Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,091   Posts: 1,635,950   Online: 861
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,772
    Images
    28
    Whats with the dotty sky in your test shot?

  2. #12
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Whats with the dotty sky in your test shot?
    Scanning artefacts or actually on the negative? I assumed scanning artefacts.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,763
    Images
    294
    If you want the same kind of contrast, even by just switching to Pan-F+ and Rodinal (let alone adding another film as well!), that you have gotten with Pan-F+ and Xtol, standing development is completely the wrong way to go.

    As you found out, normal agitation works for building contrast, but you found you got too much of it. Well, this is where you need to start thinking about what you're doing. By developing for less time, you will bring those highlights back into printable domain. Only you can tell exactly how much developing time you need, how you need to agitate, etc, because it's your lens (and its contrast), your lighting conditions, your light meter, your exposure, your water quality, etc...

    Basically, work it until it's right for you and your needs.

    Good luck, and have lots of fun tuning your film processing for your needs. It is very rewarding to get it just right, and remember that your technique matters a lot more than your materials.

    Quote Originally Posted by atomicthumbs View Post
    Recently, I found out about Neopan Acros. I've seen various people calling it a wonder film, and started using it as my slow-speed landscape film instead of Pan F+.

    I've been having trouble getting results out of it like I have previously with Pan F. I've been developing it in Rodinal 1+50 and 1+100, stand and normal, and something still seems off about the tonality. This photo of mine (on Pan F, developed normally with Xtol) is exactly the kind of result I'm looking for, but I'm having trouble achieving similar results with Acros. I'm not sure, but could it be the result of developing it in high-dilution Rodinal? Could that increase the grain enough to change the character of the photo, even though Acros is still amazingly fine-grained?

    I have Rodinal and D76 ready to use, and Perceptol, Diafine, and Xtol ready to mix. Which of these two films do you guys prefer for landscapes, and why? What developers do you use with them, and how do you develop it?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ajman - U.A.E.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    958
    What do you think about those shots?

    http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/484/img171v.jpg
    http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9963/img167j.jpg
    http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3300/img165y.jpg

    All are from Acros 120 same roll, developed from the lab [they use Kodak products, so maybe they used TMAX or D-76, i heard them told me once they use TMAX], and i scanned at home, i have another shots of Acros if you want to see.

  5. #15
    atomicthumbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Whats with the dotty sky in your test shot?
    That happens on a lot of my photos; I think it's on the negative. I'm not sure what I'm doing in the development process to cause it, though.

  6. #16
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Not to hijack this thread, but Tareq, how the heck did you get the film to respond so well to filters? I've found Acros difficult in terms of color response (when filtering). Then again, my scanner sucks so it's probably that more than anything.

    Back to the original topic: I'd try shooting the film at a slower speed, like 64, and see if that helps at all. I rarely shoot at 100, but almost entirely at 64 or 50 and get good contrast.
    K.S. Klain

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ajman - U.A.E.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Not to hijack this thread, but Tareq, how the heck did you get the film to respond so well to filters? I've found Acros difficult in terms of color response (when filtering). Then again, my scanner sucks so it's probably that more than anything.

    Back to the original topic: I'd try shooting the film at a slower speed, like 64, and see if that helps at all. I rarely shoot at 100, but almost entirely at 64 or 50 and get good contrast.
    What do you mean by filters?

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,763
    Images
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Back to the original topic: I'd try shooting the film at a slower speed, like 64, and see if that helps at all. I rarely shoot at 100, but almost entirely at 64 or 50 and get good contrast.
    Shooting the film at a slower speed will give you an even flatter look than what the OP already has, which defeats the purpose.
    If anything I would recommend shooting it at EI 100 and just work with standard development, adjusting time and agitation until the contrast is similar to what he got with Pan-F+.

    It's all about matching what the paper is capable of. The printing paper is only capable of a certain contrast range. So, whether a film has very high contrast to begin with is irrelevant, because the final contrast of the negative, post exposure and development, must still fit the paper. So, the point is that you make the negative fit the paper. If you need more contrast - develop longer. If you get too much - develop less. In very basic terms it really is that simple.

    In addition to that, you basically control shadow detail (or film speed) with exposure. If you can tolerate losing some shadow detail, you might even consider shooting the film at 200. Or if you want buckets of it, shoot it at 50 or 25. Then, of course, you have to adjust your developing time.
    Incidentally, I shoot Acros at 50 some days, and 400 other days. It's all about getting what you want by adjusting what you do.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by TareqPhoto View Post
    What do you mean by filters?
    That first picture you posted looks like you had a red filter or perhaps a polarizer on to darken the sky. Is that incorrect? I was just curious because I've noticed less response with Acros than with other films when using red and yellow filters.

    Edit: Thomas you are right. I always forget that my shooting, development regiment is quite different. I went the wrong way with the ISO in me head.
    K.S. Klain

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    The talk of re-rating across the board really should come after you start metering properly with an incident meter or gray card religiously...for every frame. And you need to learn to judge light well to see if you are getting what you know you should be getting on the negs. In-camera light meters are no good tool by which to judge the quality of your exposures. There is constant deviation from the "normal" exposure based on the arrangements and intensities of lights and darks within the composition. Heck, they don't even expose an 18 percent gray card right without a +1/2 stop adjustment by the shooter. You can easily start blaming 50 different factors (film, developer, paper, EI, temperature, pH, the moon, etc.), but until you are sure you are metering perfectly every time, and paying attention to light every time, you cannot be too sure of what the problem is. Getting light and metering down pat are steps one and two in any troubleshooting exercise, IMO. IME, nothing in photography (on a technical level) will cause more shot-to-shot variation, and ensuing frustration, than will reading your in-camera light meter directly.
    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)

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