartes)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    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

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    97
    frank, I to will be very interested in your results, I use D100 with Dixactol in its various forms and as this is no longer available I am looking for an alternative

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Frank, I have been doing a little testing with Rodinal as well-though not as well thought out as your testing sounds. Have been working with FP4+, going from EI of 80 to 64 and Rodinal 1:50 to 1:100 with semi-stand developing.

    One thing I have noticed is the contrast is much better with the semi-stand, first attempt was using roll film, 2nd was with 4x5 sheet film. The other thing I have noted is the sharp negatives..now it could be because of the contrast, or maybe the negatives just feel sharp. One other thing I have noticed, print times have dropped quite a bit, where a negative might have taken 15 to 20 sec and required quite a bit of dodge and burn, with the semi-stand I have print times of 5 to 10 secs and very little dodge and burn. Will not say that is the difference, but could be..or maybe my exposure is better or maybe there is no need for the images that have been made.

    Need to do more detailed work, but would suggest giving the semi-stand development a try. Look forward to your results.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,960
    Images
    1
    don't waste a neg on -2 (exposure compensation)... I wouldn't even waste on on -1

  7. #7
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Thanks very much for the interest and the advice. I will post my results, a description of how the session went and any conclusions I've reached.

    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?

    Thanks in advance,

    Frank

  8. #8
    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 FrankB
    Thanks very much for the interest and the advice. I will post my results, a description of how the session went and any conclusions I've reached.

    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?

    Thanks in advance,

    Frank
    Do one test using regular agitation, ie 5 seconds every 30 seconds, and a second using the same development time but change continuous agitation for the first 30 seconds followed by 15 seconds every 1.5 minutes. The result should be more edge definition from the 2nd method of agitation and an apparent increase in sharpness in the print. The increased edge definition happens where areas of different tonalities meet and this is the reason for the apparent sharpness, in effect you have increased the contrast which has the effect of making the print look sharper. This effect is further enhanced when using an accutance developer like Rodinal. The price you have to pay is an increase in the appearance of grain in the print, although I personally don't think that is a bad thing.

    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.

    Nige, with respect I think you are passing on bad advice. I regularly use -1 stop development when I have made exposures in very high contrast situations ie higher that 6 stops SBR. I use -2 stops less frequently but it is very useful to know the effect that it has when you need it. In fact I often increase exposure and reduce development even in normal circumstances and I reckon that I get a better negative. The increased exposure ensures that I have detail in the darkest shadow and the reduced development will help control the negative density in the brightest highlight.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,960
    Images
    1
    Les, I think (and hope!) he was talking about under and over exposure, not development.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    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.

    Furthermore I have found that a shadow placement Zone V and higher would seem to shove the highlight detail (in a scene comprised of a normal luminescent range of seven stops) onto the shoulder of the film curve and lead to limited highlight separation at best and blocked highlights at worst depending on the film used, of course.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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