Grid lines? Exposure issues

[Michael Lloyd]

I took my new Chamonix out for a test drive with some TXP 320. I shot everything at ISO 200. Things did not go well.

In all cases I metered the highlights and "put them" in Zone 8 according to the little taped on zone scale on my Pentax meter. I have tested the Pentax against a new Sekonic and the EV's match up pretty well. That said, my negatives, after scanning, consistently have "crowded blacks" and room on the highlight side of the histogram. When I look at the histogram of a negative scan, black, or the left side, is white in the positive image correct? So what I'm seeing is not under exposure but over exposure? I tried to compensate by shooting two negatives of each scene. One at 1s@f22 (the Zone 8 metering) and one at 1/2s@f22. I shot 3 scenes like this on 2 different days. It just worked out that exposure time was 1s. The results were pretty much the same. Neither negative was very good in any case.

I've had similar issues with Delta 100 but it seems to be a little more forgiving than TXP320.

I tried looking at the histogram on the back of the camera and it never comes up. Must be low batteries in the Chamonix... (kidding)

Here's a screenshot of the negative scan. I metered the sky and put it in Zone 8 on the scale

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s6/v151/p88631497-5.jpg

Here's the ColorPerfect Screen. I am not an expert with ColorPerfect. Not even close.

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s10/v111/p13665185-4.jpg

Here's after running ColorPerfect (no adjustments). The sky looks wonky and it's blown out. Can you see the grid lines in the middle? What is that about?

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s7/v167/p7727840-5.jpg

I feel like I'm dealing with a couple of fundamental mistakes. Any help would be appreciated.

[vinny]

Meter for the shadows. Develop for the highlights.
Pick one film. Do some tests. Stick with it.

[Christopher Barrett]

Wow, the sky looks really dense. What's your development like? I wouldn't mind running the neg file through CP on my end. As for the grid, I can only assume that some radioactive source on your side of the groundglass burned the etched grid into the film.

[Lachlan 717]

Why are you exposing for the highlights? Perhaps a residual of shooting digital?

[Michael Lloyd]

Meter for the shadows. Develop for the highlights.
Pick one film. Do some tests. Stick with it.

Ok... well that explains it. I've been metering "backwards". I look at both ends and try to expose so I have good shadow detail and not blow the highlights (digital hangover I guess).

The only issue I'm going to have is that I process with a Jobo. I don't have a darkroom or any place that could be converted. The previous owner of my house liked windows. Even in the closets... So... it would be hard to develop the first neg, look at it, and adjust the development for the highlights. Not impossible but definitely more tedious than if I could develop one at a time in a tray. Some day...

Back to Delta 100 or Acros 100 for a while I guess... I wanted to see what TXP320 looked like. Still do :)



Wow, the sky looks really dense. What's your development like? I wouldn't mind running the neg file through CP on my end. As for the grid, I can only assume that some radioactive source on your side of the groundglass burned the etched grid into the film.

Development came from MassiveDev. I used Ilfotec DD-X. It's what I've been using (not counting a trial with Acros100 and rollo pyro). I have TMAX, TMAXRS, HC110, D76, and Adonal but none of it has ever been opened (D76 is powder).

DD-X at 6:30 @20C

The thing that I didn't think of until just now was whether or not that would work in a Jobo...



I could put the scan into DropBox and give you a link if you want

RADIOACTIVE??? That would be me or the camera! I hope neither! Maybe the sun? It was about 90 degrees to the right of me though, behind clouds (not that clouds matter when it comes to radiation). I checked solarham.net. There was a flare yesterday but it was a C class flare and it's pretty unlikely to have been the source. Side note: "Our old friend AR 2192, the largest visible sunspot in over 20 years, is lurking behind the east limb and is making its presence known. An eruption of plasma, presumably centered around whatever remains of the active region, is visible off the limb in the latest imagery courtesy of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). We should see the long lasting region begin to reappear during the next 48 hours." from Solarham.net

I can't think of anything radioactive that would've been close to the camera. I was on a backroad, nowhere near industry of any kind. I don't work near radioactive sources of any kind. Idk... That would make sense because the lines look like the lines etched on the ground glass...



Why are you exposing for the highlights? Perhaps a residual of shooting digital?

Yeah... a digital hangover. I meter both ends and if I'm in the range of 7 or 8 stops I try to "center" the exposure between Zone 3 and Zone 8. Definitely need to stop doing that.

[Will Frostmill]

The color perfect window says you are working in 8 bit mode. Don't do that :) It throws away important data, causing, for instance, the sky to become posterized. Try 16 bit TIFFS, and see what you get. It's too soon to say for sure that you over exposed since you've got some really weird data there.

[Will Frostmill]

Another question about your scene - what was the light like? Cloudy, I see some shadows? Brighter than that? So that's at least EV13, maybe EV14, but you are exposing it as if it's EV9. Four or five stops over a 'average' reading is pretty strong, and you are already have a 1/3 to 2/3 stop safety margin in the shadows by rating 320 as 200. In roll film I typically go one or two stops over, but that's about it. I also scan, so I'm not worried about getting the tones to lie 'just so' for a particular paper.

It looks like you are having a lot if fun with this. Keep us up to date on how it goes.

[Nigel Smith]

looks over-developed to me but the exposure indicates it must have been a pretty dull day or been over-exposured too?

[Nigel Smith]

Another question about your scene - what was the light like? Cloudy, I see some shadows?

I didn't pick that up, was concentrating on the trees... so, yes, I'm definetly going with over exposed as well.

[Nigel Smith]

The only issue I'm going to have is that I process with a Jobo.Development came from MassiveDev. I used Ilfotec DD-X. It's what I've been using (not counting a trial with Acros100 and rollo pyro). I have TMAX, TMAXRS, HC110, D76, and Adonal but none of it has ever been opened (D76 is powder).

DD-X at 6:30 @20C

The thing that I didn't think of until just now was whether or not that would work in a Jobo...



That time is probably for small tank development? (intermiterent agitation) JOBO might be less?

[Michael Lloyd]

I spotted the 8 bit mode when I put the post up and tried it again. It helped a little but not much

It was cloudy, about 10 minutes before sunset. Sun was about 90 degrees to the right of camera. I'm having a blast :)

Nigel- I use a Jobo and the MassiveDev site developing time. I checked the notes but there's nothing about tray vs drum. But if the time was for trays and I used the rotary processor that would be a problem wouldn't it?

Here's my old barn from 2 days ago (day before the image above). Same film. I took a few notes for the two shots that I made
a few minutes before sunset. Sun at my back. Facing NE

Sheet 1 at 1/2s@f22 and Sheet 2 at 1s@f22

Negative

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s12/v181/p832561470-5.jpg

After ColorPerfect

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s7/v157/p539043199-5.jpg

Crappy edit that I deleted. This one has grid lines too???

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s10/v110/p964961110-5.jpg

[Michael Lloyd]

If nothing else I'm consistent... incorrect exposure every time :)

Over exposure plus over developing seems likely

I consistently over expose... and I have been consistently metering the sky, setting it on Zone 8, checking that the shadows fall into Zone 3 (or 4), and using that for exposure settings. I'll switch to meter shadows and see how that does.

I'd cut the developing time back but I don't know how much

[Christopher Barrett]

Heh, I was joking about the radioactivity.

[ic-racer]

I metered the sky and put it in Zone 8 on the scale.

Meter the shadows.
The sky is the worst thing to meter. Your eye, the meter sensor and film all have different responses to its brightness.

Your negative in the first post actually looks fine.

[Michael Lloyd]

Heh, I was joking about the radioactivity.

LOL... I'd say I knew that but I'd be lying LOL
I was just about to email Hugo at Chamonix but... the grid lines seem to match what's on the ground glass.

There are 6 negs and all of them have grid lines. Maybe the film is messed up? I bought it from B&H this time last year and it's been in the freezer for whole time

[Michael Lloyd]

Meter the shadows.
The sky is the worst thing to meter. Your eye, the meter sensor and film all have different responses to its brightness.

Will do. Thank you. If we get some decent weather soon I'll reshoot everything. Now if I can just figure out where the grid lines are coming from

[Will Frostmill]

If nothing else I'm consistent... incorrect exposure every time :)

Over exposure plus over developing seems likely

I consistently over expose... and I have been consistently metering the sky, setting it on Zone 8, checking that the shadows fall into Zone 3 (or 4), and using that for exposure settings. I'll switch to meter shadows and see how that does.

I'd cut the developing time back but I don't know how much
6 min is already pretty short. Maybe dilute 1:1, and keep the same time? Consider stand development?
It might be better to pick one thing to change and just do that. One metering tip is when it's overcast to meter off your hand or a gray card, since the light is going to be uniform anyway. Then add however many additional stops you want to see in the shadows. (Usually two, but it gets tricky in the evening.) Metering off the sky is excellent for digital - I do it myself all the time, but it looks more like a source of light than a reflective surface for calculating exposure.

[Michael Lloyd]

DD-X is diluted 1:4 as is but I could try cutting it back. Other than the Jobo all I have is trays but no darkroom.

I meter the sky and shadows with digital all of the time too. I think that's where I got off track. Old habits and all that stuff. Naturally the weather stinks right now so I'll have to wait it out. Or I could rig up a pocket wizard and a strobe and shoot something inside :) I took the same scene with a digital camera 4 or 5 days ago and it took one exposure to get it right (enough) :) but shooting film helped me to get to that point.

[Michael Lloyd]

Grid lines... I just remembered something important. The film in the freezer is new but I loaded the holders and hauled them around in my rolling camera case (2000 Toyota Landcruiser) for weeks. The loaded holders were in the back of the TLC and I drove all over Texas, southern Utah, Northern NM, and SW Colorado (over 12,000'). I can't think if what would put the image of a grid on the negs but all six of them have a grid on them.

[Daniel Stone]

Try exposing a sheet or two of a bland, textureless wall. Do this when the lighting is diffused, not hard, direct sun.
Develop the negatives, and see if the grid pattern remains.

One tip: don't put the wall/surface into focus. Rack it slightly OUT of focus(so it's simply a fuzzy blur).

[lab black]

In addition, there is a You Tube clip featuring Bruce Barnbaum, who discusses the placement of shadows on zone 4, which can be a useful tool in some situations.

[Nigel Smith]

Nigel- I use a Jobo and the MassiveDev site developing time. I checked the notes but there's nothing about tray vs drum. But if the time was for trays and I used the rotary processor that would be a problem wouldn't it?


Does the JOBO rotate continously? Don't they rotate, then reverse, etc? Never used on myself except doing some cibachrome prints many years ago. If it's doing that without stopping then you're basically using continuous agitation, which means the times should be shorter however as mentioned, 6mins is getting short enough (times less than 5mins are usually suggested to be avoided to avoid uneven development). Looking at the MDC FAQ is seems to indicate that times are for normal small tank agitation unless otherwise stated (having said that I can't find any rotary specific suggestion.. they may be there! They do suggest reducing times by 15%). DD-X can be diluted 1:9 but times will be user not manufacturer suggested (Ilford don't give a 1:9 time) but there will be threads (check here and on APUG) around with actual user times for some films, maybe not for TXP-320 though. But you should be able to work out a time based on percentages of other people experiences. I've used it like that a couple of times (need to look up data at home though). An alternative would be to find times for one of the other developers you have thats specific for a JOBO and try that.

[AtlantaTerry]

Why does your original text mention the Chamonix camera? Most likely the camera has nothing to do with what your problems are. It is interesting no one has discussed the lens and shutter. Do you know if the aperture is correct and the shutter speeds are accurate? Did you remember to stop down the lens prior to exposing the film?

For the life of me I can't guess why you would be getting grid lines unless the film is behind the ground glass instead of in front of it. Surely, that is not the case.

As another test, fog a frame or two of film by exposing it to light in a dimly lit room (no camera at all). That way if you get grid lines it will absolutely mean that the grid lines have nothing to do with the camera.

[Michael Lloyd]

Why does your original text mention the Chamonix camera? Most likely the camera has nothing to do with what your problems are.

Because that's what I used and the grid lines look just like the grid lines on the ground glass. I mean exactly like them


It is interesting no one has discussed the lens and shutter. Do you know if the aperture is correct and the shutter speeds are accurate? Did you remember to stop down the lens prior to exposing the film?

I don't "know" they are correct but I know my technique was bad thanks to answers in this thread.
I finally have pretty decent workflow and I have the stack of clear plastic sheets to prove that I've worked at it. I stopped down and I remembered to pull the dark slide :) this time.


For the life of me I can't guess why you would be getting grid lines unless the film is behind the ground glass instead of in front of it. Surely, that is not the case.

I don't think even I could put a film holder in between the ground glass and lens


As another test, fog a frame or two of film by exposing it to light in a dimly lit room (no camera at all). That way if you get grid lines it will absolutely mean that the grid lines have nothing to do with the camera.

I went out and shot 6 negatives earlier today. They are drying as I type this. I like what I see on 4 of the 6 negs. They were shot in an entirely different location with better shadows to light range. The last two were of the big tree again. I'm kicking myself because I didn't use the same lens. Instead of 210mm I used 150mm. I introduced another variable without thinking about it. I should have used the same lens / shutter combination

I changed one thing in the developing process. I pre-washed the first set of negs for 1 minute yesterday. Today I pre-washed for 5 minutes. Other than that I kept everything the same.

Film at 11... or in an hour or two...

[Nigel Smith]

if you want to give DD-X 1:9 a try maybe the following can get you started...

I used Delta 400 in DD-X 1:4 for 8:30 @ 20C (slightly longer than the 8mins Ilford suggest)
I used 1:9 for 10:30 @ 20C (which makes about a 23% increase)

The MDC has a time for 1:9 @24c of 9.25 BUT using Ilfords time/temp chart to convert 8mins @ 20C into 24C I get 5.5mins (which the MDC time/temp page also calcs, 5.21m)
5.5mins to 9.25min is about a 68% increase... which seems a lot, and way more than my experience.

I only have data for a small number of films developed like this (a few @ 1:4 and 10 or so at 1:9) as my love affair with DD-X wore off quickly as it is really expensive here. However the negs look good and print easily.

Ilfords documentation says to reduce development in a Jobo by 15% so factor that in too.

I've only used these combos on 120 film (Mamiya 645) so won't upload examples, however you can click on these links for an example of each.

Delta 400, DD-X 1:4 (http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm294/HGMonaro350/DD-X/Film94_002_zpsffd73332.jpg)
Delta 400, DD-X 1:9 (http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm294/HGMonaro350/DD-X/Film252_013_zpse130fcf6.jpg)

[Michael Lloyd]

It's been an interesting evening. I shot 6 more sheets of TXP320 film today. I metered the shadows and put them in Zone 3 on the scale and made a negative. Then I increased the exposure by one stop and exposed the second negative. I ended up with 2 shots each of 3 subjects. The day was overcast. I shot at around 2pm local time. The sky was only 4-5 stops brighter than the shadows according to the meter.

Since I had already messed up the test base by changing lenses I decided against changing the developing time or concentration. I developed exactly the same as yesterday.

I scanned and processed the negatives. Zone 3 shadows were more like Zone 2 and the highlights were approaching blown out but still had a very little bit of recoverable info in them. I'll post a pic of an extreme recovery. I double checked the Pentax with an almost new Sekonic L758DR and they always matched. I don't think my meter has issues.

Where can I get my lenses and shutters checked? I bought all of this stuff off of eBay over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if none of it has been CLA'd in a long while. Is it expensive? Time consuming?

Would it be safe to assume that the highlights are probably the result of over developing? TXP320 is not my goto film. I'll take Delta 100 and Acros 100 to Death Valley in late January. I just wanted to see what it looked like. I kind of like it. I may play with other developers and see how it does.

I processed these the way I always do. Scan as Color Positive (this time 48 bit), open in Photoshop, Color Perfect, then Silver Efex Pro 2, back to Photoshop for a midtone contrast action (very subtle), flatten, and save as a TIF. If I need to edit I'll edit from scratch. If I kept the layers the files are well over 1Gb in size. The point is that the following are not simply converted. I tweaked them. Unlike yesterday, I had room to tweak them. If I can get the highlights under control I think the rest is simply a matter of metering correctly. Each image has a brighter version. Mostly due to post processing. I didn't really see a 1 stop brightness increase in the negatives. 1/2 stop maybe.

Reminds me of the movie Coma

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s6/v140/p275055409-6.jpg

Hangover Tree

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s10/v108/p739711362-6.jpg

This was shit using a 300mm lens. It's on a Copal 3 shutter and it's kind of chunky for the Linhof board that it's on. I also pushed this one around a little to see what was in the highlights. The negative didn't look like this.

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s8/v14/p144366871-6.jpg

[Ari]

The second photo looks pretty good; any re-appearance of the grid lines?

[Michael Lloyd]

I've got a brighter version of the first one. It has good shadow detail but the highlights are too hot. I cropped it 1x1 and it looks better. Too much "stuff" in the foreground otherwise.

No grid lines... I'm baffled. The holders fit very tightly in the back of the Chamonix. I can't imagine how the grid lines on the glass could go through the holder to the film. It's just not likely at all. I can't see how but maybe some sort of odd, internal reflection? I'm going to email Hugo at Chamonix when I hit send and see if he's ever heard of it happening.

[Christopher Barrett]

M, there's no way the grid lines from the GG could actually be getting exposed onto the film. This has to be the result of something in the scanning. Your first sky was so dense that I could imagine the software/hardware going a little haywire trying to recover the detail. I'd be happy to drum scan it for you just to make sure.

CB

[AtlantaTerry]

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s8/v14/p144366871-6.jpg
I see long vertical streaks in the sky area. Usually those are created due to over or under agitation issues.

[Michael Lloyd]

M, there's no way the grid lines from the GG could actually be getting exposed onto the film. This has to be the result of something in the scanning. Your first sky was so dense that I could imagine the software/hardware going a little haywire trying to recover the detail. I'd be happy to drum scan it for you just to make sure.
CB

I agree. I appreciate the offer and I would gladly send you the negative to play with if you're interested. I can't think of any possible way for grid lines on ground glass to get to the negative short of being in the vicinity of a strong source of radiation. Even then there would be a lot more than grid lines on the film, fogging, etc. That said, if I could figure out a way to take a photo of the back of the camera it would show that the ground glass grid lines are really similar in appearance to the lines on the film

Maybe aliens were testing their photon blasters in the area?

My scanner is an Epson 10000XL. I can't see anything that would cause grid lines on either glass face but I won't rule it out.


I see long vertical streaks in the sky area. Usually those are created due to over or under agitation issues.

I can't control the agitation speed on the Jobo. Well... I can but mine has 3 speeds. off, F, and the one I don't use. I think it's for color? 210ml is the minimum amount if chemistry for a Jobo 3006 ExpertDrum. I used 250ml. The negative is very dense in the sky area

Which brings me to a metering question. I metered the tree the same way as the others except I could get a lot closer to the shadow areas in the other images. This tree was shot with a 300mm lens and it's 75 yards away, give or take a yard or two. It's feasible that the shutter is off too I suppose but I was wondering if there is anything I should be aware of when spot metering something that far away. Simple geometry tells me that area covered by a 1 degree spot meter gets larger as the point distance increases. I know from shooting long range that 1 minute of angle is 10" at 1,000 yards and 1" at 100 yards. At some distance the spot meter becomes an averaging meter doesn't it?

Here's a screenshot of the neg. You can see that I had to push the pixels around pretty hard to recover anything in the sky (but it was there)

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s3/v45/p136514110-6.jpg

[Henrim]

I reckon I have an answer to the mystery lines. It is Color Perfect Demo version imposing the grid over the image.

[Michael Lloyd]

I reckon I have an answer to the mystery lines. It is Color Perfect Demo version imposing the grid over the image.

ColorPerfect is licensed. Has been for years. Go back to the very first post and look at the second image. It's a screenshot of my ColorPerfect screen...

[Henrim]

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you don't have a licence. Check that it is properly installed, since I do know that the demo version imposes a grid over the image. I would be very surprised if the source was elsewhere.

[djdister]

What if --- your dark slides really aren't "dark enough" and so when the film holder is inserted between the ground glass and the body, the side facing out is right behind the ground glass, light hitting the back of the camera is fogging your film through the dark slide, except for the shadow cast by the grid lines on the GG.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Definitely overexposed, possibly overdeveloped. The difference between 1 second and 1/2 second exposure is insignificant here. And please keep in mind that the Massivdev data is very often calculated rather than from manufacturer's recommendation. All time/temps are 'starting points'.

I would like to see the unexposed edge of the negative.

I am clueless regarding the grid pattern.

Good start nonetheless. I look forward to more.

(Me, I'd blame the Toyota :))
--
Jac - RAV4 V6

[Henrim]

How does the grid look like when viewed at 100%?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

If you are using a Jobo to process your film then you need to decrease the development time by 20% to 25% to compensate for the continual rotation and agitation of the developer in the drum. As has been mentioned, meter for the shadows and develop for the highlights. If your highlights are still blown then you need to determine your N- development time. The times on the Massive Dev Chart are often not accurate as development depends on your meter, the developer used, the development method and other factors such as developer temp. So, some amount of testing is required.

About the only way to get grid lines on your neg is if somehow the film holder was not being inserted into the camera in from of the ground glass. So, I am not sure how that would happen.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you don't have a licence. Check that it is properly installed, since I do know that the demo version imposes a grid over the image. I would be very surprised if the source was elsewhere.

I just tried ColorPerfect, and the grid lines are there, just as you wrote.
Perhaps the OP has a registration bug.
That one is solved. Thanks!

They are most conspicuous in the sky. (I think the software does an xor)

[Jac@stafford.net]

How does the grid look like when viewed at 100%?

Here is what I got, shown at 100% (http://www.digoliardi.net/test.jpg) (cropped for fast load).

[Jim Noel]

A ZOne VIII sky would be extremely bright. White clouds fall in that area, but not the open sky. SO your sky is over-exposed. AS others have said, meter for the IMPORTANT shadows and development wil take care of the highlights.
I suggest starting with a more basic developer. Since you have it, HC110 dilution "B" is a very good starting point. It provides full film speed with fine grain and a smooth curve.
As for using the Jobo, that is fine. Keep careful notes regarding exposure, light conditions and development times. Make a few negatives of varying subjects, look at the results and then make adjustments in development time for the next batch. Although film is not cheap, using several sheets to get your processing down is the cheapest in the long run. I used to tell my students that the first 25-50 sheets were to help them get their feet on the ground.
Good luck

[Daniel Stone]

One thought:

What type of film holders do you have? I remember having some wooden 4x5 holders early on in my LF game, and some of them had a "waffle" pattern plate that the film slid in on(instead of a south piece of sheet stock like more modern holders employ).

Just a thought

[Lenny Eiger]

Michael,
When people say meter at Zone 3 (the shadows), they also assume you are going to stop down 2 stops from that setting (to be shooting at zone 5). This will take care of your overexposure.

Step 1: Read zone 3
Step 2 read zone 7
Step 3: calculate the difference between the 2 so you know how to develop. Most use N+ and N- notation based on 4 or 5 stops in between.
Step 4: Close down 2 stops from the zone 3 reading to expose.

Mostly, your negs look overdeveloped. There is nothing wrong with Jobo. I use Xtol 1:1. If you want to decrease the density about a stop (from N-2 to N-3) you develop 30-60 seconds less, depending on temperature and everything else. 4 mins is plenty of development for the N-3's. Don't go past 7.

You are lucky that Tri-x didn't work for you. Delta is far better for scanning purposes. Also, get rid of the f22. Stop down to f45... get yourself some depth of field. f22 won't be any sharper for what you are photographing...

Scan as 16bit RGB, then convert using Channel Mixer (most pick monochrome then use 100% of the green channel, 0% of the other two). Learn to use adjustment layers and forget the rest.

Lenny

[Jac@stafford.net]

One thought:

What type of film holders do you have? I remember having some wooden 4x5 holders early on in my LF game, and some of them had a "waffle" pattern plate that the film slid in on(instead of a south piece of sheet stock like more modern holders employ).

Just a thought

Daniel, you might be recalling sheet-film adapters for glass plate holders.

[jcoldslabs]

Daniel, you might be recalling sheet-film adapters for glass plate holders.

I think Dan's referring to a holder like this:

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/myyHEqMjtD4yrmaepOmtpNA.jpg

Jonathan

[Daniel Stone]

I think Dan's referring to a holder like this:

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/myyHEqMjtD4yrmaepOmtpNA.jpg

Jonathan

Yup, was pretty much exactly like this, but had a smaller pattern(about 1/2" squares)

[Kurtay Photography]

Hey, I tried to read all what has written, a lot of technical details however one very fundamental detail about 320 is that it is made for studio use and not very forgiven at all. Looking at the photographs you have made (regardless lines etc) they are all taken on a grey/cloudy days or dark grey days. So, it doesn't really matter how you meter when there is no contrast. Zone system is made to help to produce images in order to be able make good prints. Saying good prints, only up to one's taste how dark or light they want to go with their photographs. I would say, before trying to understand zone system, pick a film and experiment with it. You don't really need and machine to develop them, use some trays and do it as basic as possible. I used jobo in the past and others, I found the best results comes out from a hand made devs. A bit like cooking! If you made good negs under the right conditions then no need to fix them on computers. That is why you have the zone system. Also bracketing a negative with only half of a second is nothing. I would say do it at least one stop, if grey do it two stop. Negs are made to over expose up to three stop and down for two stop. Visualise the image then expose it accordingly. Make sure there is enough light! I would recommend FP4 Plus for better shadow details and rich highlights with punchy prints. 320 is not for this type of work. :) Delta doesn't scan well, I had some lines problems with it, TRI-X 400 is the best and most forgiven film, both sunny and cloudy/grey days. But FP4 is ideal for moody and dark photos. Best!

[Jac@stafford.net]

tne very fundamental detail about 320 is that it is made for studio use

TMax, perhaps but not Tri-X.

[Doremus Scudder]

Michael,

I don't know where your grid lines are coming from, but do check the negatives directly. If you can see nothing with your eye on a light table, there may still be grid lines there. You would have to make a contact print on real photographic paper to test fully (i.e., not scan).

As for exposure. I have negs that are a lot more dense than those you post and I can still make wonderful prints from them. Yes, your negs look a bit dense, but that in itself doesn't seem to me to be the real problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think you need to do your homework and arrive at a good (for you) exposure and development method. It is in the approach and the expectations you have where I think the problem lies.

Allow me to elaborate a bit.

First, without a baseline for exposure, you're just shooting hit and miss at shadow density. You need to establish an exposure value that gives you just a bit of density above the film-base-plus-fog and use this exposure for "Zone 0," i.e., for your personal exposure index. Once you have that, you can shoot some Zone II, III and IV negatives and "see" where the respective values fall and what they look like (how black, how much detail, etc., etc.)

You should then shoot some Zone VIII negatives and develop them for different times. Pick a developing time that gives you a Zone VIII "white" with just a little detail.

Now, go out and shoot a neg of every Zone, print them up and make yourself a Zone Ruler. You can refer to it to determine where you want to place what.

This latter, i.e., the "where to place what" is your basic problem here, in my opinion. Placing the sky in Zone VIII gives you just about what you got.

Keep in mind that my approach outlined above is primarily for printing on photographic paper. You will need to tweak things a bit for scanning. That said, the approach is basically the same. 1. establish an EI that gives you an idea of where the film threshold is. 2. find a developing time that gives you a usable Zone VIII. 3. most importantly, learn to use the Zones to visualize what goes where.

FWIW, I will often not even bother with shots where I want a lot of mid-tone separation, but where the sky is bright overcast. A quick examination of all values in a scene like that will show you that in order to hold detail in the sky, the rest of the scene gets dumped down into the lower values. If I do shoot a scene like that, I'll plan on a lot of dodging/burning usually.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael Lloyd]

Addressing the grid lines first


Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you don't have a licence. Check that it is properly installed, since I do know that the demo version imposes a grid over the image. I would be very surprised if the source was elsewhere.
No problem. It's installed right. But I think I know what made the lines


Here is what I got, shown at 100% (http://www.digoliardi.net/test.jpg) (cropped for fast load).
The grid that you have is the same one that this guy has on his images: LINK (http://stephenleephoto.com/tag/scanning/) The lines I have are different, much finer, and the source is... drum roll please...

Me... and the scanner... and poor use of the ColorPerfect filter. When I edited the files with the acceptance that the sky was blown in the barn image the lines were gone. That's kind of a well duh statement but the point is that the process of trying to recover something from nothing made lines. The first time I edited it I tried to pull data from the sky with sliders. That's kind of a well duh statement but the point is that the process of trying to recover something from nothing made lines. I suspect that the scanner had something to do with it, which was already mentioned somewhere in this thread, too. I'm still very much in Kindergarten when it comes to scanning so I really don't know where the lines come from.

Here's a version of the barn that has an all white sky and decent exposure for darks and midtones. I did very little in ColorPerfect, used Lenny's Channel Mixer suggestion, added a midtone contrast (luminosity blend mode) curves layer, and saved the file

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s6/v140/p177124224-5.jpg

and here's a screenshot of the same image with the blown highlight warning turned on in LR5. You can see the lines and the big content aware fill that I did to get rid of leftover gray stuff and spots on the upper left

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s7/v156/p484672622-6.jpg

[Michael Lloyd]

I don't mean to skip the other comments. I read them and will come back and read them even more. It's going to take some time to absorb some of it.

I have a worse digital hangover than I thought. Don't' get me wrong, I like a lot of things about the digital format but I needed some fundamentals, like all of them! I came back to film to learn about photography... I hope I'll get my money's worth and that idea


Definitely overexposed, possibly overdeveloped. The difference between 1 second and 1/2 second exposure is insignificant here. And please keep in mind that the Massivdev data is very often calculated rather than from manufacturer's recommendation. All time/temps are 'starting points'.

I would like to see the unexposed edge of the negative.

I am clueless regarding the grid pattern.

Good start nonetheless. I look forward to more.

(Me, I'd blame the Toyota :))
--
Jac - RAV4 V6

I'll see if I can screenshot a crop of the edge of the negative. I assume that you mean in the area of the sky

:) LOL yeah... my little TLC is a new thing for me. My first Toy car. I bought it because I needed a "camera bag" that could get me where I wanted to go and a 2000 TLC with 150k miles on it is cheap compared to the new vehicles. I've put 10k on it so far and it's been real good to me. Fuel mileage sucks but it's AWD. I use Blackstone for oil analysis and the last oil change they told me to take it to 9000 miles... Idk if I'll do that but the analysis was on oil I had run for 7000 miles. I underestimated the drive to Maine and went way over 5000.


A ZOne VIII sky would be extremely bright. White clouds fall in that area, but not the open sky. SO your sky is over-exposed. AS others have said, meter for the IMPORTANT shadows and development wil take care of the highlights.
I suggest starting with a more basic developer. Since you have it, HC110 dilution "B" is a very good starting point. It provides full film speed with fine grain and a smooth curve.
As for using the Jobo, that is fine. Keep careful notes regarding exposure, light conditions and development times. Make a few negatives of varying subjects, look at the results and then make adjustments in development time for the next batch. Although film is not cheap, using several sheets to get your processing down is the cheapest in the long run. I used to tell my students that the first 25-50 sheets were to help them get their feet on the ground.
Good luck

My stack of "trash" negs is getting better. The negs on the bottom are clear :)


Michael,
When people say meter at Zone 3 (the shadows), they also assume you are going to stop down 2 stops from that setting (to be shooting at zone 5). This will take care of your overexposure.

Step 1: Read zone 3
Step 2 read zone 7
Step 3: calculate the difference between the 2 so you know how to develop. Most use N+ and N- notation based on 4 or 5 stops in between.
Step 4: Close down 2 stops from the zone 3 reading to expose.

Mostly, your negs look overdeveloped. There is nothing wrong with Jobo. I use Xtol 1:1. If you want to decrease the density about a stop (from N-2 to N-3) you develop 30-60 seconds less, depending on temperature and everything else. 4 mins is plenty of development for the N-3's. Don't go past 7.

You are lucky that Tri-x didn't work for you. Delta is far better for scanning purposes. Also, get rid of the f22. Stop down to f45... get yourself some depth of field. f22 won't be any sharper for what you are photographing...

Scan as 16bit RGB, then convert using Channel Mixer (most pick monochrome then use 100% of the green channel, 0% of the other two). Learn to use adjustment layers and forget the rest.

Lenny

I have to admit that most of this went right over my head, but I'll study on it. I know almost nothing about working in a darkroom really. I've tried to find one that's close with an instructor and there isn't one within 120 miles. I may do a workshop in 2015 that is nothing but beginner film/darkroom time.


When people say meter at Zone 3 (the shadows), they also assume you are going to stop down 2 stops from that setting (to be shooting at zone 5). This will take care of your overexposure.

This confuses me. Wouldn't I open up two stops to be shooting in zone 5 for shadows or was this to bring highlights in??

[cowanw]

When you meter a shadow the resultant exposure suggestions will result in that zone three being printed as a zone 5, as the meter always reads whatever it is pointed at as zone 5.
So when you meter the shadows you take the suggested exposure and decrease it by 2 stops i.e. either by increasing the shutter speed by 4X or by closing down the aperture by 4x.
That's what you are doing, right?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Me... and the scanner... and poor use of the ColorPerfect filter. When I edited the files with the acceptance that the sky was blown in the barn image the lines were gone.

Ah, the image tiles showed. That' a bug in my opinion. Photoshop or ACR won't do that.

Glad you found the source! Good detective work.
.

[Michael Lloyd]

When you meter a shadow the resultant exposure suggestions will result in that zone three being printed as a zone 5, as the meter always reads whatever it is pointed at as zone 5.
So when you meter the shadows you take the suggested exposure and decrease it by 2 stops i.e. either by increasing the shutter speed by 4X or by closing down the aperture by 4x.
That's what you are doing, right?

Ah... yes, sort of. That's what I need to do rather than rely on the zone scale on the Pentax spot meter. The end result is the same but I if I meter with the Sekonic meter I don't have a handy dandy zone scale to tape to it. In fact, before I bought the Pentax, that's what I did. Meter, know that the meter sees 50% gray (zone 5), decrease by 2 stops.


Ah, the image tiles showed. That' a bug in my opinion. Photoshop or ACR won't do that.

Glad you found the source! Good detective work.
.

I think so too, the bug part that is. I should have zoomed in tight on the lines and I would've caught it sooner.

[Henrim]

Thanks for the update and glad to hear you solved the mystery :)

[Lenny Eiger]

Ah... yes, sort of. That's what I need to do rather than rely on the zone scale on the Pentax spot meter. The end result is the same but I if I meter with the Sekonic meter I don't have a handy dandy zone scale to tape to it. In fact, before I bought the Pentax, that's what I did. Meter, know that the meter sees 50% gray (zone 5), decrease by 2 stops.


One doesn't need a piece of tape. It's just two stops, as cowanw suggested, either two stops closed in aperture (from 22 to 45) or two stops less light in shutter speed (from 1 second to 1/4 of a second).

It isn't 50% gray, its actually 18% gray. However, it is the standard by which all meters are calibrated.

I use mostly f45 so I am always working just with the shutter speed.... (unless I can't for some reason) It makes it easier.

It doesn't matter of it confuses you - just do it. It's a tiny piece of upside down thinking that won't make sense until you do it four or five times. Then it will get obvious and you will wonder why you didn't get it in the first place.

Have fun!

Lenny

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]It doesn't matter of it confuses you - just do it.

The best advice I've read for ages.
.

[Michael Lloyd]

One doesn't need a piece of tape. It's just two stops, as cowanw suggested, either two stops closed in aperture (from 22 to 45) or two stops less light in shutter speed (from 1 second to 1/4 of a second).

It isn't 50% gray, its actually 18% gray. However, it is the standard by which all meters are calibrated.

I use mostly f45 so I am always working just with the shutter speed.... (unless I can't for some reason) It makes it easier.

Lenny

I agree. I don't need a scale. I have stops memorized. 1/3 stops, not so much. I put the scale on the Pentax because that's what "they" said to do.

18% gray, I knew that :( no clue why I typed 50%...

f45 I've never stopped down past f22. The next time I have the LF camera out I'll give it a try. Probably Sunday. Maybe tomorrow. It depends on whether I can get my friends Epson 9900 going before noon tomorrow.

Got any film recommendations. I have a lot of Delta 100, quite a bit of Acros 100, 100TMAX, 400TMAX, Ektar 100, TXP320, FP4, HP5. I even have a box of FP100B45 "Fujiroid". I've got color too but no cajones to try developing that yet. And an unopened box of Polaroid 55. All in the freezer. Most of it is new. The Polaroid 55 may be expired. I'd have to look.

Here's the deal for why I'm asking so many questions and frantically trying to soak all of this up - I have a trip to Death Valley coming at the end of January 2015. I would prefer to make it a LF trip. I will take my DSLR's for night work. I could just use the DSLR's. I'm comfortable with them and I have an established workflow. BUT I was in Death Valley last year in December. I shot some sand dunes with my LF camera and then put the DSLR on the same tripod without moving it The quality of the 4x5 image beat the socks off of a full frame DSLR and Zeiss Distagon lens. I want to have all of this sorted out by that time. That means shooting and processing film, posting here for help, etc. until I get it right. I just bought a Chamonix 045N2 to augment my Sinar F2 and I need to use it so I'm not fumbling around in the desert with it. I may take the Sinar 5x7. All I have for it is 100TMAX though. So... that's all of the info you would probably never have asked for

On top of needing to be better at exposure I just found out my two Copal 3's are not working right. I tripped the shutter at 1/4s and it stayed open for at least 5 on both shutters... but that's a different topic altogether. I'll send them to S.K. Grimes tomorrow and hope I don't need to replace them.

[Michael Lloyd]

The best advice I've read for ages.
.

I'd have to agree... that's alway my problem with LF. I study and think and piddle until I finally do something. It took years just to load film holders. Not exaggerating. Meanwhile I shot 10's of thousands of digital files, 90% of which are redundant or crap... Late 2013 I finally stopped putting LF off. Sort of.

[Kurtay Photography]

TMax, perhaps but not Tri-X.

Tri-X has two types films, one is 400 ISO ( which I mentioned here, much easy to use, more suitable for outdoor), then 320 ISO as I believe is discussed on this discussion (correct me if I am wrong), is meant for studio/indoor work mainly. Please see data sheet taken from Kodak's web site;

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

[Andrea Gazzoni]

One metering tip is when it's overcast to meter off your hand or a gray card, since the light is going to be uniform anyway. Then add however many additional stops you want to see in the shadows. (Usually two, but it gets tricky in the evening.)

would anyone please elaborate on adding the 2 stops to the gray card reading in shadow?

I am experiencing severe and constant underexposure since one year. I mostly shoot color slide film on 4x5. Everything was fine until one year ago, then...I don't know what happened. Here's what I ruled out:

-all of my film is being frozen, new or expired
-reciprocity failure always taken into account
-always compensating for filters
-both lightmeters (spot and incident) professionally checked and found OK
-shooting fresh (expiry 2016) film as the meter says, got underexposed by 1 to 2 stops
-adding 0.6 to 1 stop to 5 years expired film, still film is badly underexposed
-had the most used lenses checked for shutter speed, eventually found the 210 to be a bit fast (0,8 instead of 1 second), used another 210 with verified shutter speeds, same underexposure
-found the recessed lensboard for my 90mm was requiring compensation for the extra bellows (0.3 to 0.6 stops at infinity)
-finally the lab, they showed me other customers work, it is coming out fine from their developing machine
-done my homework and made many test by bracketing, etc.. the film seems almost unpredictable, even the fresh off the shelf Provia 100F.

I usually shoot in open shade, wood scenes or mountain scapes near sunset (typical EV from 9 down to 5). I meter off a grey card or patches of grass or trees (or with the incident when I am in the scene), often everything is middle tone and in the same light, I don't shoot high contrast scenes. But everything from old to fresh film comes out black, sometimes near 3 stops underxposed.

This is an example of a typical scene in my photography

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/80149550/IMG_9315.JPG

Difficult to meter? The slides of this shot came out almost black

I feel like this is a really obvious error somewhere in my workflow, there must be one single step I am missing.
Curiously this problem emerged only one year ago, after almost 7 years of large format for me, in which I made many mistakes but learned to get if nothing else good results with light metering.
What have changed one year ago? Subjects? Camera?...Nothing at all. Same subjects, same lenses, same film, same workflow.

this is driving me crazy, sadly to the point I am considering quitting film photography.

[Michael Lloyd]

The meter reads everything as zone 5 (18% gray). If you meter the shadows and you want them to be exposed at zone 3 then you have to decrease the exposure by 2 stops since the meter results are based on the area being 18% gray and not black. 5-3 = 2 stops.

If you don't mind me asking a dumb question- what film are you using? I didn't realize color slide film was still available for 4x5. I usually shoot black and white but I wouldn't mind tackling color developing once I get better with black and white.

[Lenny Eiger]

Got any film recommendations. I have a lot of Delta 100, quite a bit of Acros 100, 100TMAX, 400TMAX, Ektar 100, TXP320, FP4, HP5. I even have a box of FP100B45 "Fujiroid". I've got color too but no cajones to try developing that yet. And an unopened box of Polaroid 55. All in the freezer. Most of it is new. The Polaroid 55 may be expired. I'd have to look.

Of those choices, my recommendation would be the Delta 100. It's my favorite. I like either Xtol or Pyro for developers.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

would anyone please elaborate on adding the 2 stops to the gray card reading in shadow?

First of all, one usually does NOT point the light meter at the grey card int he shadow, you point it directly at the stuff in the shadow. Second, remember this is a technique for matching the range of a black and white negative to the capabilities of the printing system, whether it be darkroom, alt process or scan and print. Emphasis on black and white.

Metering for color is a bit different...

Lenny

[Michael Lloyd]

Of those choices, my recommendation would be the Delta 100. It's my favorite. I like either Xtol or Pyro for developers.

Lenny

I've got lots of Delta 100. I think I used "rollo pyro" that last time I developed my Delta 100 negs. If not the last time, then the time before that. Sounds odd but the negs from pyro are "prettier" than DD-X :) The guy that I'll be shooting in Death Valley with uses Delta 100.

I loaded some holders with Delta 100 today. It rained all day and now a cold front is blowing in. Hopefully it will push out the rain and I'll get a chance to try some more testing. Maybe try Xtol just to have another developer available

[Andrea Gazzoni]

in a scene like the one above my routine as always been to use the incident meter, then if I feel unsure for some reason I point the 1 degree spot to the grass on the right or on the last branches on the left. the readings at max are one stop apart, I pick the lowest ev.
more than shadows, the scenes are generally in indirect light. I mean, bright cloudy or open shade.
this is what I've read on many books on the subject and most of all this is what worked until one year ago.
I don't know the zone system.
Am I expected to add stops just because I am working in open shade? Same if my subject is a mountain 2 miles far at sunset?

Michael, I am using Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and 100F plus Provia 100F. the latter is readily available fresh.

[Jim Noel]

TMax, perhaps but not Tri-X.
Tri-X was originally designed to be used in a "controlled lighting situation." Somewhere in my old files I have an original instruction sheet. Super XX was the film of choice outdoors by Kodak users. It has changed over the years and this is no longer the recommendation.

[Liquid Artist]

I am almost wondering if the grid lines are caused by some sort of internal reflection.

Btw, I really like the looks of your old barns negative. It almost looks haunted.

[Preston]

Andrea,

I shoot mainly 4x5 chromes--Velvia 100 and Astia 100F. For chrome films it is best to expose for your high values, i.e. spot meter the brighter objects in your scene. As Michael said, your meter thinks the light is neutral grey (18%) so, for chrome films you want to give it more exposure to support the high values. In my work, I place my significant high values between Zone VI and VII.

--P

[Andrea Gazzoni]

Thanks Preston, in a scene like the one attached in my post above, where and how would you meter?
I'd like to know how people here would meter both with an incident and a spot meter, on color film.


Andrea,

I shoot mainly 4x5 chromes--Velvia 100 and Astia 100F. For chrome films it is best to expose for your high values, i.e. spot meter the brighter objects in your scene. As Michael said, your meter thinks the light is neutral grey (18%) so, for chrome films you want to give it more exposure to support the high values. In my work, I place my significant high values between Zone VI and VII.

--P

[Liquid Artist]

Personally for your above photo shot on slide or colour film I'd meter on the main trees white bark.

On B&W film I'd meter on the dark bark, or dark foliage in the background. Then push a stop or 2 in processing.

But then again I have my own style which works for me, and I am certain everyone else here will do things differently.
Which is one of the things I love about this art.

Without reading all the posts. I imagine that you've tried different light meters, lenses, shutters, etc. If not I'd almost try using the sunny 16 rule instead of your meter, and work from there.

[cowanw]

Andrea
Metering off a grey card or grass is the equivalent to using a reflective meter as a incident meter.
Therefor, you might stick to using the incident meter in the light that is falling on the scene, to keep things simple until this gets figured out.
Then it has to be the shutter speed or fstop or ASA error. Therein lies the only things that change.
Metering to the shadows or to the highlights will improve a standard negative, but if you are getting black negatives then get back to standard and get a middle of the road negative or slide before starting to tweek things.
EV 9 with 100 ASA film would be f22 at 1 sec. or some other combination. It is overcast outside here today and that is the reading that I get. So your meter would seem to be OK. But you do have the correct speed entered on your meter?
I presume you are using those recommended shutter speed and f stop readings and not changing from them. (i.e. accidently closing down, for some reason)
You understand the difference between filter factor and number of fstops change?
You have checked your shutter speed, but does it sound right? Is it progressive if you change the speeds? I expect you have got that covered.
Are you sure you are setting the f stop correctly?
Take pictures at infinity so that you don't have to worry about bellows factor and take a quick shutter speed to avoid reciprocity.
Get totally back to minimum basics and see if a fellow Large format photographer can watch you take the picture to spot an error.
Have that person do the metering as well and take a negative if they will, or you take a negative as well.
I hope this may help.
You may want to start your own thread as the posts here may get confusing with more than one topic.

[Nigel Smith]

would anyone please elaborate on adding the 2 stops to the gray card reading in shadow?


this is how I think of it...

my meter wants to tell me an exposure that places the subject on zone 5.
I point it at a shadow that I want detail in (just to the left of the tree trunk) and take a reading
So that reading is trying to place the scene at zone 5, however I know that I want my shadow detail at zone 3, so I reduce exposure by 2 stops to move those shadows from 5 to 3.

The next step would be to take a reading of some hightlight that you want to keep detail in. lets say that rock in the left front. Meter that and check how many stops different it is from your adjusted zone 3 exposure (the one your going to use). If the reading is more than 5-6 stops then you might want to modify (reduce) development to accomodate, if it's less then 3, then extending development might be appropiate. Why I say 'might be appropiate' is you really need to do the tests to determine suitable times to 'make a difference' to your negatives so that they print on your paper how you desire. Remember, if printing traditionally, the film can record way more than the paper can display so to make printing easy, you need to keep this in mind. If scanning, then you can 'use' more of the films latitude as you can use multiple pass scans, etc to capture the range of densities captured by the film.

[Lenny Eiger]

On B&W film I'd meter on the dark bark, or dark foliage in the background. Then push a stop or 2 in processing.


Not directing this at you - this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the that the word "push" (and pull) should be driven from anywhere it is used to talk about film developing. "Push" doesn't actually happen in the way that it is described (it's against the laws of physics - or at least how film actually develops).

Most labs would offer to "push" film by n number of stops. They would suggest that if you shot a 100 speed film at 400, you could push two stops and get back to where you were. This is not true, as all of us know. "Pulling" won't lower a film's ISO, either.

Once we make an exposure, the shadow detail will be developed in (about) the first three minutes. You can not increase that by developing more. This means that a film's speed is controlled by its materials, not by the time of development.

Developing longer makes the highlight areas more dense. More development increases the distance between the shadows and highlights. We call that contrast. Developing longer increases the contrast, developing less lowers it.

You can't change a film's speed, at least not enough to make a difference with your meter. You can certainly change your exposure based upon where you point the meter... and there is a lot of variability there.

The terms "pushing" and "pulling" don't belong in our vernacular... they are deceptive... and lead people away from the truth as opposed to revealing it.

Just my 2 cents for the day...

Lenny

[Bernice Loui]

+1

Is this ever true.

Some years ago at a large local E6 and Kodachrome processing lab. They had a large viewing area with 5000K light boxes set up for viewing processed transparencies. One day while picking up and looking at some processed E6 film, the photographer next over got really bent after looking at his film that was "pushed" two stops, the contrast was really high and colors were way off. He was under the belief that push process increased actual film speed, but the results were a disaster for what the goals were.


This push-pull processing thing is actually bending the film curve and not altering the actual film speed. To do this properly, one needs to establish the actual film speed and development process ideally using a densitometer with controlled development and processing. Then altering exposure and development can follow with much better control.

Key to crafting good images is controlling and knowing how a given film and developer behaves alone with their image making personality.


Bernice




Not directing this at you - this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the that the word "push" (and pull) should be driven from anywhere it is used to talk about film developing. "Push" doesn't actually happen in the way that it is described (it's against the laws of physics - or at least how film actually develops).

Most labs would offer to "push" film by n number of stops. They would suggest that if you shot a 100 speed film at 400, you could push two stops and get back to where you were. This is not true, as all of us know. "Pulling" won't lower a film's ISO, either.

Once we make an exposure, the shadow detail will be developed in (about) the first three minutes. You can not increase that by developing more. This means that a film's speed is controlled by its materials, not by the time of development.

Developing longer makes the highlight areas more dense. More development increases the distance between the shadows and highlights. We call that contrast. Developing longer increases the contrast, developing less lowers it.

You can't change a film's speed, at least not enough to make a difference with your meter. You can certainly change your exposure based upon where you point the meter... and there is a lot of variability there.

The terms "pushing" and "pulling" don't belong in our vernacular... they are deceptive... and lead people away from the truth as opposed to revealing it.

Just my 2 cents for the day...

Lenny

[Jac@stafford.net]

Tri-X was originally designed to be used in a "controlled lighting...

Are you sure it was not T-Max?
.

[Kurtay Photography]

Are you sure it was not T-Max?
.

I used the both films, not 30-40 years ago but up until two years ago and home developed them myself. Dev chart has both films dev sheets.

TRI-X 320 is only available as 4x5 format and TRI-X 400 is available in 35-120 only, not available on 4x5 formats! See fact sheet attached. Perhaps you may wanna call and ask a dealer who stocks both films.

There are no T-Max 320!

[Neal Chaves]

If your exposure and development is accurate due to prior testing, placing a scene value on Zone VIII will render it as a "snow value" or very light caucasian skin value. Looks like the shadow values in the trees fell into correct place at about III and the grass where it should be at about V. Burn down the sky to bring out detail, or next time choose subject matter more suited to the range of the B&W film.

You need to run your own tests, but I have obtained good results from TriX and HP5+ at EI 100 and developed in HC110B for 5:00 at 68* or if you need more speed, rate at 400 and go 7:30 at 68*. If you look at the TriX chart in Phil Davis' "Beyond the Zone System" you can pick off his speed for 5:00 in HC110B as EI 64. I actually found 64 to be accurate in my own tests some years ago, but found that I could rate at 100 if I was careful to avoid underexposure. Now that I do mostly 8X10 and can use all the speed I can get outside, I ususally rate HP5+ at 400 and my N development is 7:30 at 68* in HC110B. For studio work in both 8X10 and smaller formats, where I have plenty of electronic flash power, I will rate at 100 because it produces slightly better skin tones.

My times are far off what is suggested in the Massive Development Chart, Adams or Picker. If you must rely on someone elses' data, try Davis.

Whatever you are doing, you are in the ball park.