Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,273   Posts: 1,534,563   Online: 1024
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    993
    Images
    1
    OK ID-11 1:1 at 13:00 gave me negatives (er, I mean positives) that were about as good as the best I had done with Selectol. So then I did ID-11 stock at 13:00 and finally I have some film that's looking pretty good in terms of density. It occurs to me that fog on this film will look like a lack of ability to achieve full black, so at this point am I looking at fogged film, or at film that still needs more development? I think I'll try another roll at something like ID-11 stock for 20:00 and see if it answers that question.

    Duncan

  2. #22
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,860
    Images
    32
    Maybe developing at a lower temperture for longer will minimize fog.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    993
    Images
    1
    That's a point I should mention - all these times are with the developer at 70 degrees, since that's what the original D-97 spec was. I'm not saying there is fog (given the film's speed, it's about as fog-impervious as they come!) it was just a thought, that fog is backwards on this film from negative film.

    The 20 minute stock solution process looks to give about as dense a rebate as I'm going to get. I'll have to compare it to the 13:00 version once they're both dry, but I think it's safe to say somewhere in that range is as developed as it's going to get.

    Duncan
    Last edited by frobozz; 07-10-2011 at 03:08 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    540
    Well, didn't get to it today. But I will shoot a long roll and spit it up into sections for development tomorrow. I might also try the P3200 setting on my phototherm which is 85 degrees instead of 75.

    I'm actually really excited about this film and about possibly using some slide duplication film to do photography of some local water fountains, I love doing it, but always stuck with huge depth of fields, this slower film should give me the shallow depth of field I"m looking for

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    993
    Images
    1
    Yeah, if you want to shoot wide open at long exposures, this is the film for you!

    So here are the results after the film dried. First is ID-11 1:1 for 13:00 at 70 degrees F. The results look pretty good, with just a touch of thinness to the black areas of the film:




    (That smudge in the middle is a dog on a leash who wandered into the picture during the 16 second exposure...)

    Next is ID-11 stock solution for 13:00 at 70 degrees F. I'm very happy with the results of this in terms of black density. I think one thing that threw me a bit is that black on this film (clear base) is never going to look as black as I'm used to on B&W negative film with its darker base. Plus I think the emulsion is just flat out a thinner coating. I mean, before you even expose it you can see right through it! The results here are about a half stop too dark - maybe because of more development, maybe because the light was fading... but I was bracketing full stops. Could no doubt be fixed in printing but I was scanning with no correction at all to show the actual results:




    Last we have ID-11 stock solution for 20:00 at 70 degrees F. This was just flat out too much development. Even the clear sections of the film were starting to turn grey again! But the black portions didn't look appreciably blacker than the 13:00 ones, so I'd say at 13:00 I had pretty much fully developed the film to its most usable level. The exposure one stop more exposed than this was actually too thin so I'd say this was a failure in terms of getting the proper tonal range from the film too:





    As in my previous tests where I had shot at a speed of 1 (well, really 1.5 because my meter only goes down to 6, and then I calculated 2 stops more exposure than that as my middle point on bracketing) my best exposures were two stops overexposed from that... meaning the film speed is "negligible" or certainly less than 1. Though I should probably try it with at least one other camera. If the one camera's meter were off at ASA 6, it's not something I would have previously noted, and the guy who did the CLA may not have tested it down there!

    Given the almost certain need for a tripod and stationary subject, I'd say that bracketing the heck out of this stuff when using it isn't that onerous a requirement. And definitely do it by half-stops if you can. (My Canon FD lenses do half stops, but a lot of other lenses don't.)

    Duncan

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    540
    Excellent!!! Looks like I'll be enjoying myself this week when I go to the fountains!

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