Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,930   Posts: 1,556,867   Online: 877
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Zonie's!

  1. #11
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,120
    Images
    8
    FWIW, Rodinal 1:100 for 18 minutes is a handy universal single time/developer/dilution trick I have run across. Used that way, it probably won't screw up any film so badly it won't print. But it probably won't be 'the best' either. I have processed rolls of TMax400, Tri-X and Delta400 together in that brew when the shots are not terribly important and I'm in a hurry. The results were printable in all cases. At that dilution, it acts as a compensating developer. Effective film speed is reasonable also. About 250 to 320 for ISO400 rated film.

    Stupid photo tricks 'R Us

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,647
    I've been using Diafine for about 2 years ( actually, same two 1 gal mixtures) with all films from 35mm to 4X5. Do like its convenience but doesn't have versatility that zone system requires ( +- dev times). It does make my darkroom work alot simpler ( TF-4 another great product for its simplicity of use). Can spend more time/effort dodging & burning.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Poco
    I think the idea of pushing the contrast in the printing stage is due to the finer grain that comes from "underdeveloping" the negative -- something that is more important in 35mm than larger formats (assuming fine grain is the goal). I've seen lots of recommendations for "thin" 35mm negatives on the web, but none in books. It's probably one of those informal rules of thumb that used to pass between photographers verbally and now does so on the web.
    Back in the old "Camera 35" days, there was a monthly columnist, Mike Edelman, I believe, who claimed his 35mm portraiture work would rival that of 4x5. His technique, and the first place I ever read it, was the minimally exposed and developed negative printed on grade 3 paper.

    I recall how much I looked forward to reading his column every issue...

  4. #14
    glbeas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Roswell, Ga. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,307
    Images
    109
    I remember something like that. I recall a statement about HC110 Dil B and Tri-X in a particular combo that was darn near grainless. I achieved that goal on one roll of film a long time ago and never figured out how I did it.
    Gary Beasley

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    This may have nothing to do with nothing but I noticed in my first darkroom class that my test prints-each at 4x5 looked nothing like my 8x10 or 11x14 attempts at a final print, the larer prints were flatter and lacked the life of the small test prints. Since I had to do what the instructor wanted in his darkroom I could not use any filter at all. He was a jerk. The PIA pinstructor told me it was my fault and graded me down. A year or so later I had the opportunity to attack the same negatives with free graded paper. For some reason contrast decreases in 35mm negatives as the grain gets further apart in enlargements. Like you I just started printing at grade 3 to start and then moved from there. Maybe this is something many have stumbled on and never really gave it much thought.

    I wonder what happened to the PIA.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  6. #16
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    Images
    26
    Perhaps he moved on (quickly, I hope). these types of instructors drive me crazy:rolleyes:

    Good for you to keep working and having the instincts to recognize that as the prints get larger the contrast shifts.

  7. #17
    gma
    gma is offline
    gma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    793
    Images
    9
    I first used 35mm (Plus-X) in 1964. At that time all the magazines recommended grade 3 paper as standard for 35mm. It was because of grain. Thin, underdeveloped negatives were assumed better for 35mm because they limited grain buildup. When I saw the wonderful tones of LF photos I started to question the grade 3 standard. I started using Adox KB 17 and Kodak Panatomic-X. They yielded denser negatives with more contrast that worked very well with grade 2 paper. Then I started developing Plus-X and Tri-X to get better negatives (with more grain) to print on grade 2.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    141
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by ann

    Now, i know i did not just come up with the thought that grade 3 was a better option for 35mm , but i can't remember how and why that became a standard starting point.

    You may find the following quotes helpful. They are from Zone VI Newsletter #47 by Fred Picker. The first paragraph is from page one, the second from page six.

    "In the last Newsletter I began a review of improved proceedures that would appear in a revision of Zone VI Workshop if I were to revise it."

    "In a revised book, for 35mm only, I would suggest doing a development time test using grade 3 paper rather than grade 2. There are several reasons: 1) A shorter development time dramatically reduces grain. 2) The grade 3 paper -assuming quality paper- will print a strong black even through the dense 35mm base; a grade 2 usually won't. 3) Because 35mm is often used in fast breaking uncontrolled situations where "hot" areas can accidentally appear, the short development of the negative will reduce the contrast and give you two grades -grade 2 and grade 1- below "normal" to step down to. The trade-off (there is always a trade-off) is that the low values will be underdeveloped in the negative and you will lose separation. But I think that in the kind of work that 35mm should be used for, the loss of low value crispness is a worthwhile exchange for strong blacks, smoother high values, reduced grain, and easier-to-print negatives made under contrasty conditions. If you try the grade 3 approach for 35mm, check your first "proper proofs" carefully; you might find that you need an extra half stop of exposure to compensate for the decreased development."

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