PDA

View Full Version : Tmax 100 in D76 +/- development



jim10219
29-May-2017, 08:28
I've been shooting Tmax 100 for a while now and have been developing it in D76, straight. I really like the look of the film, but every once in a while I'll take several shots of the same scene and try to compensate in development for a misread exposure. Or I might try the "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing. Anyway, developing everything at the usual time and temps, I get the normal results I expect. But if I try to extend or pull back my development times by as little as 10% or so, I get wildly different and unusable results. As a result, I often try to avoid this, so I don't have a ton of experience in this area, but it would be nice to add this technique to my bag of tricks. So my question is, is the combination of straight D76 and Tmax just not good for +/- development, am I doing something wrong (like do I need to shorten my adjustments below 10%?), or have I just experienced a series of bad coincidences that ruined my negs prior to development every time I try (which is a real possibility with my luck). Has anyone else had success adjusting the development of Tmax 100 in straight D76? I know Tmax can be finicky with it's time and temps, but my experiences are extreme enough to lead me to believe something else is going on. Or maybe I just need a different developer or dilution to do this.

Ken Lee
29-May-2017, 09:57
You'll have more leeway with D-76 1:1 because developing times are longer. Similarly, if you develop at a lower temperature your overall time will be longer, giving you greater control. Moderate rather than vigorous/continuous agitation will do the same thing.

Before you waste valuable time and materials, make some test shots. You might find this article helpful: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php.

Pere Casals
29-May-2017, 11:34
to compensate in development for a misread exposure..

A missread exposure may be hard to compensate with development. You have to nail exposures .

The Ken article is very good.

I'd add next:

165553


This is the TMX graph with D-76, you see 6, 8, 11min development time.

In the abscise you have to a -3.0 mark this log scale so its 0.001 lux*second. a 1/1000 of lux during a second on film surface.

As you see with more develomment you have a curve with more step, it gains mucho more density with increasing exposure... but more development do not allow you to see darker shadows, that would be at left of the -3.0 point.

So: Nail the exposures !!!! use an spot meter, like a DSLR.

Once you have your exposures with enough light for shadows you give more or less development time to make the highlights reach a certain/limited density, with 6 min development point -1.0 will have less density than with 11 min, so a less contrasty negative, easier to print.

Shadows will tell you the exposure, the highlight reading will tell you the development time to get the contrast you want and to limit max density.

Other techniques, like high developer dilution with reduced agitation will selectively limit density build up in highlights, as developer exhausts in those areas.


One thing else, test your films, by bracketing exposure in 135 format, this will tell you shadow detail milits in different conditions, for covenience, and money.

Regards,
Pere

interneg
29-May-2017, 13:07
I've been shooting Tmax 100 for a while now and have been developing it in D76, straight. I really like the look of the film, but every once in a while I'll take several shots of the same scene and try to compensate in development for a misread exposure. Or I might try the "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing. Anyway, developing everything at the usual time and temps, I get the normal results I expect. But if I try to extend or pull back my development times by as little as 10% or so, I get wildly different and unusable results. As a result, I often try to avoid this, so I don't have a ton of experience in this area, but it would be nice to add this technique to my bag of tricks. So my question is, is the combination of straight D76 and Tmax just not good for +/- development, am I doing something wrong (like do I need to shorten my adjustments below 10%?), or have I just experienced a series of bad coincidences that ruined my negs prior to development every time I try (which is a real possibility with my luck). Has anyone else had success adjusting the development of Tmax 100 in straight D76? I know Tmax can be finicky with it's time and temps, but my experiences are extreme enough to lead me to believe something else is going on. Or maybe I just need a different developer or dilution to do this.

1+1 is your best solution - getting your timings over 5 mins will help with consistency from film to film, unless you are processing a single sheet at a time in a tray. 1.4x stock time at 68f/20c is about right for 1+1, & about 15-20% less than the 1+1 development time will knock your contrast down a bit - 10% won't really make much of a useful difference. A great deal of this is about maintaining basic process control & not getting bogged down by minutiae and excessive testing in a hunt for non-existent 'silver bullets'. No need to get entangled with spotmeters either - a decent incident meter will tell you almost everything you need to know. B&W's a pretty tolerant process as long as you give adequate shadow exposure & don't overcook the highlights.

Pere Casals
29-May-2017, 13:24
1+1 is your best solution - getting your timings over 5 mins will help with consistency from film to film, unless you are processing a single sheet at a time in a tray. 1.4x stock time at 68f/20c is about right for 1+1, & about 15-20% less than the 1+1 development time will knock your contrast down a bit - 10% won't really make much of a useful difference. A great deal of this is about maintaining basic process control & not getting bogged down by minutiae and excessive testing in a hunt for non-existent 'silver bullets'. No need to get entangled with spotmeters either - a decent incident meter will tell you almost everything you need to know. B&W's a pretty tolerant process as long as you give adequate shadow exposure & don't overcook the highlights.


Please see this video, minute 0:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQT_rzI1Xdw

Here you see Adams with incident light and with spot meters, I guess he knew when he need one or the other.

As an scenne gets more contrasty and difficult you have a increasing need to meter each important area separately, to place the shadow to the point you have enough detail, while highlights still in control.

If a dull scene has moderate Dynamic range then metering can be straight, but great scenes need a true master metering that, in special if it has to follow a master print, rather than an scanner+PS (also a good option).

Regards

interneg
29-May-2017, 18:59
Please see this video, minute 0:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQT_rzI1Xdw

Here you see Adams with incident light and with spot meters, I guess he knew when he need one or the other.

As an scenne gets more contrasty and difficult you have a increasing need to meter each important area separately, to place the shadow to the point you have enough detail, while highlights still in control.

If a dull scene has moderate Dynamic range then metering can be straight, but great scenes need a true master metering that, in special if it has to follow a master print, rather than an scanner+PS (also a good option).

Regards

Ah yes, the SEI Photometer - by all accounts a remarkable piece of kit, but good luck in calibrating one of those to modern film speeds... The sheer amount of kit he hauls with him in that film is fairly ridiculous.

In the nicest possible way Pere, I don't need taught to suck eggs - I make exhibition/ repro prints for various photographers both by analogue & digital means. In consequence, I know that there's a lot more latitude in what represents a 'good' negative & that dense highlights are rarely 'unprintable'. There's a hell of a lot more to a great image than if the photographer had 'good' metering or processing technique. The problem with Ansel Adams is that he essentially only presents one possible approach out of many possible approaches, & those that follow his writings tend to regard him as a source of infallible doctrine (which he is not). And that's before we get on to the problems with excessive N- development.

You can read the contrast range of pretty much any scene with either a spot or incident meter - however, given that neg films have pretty well behaved highlights if you don't try & nuke them in development, sorting your shadow exposure is much more of an issue. Any decent incident meter or the IRE scale on the Pentax spotmeter will do this without much fuss - and a few sheets of film should get a sensible dev time outflanked & sorted.

jim10219
29-May-2017, 20:39
Thanks for the tips! And no joke about nailing the exposures. I'm usually pretty good about that, but I have a few old compound shutters that can speed up or slow down noticeably day to day. Also, sometimes I get distracted by something else or am forced to rush faster than I am comfortable with while trying to set up and I just haven't been doing all of this long enough for it to be second nature yet, so mistakes happen. I'm pretty good with Photoshop (I'm a graphic designer) but would like to have other tools at my disposal, sans computer, if possible. I have several light meters including a digital spot, incident, DSLR, and an iPhone app and am competent at reading a scene with all of them using various methods, but mistakes do happen. That, and seeing what some highly skilled photographers can pull out of a very difficult scene (like exposing an indoor and outdoor scene simultaneously) has me realizing that controlling the exposure doesn't have to be limited to the camera and computer.

Anyway, I've been developing at room temperature (72+ degrees), which may be part of my issue. I'll try diluting it and cooling it down to extend my working times and see if that helps. I'll also finally break down and run some exposure tests. I've been avoiding that due to costs, but it'll probably save me money in the long run. I've only tried to compensate for missed exposures in the darkroom a handful of times, and they've always wound up producing worse results than just developing normally. Maybe they were due to other issues. Reading some of these responses, I'm starting to believe that may be likely. But I'd like to learn more control in the darkroom than just blindly following a chart. I don't have much experience with this stuff. Maybe it's time I get some.

Thanks for the info, and I'll check out those links shortly!

Pere Casals
30-May-2017, 01:26
I'm usually pretty good about that, but I have a few old compound shutters that can speed up or slow down noticeably day to day.

I've a compound #5 for the Symar 360 convertible, I love it !! In my case there are differences from marked speeds, but each speed is always the same.


I recommend you a shutter tester, this ranges from $15 (photocell 2 soundcard type) to $100 (ebay).

Even a brand new shutter can vary a full stop, specs usually says +/-30% accuracy, so 1/60 can be 1/40 or 1/80....

So from 1/40 to 1/80 the thing can dance a full stop for a brand new mechanical shutter. (electronic ones can be accurate, or not)


I'm shocked from people saying a film should be shot 1/3 stop slower, without pointing the role shutters are playing, and even having never tested their shutters. Velvia users are prone to test their shutters to know the real speeds, as they have a critical need for that.


So you may write your real speeds in a label sticked on the lensboard.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm


Regards, (and good nailing !!!)

Pere Casals
30-May-2017, 01:50
Ah yes, the SEI Photometer - by all accounts a remarkable piece of kit, but good luck in calibrating one of those to modern film speeds... The sheer amount of kit he hauls with him in that film is fairly ridiculous.

In the nicest possible way Pere, I don't need taught to suck eggs - I make exhibition/ repro prints for various photographers both by analogue & digital means. In consequence, I know that there's a lot more latitude in what represents a 'good' negative & that dense highlights are rarely 'unprintable'. There's a hell of a lot more to a great image than if the photographer had 'good' metering or processing technique. The problem with Ansel Adams is that he essentially only presents one possible approach out of many possible approaches, & those that follow his writings tend to regard him as a source of infallible doctrine (which he is not). And that's before we get on to the problems with excessive N- development.

You can read the contrast range of pretty much any scene with either a spot or incident meter - however, given that neg films have pretty well behaved highlights if you don't try & nuke them in development, sorting your shadow exposure is much more of an issue. Any decent incident meter or the IRE scale on the Pentax spotmeter will do this without much fuss - and a few sheets of film should get a sensible dev time outflanked & sorted.



I completely agree with what you say now.

But, to me, we cannot overlook metering importance. I agree that for some shots it can be quite straight, but IMHO some great scenes need a very well thinked metering.

After the now scheduled Capital Punishment of LF Acros, metering well night scenes will be more difficult.

Regards.

jim10219
30-May-2017, 10:40
I've a compound #5 for the Symar 360 convertible, I love it !! In my case there are differences from marked speeds, but each speed is always the same.


I recommend you a shutter tester, this ranges from $15 (photocell 2 soundcard type) to $100 (ebay).

Even a brand new shutter can vary a full stop, specs usually says +/-30% accuracy, so 1/60 can be 1/40 or 1/80....

So from 1/40 to 1/80 the thing can dance a full stop for a brand new mechanical shutter. (electronic ones can be accurate, or not)


I'm shocked from people saying a film should be shot 1/3 stop slower, without pointing the role shutters are playing, and even having never tested their shutters. Velvia users are prone to test their shutters to know the real speeds, as they have a critical need for that.


So you may write your real speeds in a label sticked on the lensboard.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm


Regards, (and good nailing !!!)

Yeah, I built a shutter speed tester a while back. I spent three years studying electrical engineering and am pretty darn handy with circuits. That's another hobby of mine. That's how I know they vary from day to day. Some are more stable than others. And I do keep a note of what the actual shutter speeds are, because there are usually at least a few markings that are off. In fact, if I have time, I'll usually check the compound shutters I think I might use that day before I leave the house, to see where it's operating on that particular day. But they can still vary a bit throughout the day and it's not always possible to check the speeds right before I use them. Sometimes I just have to take my chances. Being a compound shutter, I can use the in between speeds and compare them to the sound of a Copal shutter in the field to get a rough guess of how it's working at slower speeds. But as you can imagine, that's a pain to mess with, takes up even more time, and still not that accurate.

I suppose my real problem is I'm cheap and like to buy these old lenses in compound shutter rather than buy nicer, newer lenses in more reliable shutters. Maybe one day I'll have the money to replace all of them with nicer, more reliable lenses.

Pere Casals
30-May-2017, 11:38
Yeah, I built a shutter speed tester a while back. I spent three years studying electrical engineering and am pretty darn handy with circuits. That's another hobby of mine. That's how I know they vary from day to day. Some are more stable than others. And I do keep a note of what the actual shutter speeds are, because there are usually at least a few markings that are off. In fact, if I have time, I'll usually check the compound shutters I think I might use that day before I leave the house, to see where it's operating on that particular day. But they can still vary a bit throughout the day and it's not always possible to check the speeds right before I use them. Sometimes I just have to take my chances. Being a compound shutter, I can use the in between speeds and compare them to the sound of a Copal shutter in the field to get a rough guess of how it's working at slower speeds. But as you can imagine, that's a pain to mess with, takes up even more time, and still not that accurate.

I suppose my real problem is I'm cheap and like to buy these old lenses in compound shutter rather than buy nicer, newer lenses in more reliable shutters. Maybe one day I'll have the money to replace all of them with nicer, more reliable lenses.

"Compunds, if clean and in good condition, they are very accurate and reliable. Old lubricants tend to become gummy with age. Modern synthetic oils are much longer lived and also have viscosity which is less temperature dependant"

So your problem may be solved by cleaning and lubricating. Then you'll get repeatble times. But a CLA is more expensive than the shutter is worth.

So you perhaps can try it on your own, as an adventure :)


Problem with Compounds is "they respond very poorly to the "dip in solvent and blast with compressed air" method of amateur repair. " because diafragm may suffer.


http://www.skgrimes.com/library/used-obsolete-discontinued-shutters/compound


https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/shutters/compound/


I'm to try cleaning a shutter just spraying Interflon Food Lube, a dry teflon lube spray, we'll see...

interneg
30-May-2017, 18:49
I completely agree with what you say now.

But, to me, we cannot overlook metering importance. I agree that for some shots it can be quite straight, but IMHO some great scenes need a very well thinked metering.

After the now scheduled Capital Punishment of LF Acros, metering well night scenes will be more difficult.

Regards.

Even so, useful metering is not hard & certainly does not require the mental gymnastics that zone system fanatics believe. A bit of experience & a few boxes of film will tell you more than most manuals.

Night time - consider that in cinema, an EV of about 6-7 is regarded as about right for a reasonably bright city street, while keeping it looking believable - that's about 8-16s at f32 on ISO 100 sort of range - & from what I recall from Howard Bond's tests, TMY-II & Delta 100 lose a stop or less of speed at 2 minutes metered exposure time. At that point, TMY-II is still a stop faster than Acros - in fact, even HP5 is pretty good at the under 30s range.

Don't forget that the vast majority of iconic night time LF photography was done without the aid of Acros, or for that matter, pretty much any of the controlled-crystal-growth core-shell iodide emulsions that enable such good reciprocity characteristics today. They are extremely high-tech and complicated emulsions compared to the k-grain single-run emulsions that can be relatively easily made at home with simple equipment.

Willie
30-May-2017, 20:40
A couple things. Remember the old saw "It's the Zone System, not the Pinpoint system".

Then, the 1:1 and one shot advice makes sense. More sense is Ilford ID11 to replace D76. Reason being that D76 gains a bit in activity sitting after being mixed as a stock solution. ID11 does not.

Given you are using Large Format lenses perfect precision outside a controlled lab is nearly impossible. A bit of shutter varience due to temperatures/tolerances - whatever coupled with less than perfect exposure makes it 'get close and work from there'. Gives you a lot to work with from start to finish whether working in the darkroom or with computer printing.

Pere Casals
31-May-2017, 01:36
Even so, useful metering is not hard & certainly does not require the mental gymnastics that zone system fanatics believe. A bit of experience & a few boxes of film will tell you more than most manuals.

I'd like to add that perhaps most famous fine print, the "Moonrise", was made without photometer, still a rational exposure was made by calculating from moon brightness. IMHO, with growing skills one knows better when something matters or not, IMHO at the begining accurate metering is more important because that explains to the learners the errors and the margins the exposure has.

IMHO Zone System is not a religion, just a way to tell how curves are. At the end we only have sensitometric curves, nothing else, from a lux reading on the GG and exposure time we can know the density we'll obtain for every spot of the scene. Of course we can have curve families for each developer dilution and agitation routine.

Zone system is just a sound field simplification for that, there are others... precise calculation is BTZS, first part of the book. The second part is about field recipes.

If one understands the BTZS it doesn't matter what field rule uses.






Night time - consider that in cinema, an EV of about 6-7 is regarded as about right for a reasonably bright city street, while keeping it looking believable - that's about 8-16s at f32 on ISO 100 sort of range - & from what I recall from Howard Bond's tests, TMY-II & Delta 100 lose a stop or less of speed at 2 minutes metered exposure time. At that point, TMY-II is still a stop faster than Acros - in fact, even HP5 is pretty good at the under 30s range.

Don't forget that the vast majority of iconic night time LF photography was done without the aid of Acros, or for that matter, pretty much any of the controlled-crystal-growth core-shell iodide emulsions that enable such good reciprocity characteristics today. They are extremely high-tech and complicated emulsions compared to the k-grain single-run emulsions that can be relatively easily made at home with simple equipment.



Of, course, but when one has a night scene with some 7 stops very accurate metering and calculations are needed, becasue shadows fall in LIRF more than lights, and negative contrast goes wild.

For this shot https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/in/dateposted-public/ I had to learn SCR-SCIM, with laser printed marks (Ross way), IIRC you pointed me doing that.

Negative has very good information of all areas, but it took me 30min metering, next time perhaps I'll be able to meter that in 15min. I remember that there was no error margin, and I had the HP5 film calibration made with matching 15s exposure, calibrated with the matching agitation routine.

First I did a braketing with a SLR/HP5, I retourned next weekend with the cambo and a HP5 calibration graph specially made for the matching 15s exposure and reduced agitation.

The negative was good and I made a digital version in some 10min, still a sound darkroom contact copy took me a lot, I don't know how many hours of testing and learning. And I'm not finished.


Acros is always good for night, not necessary for all night shots, but as the scene requires DOF (with near&distant subjects) one goes to long exposures, and one starts to lose scene dynamic range, as LIRF starts eating toe.

Then I bought Acros sheets, and 3 weeks later they say: we kill that.

In those conditions Acros delivers some 2 or 3 additional gold stops. So it will be a painful LF loss.

I found an alternative: hypersensitization. There is plenty information from astronomers. Looking to the future I'll go to this adventure rather than cold storing.


Regards.

jim10219
31-May-2017, 08:11
"Compunds, if clean and in good condition, they are very accurate and reliable. Old lubricants tend to become gummy with age. Modern synthetic oils are much longer lived and also have viscosity which is less temperature dependant"

So your problem may be solved by cleaning and lubricating. Then you'll get repeatble times. But a CLA is more expensive than the shutter is worth.

So you perhaps can try it on your own, as an adventure :)


Problem with Compounds is "they respond very poorly to the "dip in solvent and blast with compressed air" method of amateur repair. " because diafragm may suffer.


http://www.skgrimes.com/library/used-obsolete-discontinued-shutters/compound


https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/shutters/compound/


I'm to try cleaning a shutter just spraying Interflon Food Lube, a dry teflon lube spray, we'll see...

Quite true. I've actually CLA'd them myself already, which may explain why they're not wholly accurate (ha!). Unfortunately, two of my "Compound #3" shutters were in pretty rough shape to begin with. I actually bought a third just for parts to get the other two working. Also the springs have lost some of their tension making that difficult balancing act between them somewhat unbalanced. That, and the pistons came with a good bit of corrosion, and the paper seals are gone or badly decomposed. It's been a bit of a chore figuring out just how much air should leak from those things. Too much, and they only have one speed. Not enough, and they won't at all. My old Wollensak compound shutter became fairly consistent after a homemade CLA, but it was in better shape to begin with. I'm pretty mechanically inclined, and with a DSLR by my side, I have no problems fully dismantling, cleaning, and rebuilding a shutter. At least up to the Compur Rim Set variety. I've yet to attempt any of the newer designs. Just take it slow and document every step along the way, and it's not usually too bad. I found some manuals online which gave me a good idea of what to lubricate and what not to. Though they weren't too clear on which lubricants to use, but some trial and error has helped me figure that part out! It's been a fun project anyway.

The good news is I've spent a whole lot more time than money on these lenses, and they somewhat work well enough that I can use them and 90% of the time get something usable from them. I do love to repair stuff, so to me it's time well spent, even if they're never going to be good as new! I'd probably be a repairman of some sort if there was any money in it. But a brief stint as an electronics repairman taught me that in today's throw away world, few people see the value in spending more on a repair than what it costs to replace it. And I can't say I'd blame them. I'd rather replace these lenses with something newer and better than send them off to be properly repaired by an expert myself. Just a fact of the times.

Pere Casals
31-May-2017, 09:09
Quite true. I've actually CLA'd them myself already, which may explain why they're not wholly accurate (ha!). Unfortunately, two of my "Compound #3" shutters were in pretty rough shape to begin with. I actually bought a third just for parts to get the other two working. Also the springs have lost some of their tension making that difficult balancing act between them somewhat unbalanced. That, and the pistons came with a good bit of corrosion, and the paper seals are gone or badly decomposed. It's been a bit of a chore figuring out just how much air should leak from those things. Too much, and they only have one speed. Not enough, and they won't at all. My old Wollensak compound shutter became fairly consistent after a homemade CLA, but it was in better shape to begin with. I'm pretty mechanically inclined, and with a DSLR by my side, I have no problems fully dismantling, cleaning, and rebuilding a shutter. At least up to the Compur Rim Set variety. I've yet to attempt any of the newer designs. Just take it slow and document every step along the way, and it's not usually too bad. I found some manuals online which gave me a good idea of what to lubricate and what not to. Though they weren't too clear on which lubricants to use, but some trial and error has helped me figure that part out! It's been a fun project anyway.

The good news is I've spent a whole lot more time than money on these lenses, and they somewhat work well enough that I can use them and 90% of the time get something usable from them. I do love to repair stuff, so to me it's time well spent, even if they're never going to be good as new! I'd probably be a repairman of some sort if there was any money in it. But a brief stint as an electronics repairman taught me that in today's throw away world, few people see the value in spending more on a repair than what it costs to replace it. And I can't say I'd blame them. I'd rather replace these lenses with something newer and better than send them off to be properly repaired by an expert myself. Just a fact of the times.


Do you know where I can find a repair manual that covers the compound #5 of my Symmar, 1964 vintage ?

It is in pretty good shape, but I'd like to understand well how it works for the case I need to solve something...


Until now I've only gone inside Seikos, now I've one openned, in course to understand what happens there...

Kevin J. Kolosky
31-May-2017, 11:23
Yeah, I built a shutter speed tester a while back. I spent three years studying electrical engineering and am pretty darn handy with circuits. That's another hobby of mine. That's how I know they vary from day to day. Some are more stable than others. And I do keep a note of what the actual shutter speeds are, because there are usually at least a few markings that are off. In fact, if I have time, I'll usually check the compound shutters I think I might use that day before I leave the house, to see where it's operating on that particular day. But they can still vary a bit throughout the day and it's not always possible to check the speeds right before I use them. Sometimes I just have to take my chances. Being a compound shutter, I can use the in between speeds and compare them to the sound of a Copal shutter in the field to get a rough guess of how it's working at slower speeds. But as you can imagine, that's a pain to mess with, takes up even more time, and still not that accurate.

I suppose my real problem is I'm cheap and like to buy these old lenses in compound shutter rather than buy nicer, newer lenses in more reliable shutters. Maybe one day I'll have the money to replace all of them with nicer, more reliable lenses.


I'd like to see and hear more about that shutter tester that you built.

Also, remember, even though exposure controls mostly the low values, and development the high values, when using the zone system and changing development times the low values will be affected. That is why many photographers will alter the ISO of their film by a half stop one way or the other when they are going to use either reduced or extended development.

Pere Casals
31-May-2017, 14:58
I'd like to see and hear more about that shutter tester that you built.



Even you did not ask to me, let point next...


Here it shows how Audacity is used to measure time, but used photocell (shf 309) is discontinued .

http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm


Here you have a plain photocell, wired and boxed, PC and smartphone versions...

165614

It is what I bought, but I use an USB oscilloscope to take the readings.

DG 3313
31-May-2017, 20:06
I like T Max-100 sheets in fresh D-76, metered at ISO 64 and developed @ room temperature in a 1:1 solution for 10.5 minutes (rotary drum).

jim10219
1-Jun-2017, 06:26
I'd like to see and hear more about that shutter tester that you built.

Also, remember, even though exposure controls mostly the low values, and development the high values, when using the zone system and changing development times the low values will be affected. That is why many photographers will alter the ISO of their film by a half stop one way or the other when they are going to use either reduced or extended development.

Pere's example is pretty much what I did. Though mine doesn't have the second diode, uses a slightly different phototransistor, and runs off a 9V. But the basic idea is the same. Just a battery, phototransistor, capacitor to smooth out the noise, a resistor to control the current, and flash light to trigger the phototransistor through the shutter, and a computer recording program to measure the time. The one issue I have with it is it has a limit to how fast it can measure due to the reaction speed of the phototransistor. At around 1/200, mine stops reading faster speeds, which isn't really an issue for compound shutters, as they almost never go faster than 1/100 (or even that fast in reality).


Even you did not ask to me, let point next...


Here it shows how Audacity is used to measure time, but used photocell (shf 309) is discontinued .

http://www.mraggett.co.uk/shuttertester/shuttertester.htm


Here you have a plain photocell, wired and boxed, PC and smartphone versions...

165614

It is what I bought, but I use an USB oscilloscope to take the readings.

jim10219
1-Jun-2017, 06:46
Do you know where I can find a repair manual that covers the compound #5 of my Symmar, 1964 vintage ?

It is in pretty good shape, but I'd like to understand well how it works for the case I need to solve something...


Until now I've only gone inside Seikos, now I've one openned, in course to understand what happens there...

No, sorry. I don't think I've seen a manual specifically for any of the compound shutters. For what it's worth, they're a lot easier to understand than the more crazy clockwork kind that followed them. If you can work on a Seiko, I bet you can figure these out in a weekend or so. I slowly disassembled one taking good notes along the way, and while I'm not 100% on what everything does in there, it's pretty easy to understand the basics of it just by disassembling it. There's a coiled spring under the cocking arm that tensions it one way, a long, straight spring that acts against it that's attached to the screw you use to alter the speed, and that action is connected to the piston who's distance of travel is set by the speed dial. It sounds more complicated in writing, but if you just pop off the top without touching anything else (and reattach the cocking arm), you can trigger it a few times and see what all is going on in there.

Anyway, here's the lubrication manual I found online:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/44503560/Compur-Shutter-Repair-Manual#scribd

It doesn't have anything about compounds, but I tried to find similar pieces, or parts doing similar job, and lubricated them according to that. With a compound shutter, you don't want to lubricate much. Most anything related to the timing needs to be clean and free of oil. On most of those type of parts, lubricant will only gum it up and slow it down. I will admit, I've also done a bit of trial and error to figure out which parts not to lubricate. You know you did something wrong when you get it all put back together, and it's worse than before! Luckily, cleaning fresh oil off isn't that difficult. Especially after you've gotten comfortable on the inside of a shutter.

LabRat
1-Jun-2017, 07:06
Two things to point out;

First is that reuse of D76 can cause greater density, as it builds up by-products that fuel greater activity...

Second, with Compound shutters, not much is lubed, but what happens is that the aluminum parts inside build up a very slightly sticky oxide, that starts to hang up movement/operation after a while... Lubing does not help, but polishing the sliding parts with a lint free applicator with a little very fine graphite lifts the oxidation with it's very fine abrasive quality... But don't use much at all, just on the applicator...

Good Luck!!!

Steve K

Pere Casals
1-Jun-2017, 12:48
...Especially after you've gotten comfortable on the inside of a shutter.

Thanks for the explanation...



Two things to point out;

Second, with Compound shutters, not much is lubed, but what happens is that the aluminum parts inside build up a very slightly sticky oxide, that starts to hang up movement/operation after a while... Lubing does not help, but polishing the sliding parts with a lint free applicator with a little very fine graphite lifts the oxidation with it's very fine abrasive quality... But don't use much at all, just on the applicator...

Good Luck!!!

Steve K

I guess that, perhaps, graphite remains may also act as an oil free lubrication...

Max actual speed of my #5 is 1/60, when set at 1/100, but is very stable, it does not vary a 10%. I perhaps that lack of top speed is because to the piston. I'll try that graphite cleaning...

interneg
1-Jun-2017, 13:15
Max actual speed of my #5 is 1/60, when set at 1/100, but is very stable, it does not vary a 10%. I perhaps that lack of top speed is because to the piston. I'll try that graphite cleaning...

Errm, isn't the top speed of a Compound #5 1/50? The #3 is 1/100 I recall.

Expecting the top speed of any shutter, especially one that large, to ever get closer than 1/2 stop of the marked speed is wishful thinking - acceptable tolerances at manufacture of leaf shutters before colour transparency became dominant tended to be in the 'within 1/2 to 1 stop of marked range' category. They tend to get more accurate from the second highest speed downwards. What matters far more is consistency from actuation to actuation.

Pere Casals
1-Jun-2017, 13:22
Errm, isn't the top speed of a Compound #5 1/50? The #3 is 1/100 I recall.

Expecting the top speed of any shutter, especially one that large, to ever get closer than 1/2 stop of the marked speed is wishful thinking - acceptable tolerances at manufacture of leaf shutters before colour transparency became dominant tended to be in the 'within 1/2 to 1 stop of marked range' category. They tend to get more accurate from the second highest speed downwards. What matters far more is consistency from actuation to actuation.


1/75, sorry, a lapsus.

Yes, I agree, consistence is all. With consistence and a shutter tester one gets perfect exposures.

Also I've to say that I love how my compund sounds, it's pure mucis to my ears !


165648

165649

165650

interneg
1-Jun-2017, 13:52
1/75, sorry, a lapsus

Ahh, the #4 - either way, less than 1/2 stop off - probably OK on transparency, almost certainly not noticeable on negative under real world conditions. Unless you are absolutely sure that you can improve on that, I'd not go needlessly opening up the shutter - Compounds are usually very reliable if you don't muck them up trying to get them to conform to their marked speeds. I'd take reliability & consistency over absolute accuracy to marked speeds.

jim10219
1-Jun-2017, 14:10
Two things to point out;

First is that reuse of D76 can cause greater density, as it builds up by-products that fuel greater activity...

Second, with Compound shutters, not much is lubed, but what happens is that the aluminum parts inside build up a very slightly sticky oxide, that starts to hang up movement/operation after a while... Lubing does not help, but polishing the sliding parts with a lint free applicator with a little very fine graphite lifts the oxidation with it's very fine abrasive quality... But don't use much at all, just on the applicator...

Good Luck!!!

Steve K

I've never reused D76. But that's interesting to know. I don't shoot a ton, so I'm more concerned about wasting D76 due to oxidation from sitting in a bottle (I use plastic bottles and squeeze the air out to help) rather than running out.

And thanks for the polishing tip! I'll give that a try the next time I have one apart. I actually had to do that to one of the pistons brass housings to get it to smooth out enough for the piston to actually travel all the way to the edge. It wasn't a timing piston, but a remote trigger piston. It actually worked surprisingly well, because as badly as that was corroded, I was pretty sure it wasn't ever going to work again! But I never thought of doing it for the other parts.

Pere Casals
1-Jun-2017, 14:13
Ahh, the #4 - either way, less than 1/2 stop off - probably OK on transparency, almost certainly not noticeable on negative under real world conditions. Unless you are absolutely sure that you can improve on that, I'd not go needlessly opening up the shutter - Compounds are usually very reliable if you don't muck them up trying to get them to conform to their marked speeds. I'd take reliability & consistency over absolute accuracy to marked speeds.

You are right, I've just checked max aperture, and it's 52mm, and not 64.5mm.

I was thinking I had a #5 because aperture scale has a 5.6 marking...

From this I can guess that aperture scale is wrong, so I'll will need to calibrate it...

I've not used it much until now because I'm still preparing to shot 8x10 more seriously, and my plan is using it converted to 620 for portraits.

You gave me a useful information, thanks !

interneg
1-Jun-2017, 15:24
I've never reused D76. But that's interesting to know. I don't shoot a ton, so I'm more concerned about wasting D76 due to oxidation from sitting in a bottle (I use plastic bottles and squeeze the air out to help) rather than running out.

D-76/ID-11 is a great developer if you use it up in reasonable time - ie over several weeks, not over 6 months - yes it'll last 6 months, but the pH changes over time (replenishment of it runs into the same issue amongst others) and if it rises high enough, the hydroquinone kicks into gear making the developer suddenly much more active. I recall that much of the reasoning behind XTOL's design was to solve this problem and a few others relating to use in replenished systems. If you follow Kodak's recommended 8fl oz per 80 sq in of film (ie a roll of 120 or 135/36, 1 sheet of 8x10, or 4 of 4x5) you'll get 16 8x10s or 64 4x5's through a 1 US gallon pack used single shot - I generally use 1+1 dilution unless I need to get to a high Contrast Index for various purposes.

interneg
1-Jun-2017, 16:34
You are right, I've just checked max aperture, and it's 52mm, and not 64.5mm.

I was thinking I had a #5 because aperture scale has a 5.6 marking...

From this I can guess that aperture scale is wrong, so I'll will need to calibrate it...

I've not used it much until now because I'm still preparing to shot 8x10 more seriously, and my plan is using it converted to 620 for portraits.

You gave me a useful information, thanks !

Going by the Schneider catalogue, #IV is the correct shutter - https://web.archive.org/web/20130501193618im_/http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/schneider_7/schneider_7_03.jpg

Pere Casals
2-Jun-2017, 01:59
Going by the Schneider catalogue, #IV is the correct shutter - https://web.archive.org/web/20130501193618im_/http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/schneider_7/schneider_7_03.jpg

Yes, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501...eider_7_03.jpg, it says Symmar "5.6" , from 100mm to 360mm, and #IV for the 360. Later Schneider specs say Shutter 5FS https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/

So with the #IV should be what you said, some half stop less. Still the aperture scale marks 5.6, wide open, and this is wrong for sure, so the question is if the rest of the scale is right... I don't know if that was the original shutter of the lens.

Also it says, with 620, extension is 1025mm for a 3m far subject, this is 2 cambo in a row, ideal for handheld, dynamic shootings :)

interneg
2-Jun-2017, 17:13
Yes, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501...eider_7_03.jpg, it says Symmar "5.6" , from 100mm to 360mm, and #IV for the 360. Later Schneider specs say Shutter 5FS https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/

So with the #IV should be what you said, some half stop less. Still the aperture scale marks 5.6, wide open, and this is wrong for sure, so the question is if the rest of the scale is right... I don't know if that was the original shutter of the lens.

Also it says, with 620, extension is 1025mm for a 3m far subject, this is 2 cambo in a row, ideal for handheld, dynamic shootings :)

The '5FS' was a not very successful Compur electronic shutter intended for lenses too big for the Compur 3 after the Compound shutters were discontinued in the 1960s - & not long afterwards, the non-convertible 360/6.8 Symmar-S that fitted into a #3 shutter replaced it. Schneider are absolutely correct in their specifying of the aperture for both the Compound & Compur versions - it's more likely to be your maths that is wrong.

Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless - and anything longer than a 360mm at portrait distances gets quite challenging rather fast. Getting your subject to remain in your plane of focus becomes your number one priority.

Pere Casals
3-Jun-2017, 03:45
The '5FS' was a not very successful Compur electronic shutter intended for lenses too big for the Compur 3 after the Compound shutters were discontinued in the 1960s - & not long afterwards, the non-convertible 360/6.8 Symmar-S that fitted into a #3 shutter replaced it.


The question is if the f/5.6 aperture is possible with the 52mm aperture of the Compound IV. f "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself."

I was mentioning the 5FS because it was the way a Symmar 360 could reach f/5.6, with 64.5mm aperture. So, with my Compound IV is that 5.6 mark right for the 360? (apeture is 52mm)




Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless - and anything longer than a 360mm at portrait distances gets quite challenging rather fast. Getting your subject to remain in your plane of focus becomes your number one priority.


"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was made with the 23" (580 mm) component of the Cooke triple convertible.

The 620mm with a 8x10 will have similar framming (at infinite) than a 80mm in 35mm film. So I think it still can be an interesting length.


IMHO, for portraits a 600mm focal it can be suitable for 8x10, that "80mm" after bellows extension will be perhaps like a 120mm FF DSLR framming, still a useful portraiture length to have subject at suitable distance and framming a face, perhaps also shoulders.

The same than using a 300mm with 4x5 for face portraits...

The conversion starts at f/12, so not much for available light from windows...

My other option is a Lomo O-2 600, but it lacks shutter, for the moment.

Regards

ic-racer
3-Jun-2017, 08:29
I've been shooting Tmax 100 for a while now and have been developing it in D76, straight. I really like the look of the film, but every once in a while I'll take several shots of the same scene and try to compensate in development for a misread exposure.

you can't change film speed to any significant extent with development


Or I might try the "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing.

Not really a "thing" but just the way film behaves.


Anyway, developing everything at the usual time and temps, I get the normal results I expect.

But if I try to extend or pull back my development times by as little as 10% or so, I get wildly different and unusable results

Using graded paper, one does not need to alter development to match a scene. In fact that is a pretty 'dated' technique.

interneg
3-Jun-2017, 17:18
The question is if the f/5.6 aperture is possible with the 52mm aperture of the Compound IV. f "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself."

I was mentioning the 5FS because it was the way a Symmar 360 could reach f/5.6, with 64.5mm aperture. So, with my Compound IV is that 5.6 mark right for the 360? (apeture is 52mm)

They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring - and re-read that statement "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself." Have you measured the statement I've bolded, rather than the 52mm opening in the shutter?




"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was made with the 23" (580 mm) component of the Cooke triple convertible.

The 620mm with a 8x10 will have similar framming (at infinite) than a 80mm in 35mm film. So I think it still can be an interesting length.


IMHO, for portraits a 600mm focal it can be suitable for 8x10, that "80mm" after bellows extension will be perhaps like a 120mm FF DSLR framming, still a useful portraiture length to have subject at suitable distance and framming a face, perhaps also shoulders.

The same than using a 300mm with 4x5 for face portraits...

The conversion starts at f/12, so not much for available light from windows...

My other option is a Lomo O-2 600, but it lacks shutter, for the moment.

Regards

Very considerable difference here - getting down to 10-50m range for landscape work (what, 30mm of extension beyond the focal length?) is massively different from portraiture at closer ranges. Take a look at Walker Evans' work with 8x10 & a triple convertible - sure he used the long component for severe compression of urban scenes & landscapes, but his portraits are pretty clearly done with the whole lens - or whatever else he had to hand. Remember that the Deardorff 8x10 that a great many mid 20thC photographers used has 762mm of bellows to play with.

Following the 35mm 'mugshot' routine of long lenses for portraiture in 8x10 is a quick route to wasted film, boring pictures and ridiculously unwieldy cameras. I know it may seem hard, but you don't need to repeat the same focal lengths as 35mm in 8x10. Take a serious look at Richard Avedon's 8x10 work - all shot with a 360mm lens & plenty of head & shoulders images in there.

Pere Casals
4-Jun-2017, 02:03
They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring...

Yes... it would be something weird from Schneider... Copal 3 opens to 45mm, so there is room to exlpain that a Compound IV may deliver 5.6 with the 360. Still the last 5FS (64.5mm aperture) Schneider recomendation makes things not clear, IMO it's something to be checked with luxometer in front of a white wall, to at least having accurate reference for meterings...




They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring - and re-read that statement "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself." Have you measured the statement I've bolded, rather than the 52mm opening in the shutter?





Very considerable difference here - getting down to 10-50m range for landscape work (what, 30mm of extension beyond the focal length?) is massively different from portraiture at closer ranges. Take a look at Walker Evans' work with 8x10 & a triple convertible - sure he used the long component for severe compression of urban scenes & landscapes, but his portraits are pretty clearly done with the whole lens - or whatever else he had to hand. Remember that the Deardorff 8x10 that a great many mid 20thC photographers used has 762mm of bellows to play with.

Following the 35mm 'mugshot' routine of long lenses for portraiture in 8x10 is a quick route to wasted film, boring pictures and ridiculously unwieldy cameras. I know it may seem hard, but you don't need to repeat the same focal lengths as 35mm in 8x10. Take a serious look at Richard Avedon's 8x10 work - all shot with a 360mm lens & plenty of head & shoulders images in there.



Well, I was rebating "Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless". But at the end you are right because for 8x10 landscape we always can crop and still have lots of image quality, and this have same compression than with a longuer lens. But if we are to make contact prints (I'm doing some) then a "80mm 135 equivalent" focal (600mm) can make sense. Landscape shots are usually wide, but this is not a rule.



For portrait, IMHO we need to be at some 3m from subject, this delivers the look that human brain remembers from people, if too close we see the nose to big... Well, we also can crop here...

A Karsh favourite was 14", but a lot of his portraits were not close.

IMHO a bit 8x10 mug shots are a bit boring prehaps the lens, IMHO to take soulders we need a longuer than usual focal, and perhaps some stairs to see the GG.


:) Anyway the focal it is never too long, when this happens is camera that's too small. If the 620 comes to long... I've a piece of firewood that's 11x14 camera shaped :)


This is 4x5, but it's inspiring me for 8x10:

https://mecacolor.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/marte4x5-tmx-100-1a.jpg?w=640

wclark5179
4-Jun-2017, 17:02
What do you folks think of stand development?

I will use it with T-Max 100 and I like the results.

Rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes at 68 degrees.

Pere Casals
4-Jun-2017, 23:28
What do you folks think of stand development?

I will use it with T-Max 100 and I like the results.

Rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes at 68 degrees.

Depending on shooting conditions and on what you want obtain it can be very useful or even the wrong way.


Stand development is very useful to control strong highlights and to increase microcontrast, as there is a local (small) competition to get the developer, a depleted resource.

IMHO a lot of scenes may benefit from it. Still microcontrast also depends on other factors, as a multicoated good lens, or the scene itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRYQObyyIsI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfx22wbksaA


Regards