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.
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.
"We work in the dark, we do what we can, we give what we have."
Henry James
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.Originally Posted by Michael Lloyd
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.
Because that's what I used and the grid lines look just like the grid lines on the ground glass. I mean exactly like themWhy does your original text mention the Chamonix camera? Most likely the camera has nothing to do with what your problems are.
I don't "know" they are correct but I know my technique was bad thanks to answers in this thread.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 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 slidethis time.
I don't think even I could put a film holder in between the ground glass and lensFor 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 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 combinationAs 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 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...
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
Delta 400, DD-X 1:9
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
Hangover Tree
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.
The second photo looks pretty good; any re-appearance of the grid lines?
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.
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 see long vertical streaks in the sky area. Usually those are created due to over or under agitation issues.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks