Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,847   Online: 1044
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I would say that the Ilford times for EI 50 (or do they list them for 64?) would work fine if you want to do a one stop pull.

    FYI, only exposure is made "at" an EI, not development. Development is made "for" an exposure that has been made "at" a certain EI. EI means "exposure index", and development in and of itself has nothing to do with this.
    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)

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    591
    I meant the time for film that was exposed at EI 80. Looking at the massive development chart, they only list 50 and 80, no time for 64.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  3. #13
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkroom317 View Post
    I meant the time for film that was exposed at EI 80. Looking at the massive development chart, they only list 50 and 80, no time for 64.
    IMHO, the best thing you can do with the Massive Development Chart is forget that it exists. Who knows who puts the information into that database. Much of it is straight from the manufacturer's anyhow, and I would rather get that information first hand from Ilford publications than second hand, with the possibility or transcription/data entry errors.

    Where the Massive Development Chart might provide a good starting point is with an "experimental" or an "esoteric" combination. The problem with the chart, however, is that there are no standards. Someone might call their development good, when it is really too high or too low in contrast...not to mention what their metering techniques might be!
    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)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Ain't that the truth!
    Frank Schifano

  5. #15
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    IMHO, the best thing you can do with the Massive Development Chart is forget that it exists. Who knows who puts the information into that database.
    That can't be emphasized enough! Well said.

    Darkroom317,

    You might want to develop the negative around normal and simply print down the overexposure.

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    You may try just reducing your agitation to protect the highlights.

    My norm is to overexpose from box a bit but this is purely my personal preference and the result of my testing and exposure methods. I use Xtol and typically run N+1 time with reduced agitation, 1 inversion every 2 minutes instead of 5 inversions every 30 seconds.

    See this article http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html this article and Kodak's directions for controlling contrast in the Xtol tech data sheet (J-109) are where I got the idea.

    Shoot a test roll exposed similarly (to make an after the fact clip test) cut it in several pieces, develop 1 piece normally, one piece with just reduced agitation, one piece reduced time with normal agitation... Keep playing until you get the contrast you like.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 01-31-2010 at 07:48 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Kodak Hyperlink
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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