Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,660   Posts: 1,481,569   Online: 906
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    707
    Images
    30
    I think I'm going to dilute. I do like to economize, but more than that, I think the longer development time (pushing aside) might be more forgiving to whatever fits and starts I might have fumbling with lids and chemicals and such.

    That said, am I really economizing? I read that, diluted or not, I need 8 oz. of stock per 36 exposure roll of film. My tank (Paterson) holds two reels. So it sounds like the tank is either half full with stock (just covering the reel), or totally full diluted.

    And to complicate things further, I have a 24 exposure roll.

    Is this a correct assumption? How much diluted developer (1:1) should I use exactly?

  2. #12
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    You need at least 290mL according to Paterson. I find that can be a little iffy, I like to fill 345 (12oz) for one roll just in case. If you really need 8oz then you could put 16oz 1+1 in there to be sure, or 10-12oz of stock. 8oz will perfectly fill a steel tank though, like my Nikors so if you really want economy, get some steel reels. I have both, single and double Nikor stainless and double and triple Paterson plastic.

    6oz of stock should do for a 24-roll however so 12oz 1+1 would be perfect.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  3. #13
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,242
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    I'm assuming you have a 16oz tank. I usually don't fill them to the rim. I'd use slightly less, so 14oz. If you use un-diluted you'll use 14 oz of D-76, if you dilute 1:1 then it's 7oz of D-76 and 7 oz of water. It's that simple. You always want to have the same amount of liquid in the tank regardless of dilution. Doesn't matter if you have a 24 or 36 roll. And if it's a two reel tank and you're only developing one roll, put the empty reel on top.

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bvy View Post
    That said, am I really economizing? I read that, diluted or not, I need 8 oz. of stock per 36 exposure roll of film. My tank (Paterson) holds two reels. So it sounds like the tank is either half full with stock (just covering the reel), or totally full diluted.

    And to complicate things further, I have a 24 exposure roll.

    Is this a correct assumption? How much diluted developer (1:1) should I use exactly?
    You are economizing because all you really need is is to cover the film fully in the tank. I don't remember the 8 oz. Limit. As to 24 exp that isn't an issue in this situation, covering the film is.

    With that said you need to understand that dilution is not simply about economy. Dilution changes the way developers work. In this case dilution adds more grain and sharpness.

    You should ask yourself, "Is that really what I want?" & "Do I really know what I want?"

    Also with regard to economy, the difference in cost is about 17 cents a roll. If the pictures in question are truly important, is saving that 17 cents really the best choice?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,936
    If this is your first film developing experience, I'd just throw that roll out and expose another at IE 200 and proceed from there. Underexpose negatives are not going to print right no matter what you do.

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    If this is your first film developing experience, I'd just throw that roll out and expose another at IE 200 and proceed from there. Underexpose negatives are not going to print right no matter what you do.
    Really? I think there are a few of us here that have at least one negative 1-stop under that we like.

    And why 200? I'm not against extra exposure but Tri-X seems to work fine at 400.

    Even if it doesn't turn out perfect, running through the mechanics and practicing the motions and seeing the timer count down is important.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    There are three kind of people;

    1) People who scream that Tri-X MUST be shot at 200. They call themselves "fine art photographers", typically.
    2) People who scream that Tri-X MUST be shot at 800 or even 1600. They call themselves "street photographers", typically.
    3) People who are silent, and probably most of them shoot it at 400 as suggested by manufacturer, or overexpose a bit which is a good practice with any neg material.

    Notice the funny contradiction between 1 and 2 . This shows that there are no strict "rules" in photography; you test different possibilities to see by your own eyes which is the look you like. Manufacturers give starting points. And, many people do not test anything, going with manufacturers' instructions, being totally happy with the results.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    198
    Images
    40
    When I shoot at 800 I just add a minute or so to the 400 time and get good results.

  9. #19
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    If the lighting was flat, I'd push. If it was not flat, or if the pix shot had wide luminance ranges, then I would not push, as it might make the negs a bear to print. You cannot just consider the EI setting used on the meter; most importantly, you have to consider the quality of the light in which you shot, and the compositions you shot.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #20
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,242
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    There's no reason to throw out this roll. If you just develop it in D-76 1:1 for 12 or 13 min it'll be good enough to save the roll and you might be surprised with how well the flat lighting negatives come out. From there, take notes, take notes, take notes!!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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