Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,641   Posts: 1,623,261   Online: 1220
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    8

    A Little Tri-X in XTOL 1:1 Assistance Por Favor!

    Like some others, I've worked backwards in a way and have come to analog from digital. It's been quite a lot of fun, but I'm having a bit of a problem dialing in my Tri-X development time. I shot a few test rolls, and tried times in XTOL 1:1 ranging from 8:30 to 9:30 (all at 20C), wherein I agitated from the pour (into a two reel Kaiser tank) until the first 30 second mark, and then performed three inversions (taking roughly 5 seconds) at every 30 second mark thereafter. The 9:00 time (I begin pouring the developer out at 9:00) looked the best to me as I still had details in my highlights and in my shadows.
    Enter the frustration: I shot a couple of rolls yesterday, and followed my tested time. I scanned the results (with an Epson V700, and don't even get me started on its focus issues) and found myself a bit stumped as to whether I was looking at underdeveloped negs or underexposed ones. I know it's an issue that's arisen before, just as I know I did underexpose a couple of frames by about 1/2-2/3 stop. Still, the images look duller than I thought, and I'm not sure whether my issue is with my development time, my exposure, or my scanner.
    So here are three examples, and I look forward to your collective analysis. Incidentally, for the sake of thoroughness, the remainder of my development process is a 30 second stop bath followed by 3:00 in Ilford Rapid Fixer, then a lot of washing and a final dip in photo flo. All images shot with a Leica M6 and at an EI of 400.
    Thanks ever so for any insight.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails February 14 Roll B 13.jpg   February 14 Roll B 27.jpg   February 14 Roll B 28.jpg  

  2. #2
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,585
    Images
    35
    The proof is always in the printing, not the scanning. I've only ever scanned finished prints into my computer, but everyone I have ever talked to has issues with scanning negatives. Send me your negatives, and I'll demonstrate.
    Rick Allen
    Argentum aevum

  3. #3
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,414
    Images
    12
    Scanning negatives is easy... converting scans to decent images is not. The problem is that there is way more dynamic range in the negative than in your final image, so you have to have to discard some of it, fiddle with curves or finish with a flat-looking image because there is insufficient local contrast. If you cram 10 stops of DR (pretty typical from a B&W neg) into an 8 bit image (jpeg), you will end up with a contrast index about 4x too low, i.e. it will look terribly flat.

  4. #4
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,585
    Images
    35
    I stand corrected, somewhat. I dont know where you live sunshine, but my offer still stands. PM me and I'll give you my snail mail address.
    Rick Allen
    Argentum aevum

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    8
    Rick, that's a supremely nice offer, and thanks. I don't have the time to start printing (digital processing demands still dominate, I'm afraid), so even if your system works, and I'm sure it will, I won't be able to replicate it on my own. Aside from that, do you reckon I've given the negs enough development time? I know it's a bit tricky to tell from the scans, but what do you suppose?

  6. #6
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,381
    Images
    4
    My experience with scanning B&W is that it works kinda-ok for 4x5 LF negatives and works best for scanning prints. Results with scanning 35mm have always been pretty dismal. Scanners are designed and optimized for scanning color materials and it seems silver grains and the HD curve of B&W film gives them the fits.

    The hybrid photo forum may have folks who can be more help http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    8
    Thanks, Nicholas. I'm more or less resigned to frustration with regard to scanning. It looks like I'm going to have to resort to a lot of fudging in post to get something even close to the look I was hoping for. And where's that nice silvery grain in the highlights?? I know people have had better luck with drum scanning, but with the amount I shoot I'd have to start selling body parts (not necessarily my own) on the black market to pay for it. As for the above results, I think I'll fiddle with my EI a bit and leave the dev time where it is. I'm used to the M9's meter, which has led to exposures with the M6 that are pretty consistently 1/2 stop dark. Makes life a bit tricky since the M6's shutter dial only moves in full-stop increments. Maybe rate Tri-X at EI 250 and see where that gets me. Thanks for the DPUG tip.

  8. #8
    OMU
    OMU is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    744
    Images
    67
    Hi
    To me the negs look OK. You have details in the shadows and the highlights looks OK at least the skies.
    I can see that you have long shadows. Perhaps the light was becoming a bit flat and that is what you see in your scan.
    It seems that it would be possible to get a decent print from this negative.

    I have an M6ttl and to me the metering has been consistent and I relay on it when exposing my film.
    I have used Tri-X at EI 400 with good result, but I used Caffenol as developer.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum189/...resept-47.html

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    8
    I didn't mean to say that the metering isn't consistent in the M6, just that it's a little bit different than the M9. I assume Leica changed their matrix a bit, but it doesn't really matter. The only reason I think I might rate the Tri-X to 250 is to save myself the hassle of adding exposure to what I'd normally do based on the reading. It's tricky enough to have one shutter dial that spins one way and another that spins in the opposite direction...

  10. #10
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    434
    I think your negatives look fine, with both whites and blacks. They certainly don't look underexposed. And I personally like the detail in the shadows. My X-tol 1:1 time with Tri-X at 20 degrees C is 9 minutes, with similar agitation. A little extra time would perhaps give you a bit more sparkle in the whites, if that's what you are seeking.

    It kind of looks like London, which can have flatter light. Perhaps run a roll of HP5+ or even T-Max or Delta 400. I find those can be more contrasty in X-Tol. One of the neat things about film is that each type will give you a different look.

    I'm guessing these negatives just need a little post-processing. I don't know much about it, and this isn't the place to talk about it. But there's a DPUG.org; see the link at the very top of the page. You might just have to increase the black point and increase the contrast, which you can do in software with a digital image just as you can do with filters or paper choice when printing traditionally.

    -Laura

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