Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,533   Posts: 1,572,667   Online: 893
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,709
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ericdan View Post
    I shoot a roll of FP4+ @200 on sunday. I developed it using ID-11 according to the instructions in the film packaging.
    http://flic.kr/s/aHsjYoufF7



    1. stock dev for 10 mins (agitate 10sec every min)
    2. ilford stop bath for 10 seconds
    3. ilford rapid fix for 3 mins
    4. 5 mins wash
    5. 30seconds fuji flo


    I don't know what it is, but the photos don't look as punchy as I'd like them to be.
    Would Tri-X at 200 be punchier? Or should I change something when developing the film?

    Thanks
    Your exposure and development is as contrastyas I would go with that film.If you want more ,it has to come from the printing.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    223
    How are the members of this forum to judge whether your negatives lack (or not) punch from a digitized version? The S***r adjusts (stretch/shrink) automagically the values present on the film to fit into 0-255. I don't dare go into details for fear my post would be deteted because referring to the D thing.
    I recently under-developed some film (wrong published times) to a contrast index of 0.45, barely printable on grade 4.5. But my S***d files look quite good. As mentioned by other responders, what counts is what you can print under the enlarger.

    Something else. From accumulated measurements with known good light meters, I found (and I'm not alone in that respect) that "sunny 16" should really be "sunny 11" in most cases. And, if significant open shadows are present (not dominant) in the picture, that becomes "sunny 8".

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bernard_L View Post
    How are the members of this forum to judge whether your negatives lack (or not) punch from a digitized version?
    Simple for me, the OP said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by bernard_L View Post
    Something else. From accumulated measurements with known good light meters, I found (and I'm not alone in that respect) that "sunny 16" should really be "sunny 11" in most cases. And, if significant open shadows are present (not dominant) in the picture, that becomes "sunny 8".
    Those are fair choices, simply because it gets you what you want.

    It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #24
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,605
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    Shoot two films of the same type on the same day under the same settings and with the same camera. Develop one film yourself and send one film to a professional lab. Then check witch negatives you like best.
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
    * My favorite cameras: Nikon S2, Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T, Nikon F4s, Olympus Pen FT, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,400
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.
    The OP shot FP4+ @200 in ID11 that is less than box speed id not try 200 in Microphen...

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    223
    It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.
    f/11 vs f/16 is not about deviating from box speed. Just take a known good meter and measure in reflected light a number of sunlit scenes. Especially, but not only, landscapes with foliage.
    Simple for me, the OP said so.
    Then he knows what he's doing, and no need to show us a digital version of his pictures. You gave better advice in your post #5 of this thread.

  7. #27
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    The link suddenly worked.

    I think the film looks normal. The light is a bit flat due to the overcast conditions.

    The light metering has some emphasis on the sky, leading to some under-exposure of the ground. You can do a multi exposure scan to capture more detail and then bring up exposure a bit in post.

    But I would say the film worked as it's supposed to.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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