Getting ready for bw development which developer?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have HC110, TMAX developer and Pyrocat HD. Film is Acros and Tmax100. Most are extreme contrasts. Sunrise/sunset. Long exposures of Lightning as well at night.

Should I go

2-bath Pyrocat
Pyrocat A+B single solution
HC110
Tmax Dev

Next. I have used all but 2-bath for minimal agitation with good results.

I need to prevent highlights from blowing out and shot images with N -1 to-3 in mind to do so.

What is everyones recommendations? Also how much loss should I expect in shadows from N- development?

Bleaching is another option.

Whichever route on developing I want to stick with it for entire batch. Which is quite a bit.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

These are all landscapes.

[Alan9940]

I love the Acros/Pyrocat-HD combo and, depending on your processing, Pcat certainly won't blow out the high values. You may, also, want to consider D-23; it's a somewhat compensating developer.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Don't have any D23 on hand. But will keep in mind for next time. I like the Pcat, but with all the issues lately, I am hesitant to use it until I mix my own.

[Peter De Smidt]

For extreme subject brightness range scenes, I'd use 2-bath Pyrocat.

[Duolab123]

My first thought was D-23, since that's out, if you have concerns with the pyrocat. HC-110 is the old standby.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

There is typically about 3 to 6 stops difference between my ZV and max highlights, not counting the sun. So I kept notes figuring I would do an N- development to rain in highlights to be no more than 3 stops max.

[Pere Casals]

There is typically about 3 to 6 stops difference between my ZV and max highlights, not counting the sun.


194434


Each unit in the graph (H exposure log) is 3.3 stops, so anyway with TMX you have an insane latitude range, more than destroying lights you achieve very high densities that are difficult to print in the darkroom. If you scan/save 16 bits per channel and later you bend curves in Ps you have less problem. For darkroom printing it's better not reaching such a densities because it would be a nightmare to obtain a sound print

With N- developments you lose 1/3 to 2/3 stops in the shadows depending on the N- factor.

For a very wide range you should combine N- and lower agitation, you don't need minimal agitation to have an effect, for nigh photography I use xtol 1:2 with agitation each 3 to 5 min, with the sheet in a tray to avoid bromide streaks, in this shot the clock was at +7: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ , (it was HP5)


Another way it woud be using TXP that compresses the shadows (mid/long toe) allowing to reach lower densities in the highlights, and also having a shoulder with proper processing:

194435

TMX has a linear toe with very recoverable shadows, txp instead compresses more the shadows, if your print will anyway have those shadows compressed (to allow a wide enough range for mids) then TXP is better because it allows you to encode the rest of the range while reaching lower densities, simply because the shadows take a lower density range to be encoded.


______________________________________


You may make this test...

Take 3 tmx rolls, you can split a 36 exposure rolls in 3 rolls. Shot a reference scene, spot meter well each reference area and bracket exposure, shot the same in the 3 rolls. Develop N, N-1 and N-2. You will have how it looks each under/over exposure with each N+/-

From that you have exhaustive information to take exposure development decisions in the field, because you know what result will deliver each exposure/dev combination for each spot metered area in the scene.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Very interesting. In my case, this first attempt will be a best guess. I may shook t the step wedge today and use that info for the different developers I have and see what gives me results I am after. I won't do this with my Acros though since it isn't made anymore. But I have plenty Tmax100.

[jnantz]

i'd use caffenol c and add a 20-30cc of stock print developer.

[Jim Noel]

Decide on a developer and stick with it for several sessions. !00 replies will give you at least 50 alternatives, that is why it is necessary to choose one and stay with it.I used to recommend 100 sheets for the trial of the first developer to my students. but today nobody has such patience. My personal choice as a developer with which to begin is either PCat HD,or HC 110 in one or two of its variations. Many students have preferred HC110 1+62 from syrup, or 1+15 from syrup depending on the subject contrast.

[Peter De Smidt]

Jim's right. Focusing on one developer, at least at first, is a great idea. For high contrast scenes, there's always dilution, 2-bath, SLIMT....
My experience with - development is that it usually leads to poor tonal separation, especially anything more than -1.

[Jim Noel]

I agree with Peter on Minus development. ANything more than -1 can leave you with an almost unprintable negative. Beginners especially are better off to make such changes in the printing, not the film development.

[Willie]

No matter what you choose you won't get any detail in the lightning. :rolleyes:

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Lightning no, but sunsets yes. I agree I will stay with 1 developer for this session which is a lot of film, I am just trying to get a feel for which one to use. I have used all as well as 2 bath and semi-stand with all I listed. I liked each, but this go around I am making more purpose driven. I have patience, but I also don't want to be on wrong path for the sake of patience.

[Corran]

T-Max 100, EI 100, put your shadows at Zone III and the darkest areas at Zone II, and develop in Pyrocat 1:1:100 for 9 minutes at 75F. Adjust to taste. Really, seriously, don't waste time staring at characteristic curves and all that stuff before shooting some film and developing at typical times. Perhaps at some point a 2-bath solution or other developer will be something you want to experiment with but get some baselines first.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I exposed darkest areas for zone 5. I had issues in past with setting for zone 3 abd got black areas. Maybe I screwed up, it's possible. I will try as you suggest. I do like 2 bath though from previous development I have done. Will let everyone know how it goes

[Corran]

I've shot at least 1000 sheets of T-Max 100 and the ones that are hard to print are the ones I overexposed. Really thin negatives are still bad but as long as you have a solid Zone II and III for shadow areas you're usually golden. And the thin negatives are still fine when scanning and digital printing, where recovery and selective burning/dodging is easier to control. You might want to vary your personal EI between 50 to 100 - I think my EI tends to be a bit higher than average, perhaps my meter is just a bit off.

That said, my experiences with 2-bath development was always bad. I remember one photo where I was shooting directly into the sun with extreme shadows, probably 10-12 stops between shadow areas where I wanted detail and bright sky, not to mention getting closer to the sun disc. Instead of shooting at 1/30 like metered and pulling, I did 1 second (5 stops overexposed) and 2-bath development. The shadows were still thin and the negative mostly useless. It's certainly possible I could refine the technique and make it work, but I just didn't find it that useful personally. Shaving off a minute or so from the recommended times for extreme contrast ranges usually works for me - I always meter from the shadows and place them in the proper Zone, and then the highlights to see where they are falling.

PS: Rodinal is also an excellent developer for T-Max 100, if you wanted to try something else.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks for the info. You seem to shoot similar to me. I am still experiencing and chose to intentionally place the darkest area in zone 5 to determine if that is what I want and to take the guess work out of what I was getting if I always varied my zone placement. Plus in some respects was playing it safe on the shadows. I will pick up some Rodinol and experiment with it next round.

[Peter De Smidt]

Shadows on Zone V? Sounds like you should do a standard exposure/development test.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I was putting them in 3 and 4 and getting black. My thought was I can adjust the shadows down easier than up. I would consider this as my test. From this set of images I can decide what I want to do. I shot all of them in the same way as almost all were landscapes.

[Peter De Smidt]

Or you could follow standard practice and save yourself a lot of grief, but it’s your time.

[Corran]

Was that specifically T-Max 100 dev'd in Pyrocat at standard dilution and normal temps? What was your exposure details - aperture, shutter speed, time of day? What did you meter and place in Zone 3? What meter are you using?

A lot of variables to consider. Your meter could be 3 stops off for instance.

I know we've talked about the basics of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights," but that does assume a few things - such as accurate meters and correct metering, proper development, etc. If putting shadows in Z5 works for you with your gear and such, that's fine - I've certainly heard of people doing that. I just don't advise such a thing generally, especially for TMX which is less forgiving IMO.

Would you be interested in me sharing a couple scans from negatives, with both the "baseline" scan and edited image, along with how I metered / visualized the image?

[Peter De Smidt]

Everyone can use words however they like, but if you use then differently than standard practice, you're likely to be misunderstood. That will lead to people giving you mistaken advice, which will lead to more confusion.... If you place a shadow on Zone III, and there's not enough tonal separation/detail in the shadows, then your film speed rating is too high. It doesn't matter what the box says. Zone I is at least .1 above fb+f. A scanner can easily get detail at that that level. If you're not getting detail at Zone III, then you're grossly underexposing your film. If you're grossly underexposing your film, how do you know that your development time is ideal? You don't appear to have the basics down, but nonetheless you want to photograph high sbr scenes. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Figuring all of this out only takes a few simple tests.

[Bruce Watson]

Everyone can use words however they like, but if you use then differently than standard practice, you're likely to be misunderstood. That will lead to people giving you mistaken advice, which will lead to more confusion.... If you place a shadow on Zone III, and there's not enough tonal separation/detail in the shadows, then your film speed rating is too high. It doesn't matter what the box says. Zone I is at least .1 above fb+f. A scanner can easily get detail at that that level. If you're not getting detail at Zone III, then you're grossly underexposing your film. If you're grossly underexposing your film, how do you know that your development time is ideal? You don't appear to have the basics down, but nonetheless you want to photograph high sbr scenes. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Figuring all of this out only takes a few simple tests.

Yup. This. Exactly this.

[Corran]

Yes, listen to Peter.

I don't really do Zone tests anymore, but I did do some way back when I first started and was getting the hang of spot metering and visualizing the scene in b&w.

You seem to expose your color films okay, so I'm confused as to what the issues are with your b&w film/processing.

Perhaps too many variables in play, if you are shooting in extreme contrasts, using filters, etc. etc. while trying to nail the basic exposure stuff.

Show us some film that you've had issues with shadow detail on - both a scan, and if possible, a picture of the negative on a light table.

[jnantz]

Steven

Have you bracketed exposures and bracked your processing yet so you can figure out how your developer works with your film ?
It's one of the first things I do whenever I use a new film/developer.. If you haven't yet you might consider it before processing all your film and getting crappy negatives because you are just winging it. Not sure if you have a small format camera you can load up with the same emulsion you are using but if you do you can meter at box speed and then bracket whole stops 3 above and 3 below for a variety of exposures of the same scene; do this with a few rolls of various lighting conditions. then ... take 1 developer, sometimes something plain vanilla works best ( like D76 of ID-11 or Sprint Film Developer ) and develop it for what it says to develop at box speed, then you are going to process another roll 30% more and another 30% less ( some do 50% more and less its up to you ) and then look at your film with a loupe, or with a plain sheet of paper behind it, scan or print or whatever you do to get your final image, and look and inspect them and that way you will have a better idea how to proceed with your curent batch of film. I'm not sure about you but sheet film is expensive, going to locations is time and exposing film is effort and to just wing it without having done a little bit of a film and developer/exposure test to me at least would be an expense i wouldn't want to pay for. if you don't have a small format camera, you can do a similar test but with your dark slide making something like an exposure "test strip" by blocking off the light from portions of your negative for a few sheets and process and scan &c the same way. it might be a few sheets or a few short rolls of film but at least it will give you some thing tangible to see how your methods work, especially since your lenses aren't calibrated like anyone else's, you don't agitate or shuffle like anyone else, or have hangers and tanks or nitrogen burst so no matter who gives you advice its what we do and most likely has very little to do with what you are going to do.
as someone who has been using caffneol c with a splash of print developer mixed in for IDK 12+ years, i still say use that, it will be every bit as good an anything else that is out there that you are using.

good luck!
john

[brucetaylor]

I think jnantz sums it up well. Every bit of the chain of events will have variables, and broad but simple tests will save a lot of time and effort. I am impatient, and for a long time “winged it,” with the variable results one would expect. After many years when I was finally able to get back into darkroom work I took a photo class to force myself to get out there and do some assignments. One of them was a controlled exposure and development ring around for a high contrast scene with a 18% gray card in the scene as a control. My meters are calibrated and I test my shutter speeds so I have those under control. We were using TMax 100 and the TMax RS developer. Interestingly the print with the best highlight control and best shadow detail was the exposure at box speed at the recommended development time. Imagine!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, listen to Peter.

I don't really do Zone tests anymore, but I did do some way back when I first started and was getting the hang of spot metering and visualizing the scene in b&w.

You seem to expose your color films okay, so I'm confused as to what the issues are with your b&w film/processing.

Perhaps too many variables in play, if you are shooting in extreme contrasts, using filters, etc. etc. while trying to nail the basic exposure stuff.

Show us some film that you've had issues with shadow detail on - both a scan, and if possible, a picture of the negative on a light table.

I will look for a couple to post up.

I was using a Seikonic digital spot meter, but have since switched to a Pentax analog spot meter.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I get that most do testing of their film choice, developer, etc. I get the money aspects of testing with 35mm vs 4x5 however, using my Canon 1NRS with Tmax100 is an apples to oranges test. The optics are wholly and completely different than my 4x5 optics. It would be like learning to shoot at 1000 meters with a.308 but shooting at 50 meters with a 22 or worse a pellet gun. While certain basics are the same, the required skills tools and knowledge are completely different.

Some make test stripes, some use only 1 developer and some only 1 film ever. This is how they practice and if it works great.

I choose to practice with real thing. I have chosen a film, in this case Tmax100, and I chose to shoot darkest shadow at zone 5 for everything I have done this year. I chose to do real world photography and not test stripes nor trying to rate my film differently than what is on the box. By my using exactly the same shooting technique in the real world on real scenes, I can establish what works for me and my style, not what works on test strips.

My intent here on this post was to get a feel for the developer I should use as my baseline and whether I should just do standard development. I have done and lean towards 2-bath, and semi-stand. I will eventually experiment with slimt in the future. For now, I am trying to determine my style for developing and exposing for a typical scene I shoot. From there, I will then experiment to refine my developing and exposure techniques.

I do appreciate all the comments and advice so far.

[Corran]

I get that most do testing of their film choice, developer, etc. I get the money aspects of testing with 35mm vs 4x5 however, using my Canon 1NRS with Tmax100 is an apples to oranges test. The optics are wholly and completely different than my 4x5 optics. It would be like learning to shoot at 1000 meters with a.308 but shooting at 50 meters with a 22 or worse a pellet gun. While certain basics are the same, the required skills tools and knowledge are completely different.

Some make test stripes, some use only 1 developer and some only 1 film ever. This is how they practice and if it works great.

I choose to practice with real thing. I have chosen a film, in this case Tmax100, and I chose to shoot darkest shadow at zone 5 for everything I have done this year. I chose to do real world photography and not test stripes nor trying to rate my film differently than what is on the box. By my using exactly the same shooting technique in the real world on real scenes, I can establish what works for me and my style, not what works on test strips.

My intent here on this post was to get a feel for the developer I should use as my baseline and whether I should just do standard development. I have done and lean towards 2-bath, and semi-stand. I will eventually experiment with slimt in the future. For now, I am trying to determine my style for developing and exposing for a typical scene I shoot. From there, I will then experiment to refine my developing and exposure techniques.

I do appreciate all the comments and advice so far.

Steven,

You certainly are free to approach b&w film developing any way you choose. And if it gets you where you need to go, that's great - for example, I have a methodology for exposing at basically any EI and developing to a "usable" negative that I came up with for using odd and/or very old film. I would not recommend it for general use.

Anyway, in my methodology, exposing T-Max 100 with the darkest shadows on Zone 5 (on my meter!) would be 2-3 stops overexposed, and no matter what hoops you jump through, getting reasonable densities for your higher tones will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. But, I certainly wish you luck and hope you find what you are looking for in terms of methodology.

[Peter De Smidt]

I too certainly wish Steven well. This, though, is my impression of this thread, along with many of his other threads:

"I'm not getting the results I want. Please help."*

Help is given, which requires very simple tests that people have known about for decades, and which would only take an hour or two to do.

"I"m not going to do any of that."

What this says to me is that it's a waste of time trying to help.

*These are not actual quotes. They're meant to be summaries of what's gone on in the thread.

[jnantz]

best of luck steven,
john

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, that's it. I do not want help. I am not looking to be a professional and my my thought process may be different than everyone here. It does not mean I do not take to heart what is written. Feel free to ignore any and all posts I may put if it is a waste of your time I do not want to contribute to that.

[Peter De Smidt]

Will do.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

And since I shot all of this bw film exactly same method, I am using Tmax Developer at 1:4 68F 7:30 for everything. Then I will know what to do with my exposure. If necessary I will then do testing and hope I don't run out of film.. The best part is it gives me an excuse to go back to the Grand Canyon and other places often.

And I work in the test world establishing test valuesbandballowablesbfor metallic and composite materials. So I full well know the value of testing. So do not think I do not understand the value of testing.

[wclark5179]

Hi Steven,

My wife and I are taking a short tour of the Grand Canyon the middle of September. We’re on a Road Scholar tour. Looking forward to the trip.

Film developing has a lot of different variables, with a lot of slush built into the system. I like that. I’ve used many developera over the years, finding good features with most all of them. I was stand developing some 35mm film the other day and fell asleep. I found the negatives turned out fine.

I find with this film and photography system, I go with the flow. That doesn’t mean I’m care free, cavalier and casual but I don’t fuss too much as I spend more time getting it correct in camera during the making stage of photography. That includes composition, lighting and posing as three of the basics I subscribe to.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hi Steven,

My wife and I are taking a short tour of the Grand Canyon the middle of September. We’re on a Road Scholar tour. Looking forward to the trip.

Film developing has a lot of different variables, with a lot of slush built into the system. I like that. I’ve used many developera over the years, finding good features with most all of them. I was stand developing some 35mm film the other day and fell asleep. I found the negatives turned out fine.

I find with this film and photography system, I go with the flow. That doesn’t mean I’m care free, cavalier and casual but I don’t fuss too much as I spend more time getting it correct in camera during the making stage of photography. That includes composition, lighting and posing as three of the basics I subscribe to.

I would agree with this approach. Are you going north or south rim? I go to both several times a year. South rim take bus to west points. Mojave and Powell are favorites Lipon point is a good one as well. North is harder, but Angel's Window Cape Royal as well as Point Imperial. Just west of Cape Royal you can park, walk across the road and be on the edge, literally.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is a lightning shot. 1 hour 15 min exposure. 2-bath pyro. The second is looking out at Alstom Point. Ev=1 on darkest shadows. With yellow filter and reciprocity I came to a 16 min exposure. Also 2-bath pyro.

The next negatives were also metered at z5 and developed in Tmax at 1:4, etc. These are much denser. When they are dry, I will post up. All are shot with iPhone on light table using PS express and LR for iPhone to quickly process.

[Corran]

Long exposures, really long exposures, muddy things a lot in this discussion.


The next negatives were also metered at z5 and developed in Tmax at 1:4, etc. These are much denser. When they are dry, I will post up. All are shot with iPhone on light table using PS express and LR for iPhone to quickly process.

I bet. T-Max Developer, especially at 1:4, always gave me waaaaay too much contrast.

I wish I had the opportunity to shoot lightening like that. It simply doesn't happen like that here, and/or there's very few / no places to see it (the places I know, are a mile or more out, so no protection + storm = not good). Too many trees. Scan that puppy for real please.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is one from North Grand Canyon Cape Royal. Metered Z5 on darkest shadows which were lower left, red 25A filter. Developed in Tmax Dev for 7:30 sec at 68F. Iphone shot on light table. Ok rip away. :)

This metered ev8-9 -3 for red 25A or 5-6 ev for 15 sec or 30 sec. I need to look at the other one when dry to see which is which, but both appear similar. One was taken after it got darker out by about 1 stop.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I will apologize to anyone who thought I was just ignoring their help. I was not. And I should not have gotten so short.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

End results were for failed due to messing up at camera. Accidental over exposure as I forgot to set f stop, 1 was just plain bad, 2 I caused light leaks by putting dark slide between holder and camera body when putting slide back in. 1 fail developing got air bubbles on film and 1 partial fail with a small streak possibly, salvageable as is the one with pin holes, bUt only for scanning and printing electronically.

All others came out good. Most negatives were dense but no blown highlights. So now I will do a test or two as suggested and see how that compares to the way I have been metering.

[Peter De Smidt]

I recommend the Zone VI workshop method using 1/3 stop changes. Like many here, I've been doing this for a long time, and from my own history, as well as seeing many people starting out, it's still my view that this is the quickest way to maximize the chances of getting what you want when you photograph. Sure, you can always go back to the scene, but, again in my experience, that often doesn't work out. Occasionally I've been lucky in that way, but usually not. The conditions aren't as nice, or I simply don't have time to return.

Like Bryan, and I'm sure like many, I now rarely do such a test. If I have a new film, I make my best guess of exposure and development, take and process a test negative, and look at the results on a light table. From this, I can estimate what proper exposure and development will be. This is easier in that I only use one developer, and I know the development times of a bunch of films in it in my system. I do this if I'm trying out a new film, which I've had to do as my old preference either became unavailable or unaffordable. I then shoot a bunch of sheets around town to see if I like the new film. If I do, and if I'm using the film in the field as opposed to the studio, then I do a reciprocity test. It would be a nightmare to go on a rare-for-me photo trip only to come back with useless negatives because I didn't spend a bit of time. These days film is expensive, but time and opportunity are more precious by far.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

When doing the test, does f stop matter? If I were to point the camera at a white background and meter say at noon outside, I would then figure out what exposure gives ZX then work backwards to zone 0 in 1/3 stops?. I like the idea of using the dark slide to make the exposures. I could do this for several sheets, then test in developer with times and temps to determine the "correct" times, etc?. I have not read the book yet.

I am looking on line to see about ordering the workshop. Can get used copies for a couple of bucks. Anyone have it?

[Andrew Tymon]

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/zone-vi-workshop_fred-picker/263021/#isbn=0817405747&idiq=4253990

[Peter De Smidt]

Your library probably has it, (if you can't find it I'll send you my copy) but this is the outline:

Load up some holders. My Jobo drum uses 6 negatives, and so that's what I have on hand. Place a flat black card in shade. It has to be big enough to easily see/measure later, but it doesn't have to take up the whole frame. Focus your camera on infinity, as that will not require any bellows correction. Meter the black card. Set your meter to 1/2 the box speed and read the card. Make sure it's evenly lit. If you set your camera to what the meter reads, you're placing the card on Zone V, a middle gray tone, but we want to find out Zone I, just enough density above film base plus fog to shot a bit of detail. So take the meter reading and figure out what would give 4 stops less exposure. Pick f-stop and shutter speeds to avoid reciprocity, and to allow you to open up the lens in following shots. Take the photo. This is to see if half box speed gives enough shadow density. Now close down 1/3 stop. Take photo. Repeat. For Tmax 100, this would being trying to find a good Zone I density at Exposure Index 50, 65, 80, which is likely the right range.

Now place a flat white card in sun. Make sure it's evenly lit. Focus on infinity. Measure card, using 1/2 box speed on meter. Place the card on Zone VIII, i.e. take the meter reading and add 3 stops. Take a picture. Do the same thing as before, i.e. close down 1/3 stop. Take picture. Repeat.

Make your best guess at development, and develop the film. Dry. What you do next will depend on whether your have a densitometer and are printing optically or scanning. If you have a densitometer, measure the black card area of the Zone 1 negatives, and find the one that gives at least 0.1 above film base plus fog. That is your EI. Find the corresponding Zone VIII negative. Take a reading. The goal is to have about 1.3 above film base plus fog. If none of your negatives give enough Zone I density, then you have to repeat using an even lower EI range. If they all give much more, then you can extrapolate or run another test. If you have a good Zone I sheet, and that EI gives a good Zone VIII density, then you have your Normal EI and Development time. If the Zone VIII density is too low. Expose another sheet at your determined EI and develop for 15% (or so) more. It depends on how far off you were. If the Zone VIII density is too high, do the same thing but develop less.

If you don't have a densitometer and your're scanning, place a Zone I/VIII pair on your scanner. It doesn't have to be at super high resolution. Set the black point on the film base. Set the white point on the brightest area in the scene. Scan. Do this for each. Compare scans. When you get the shadow detail you want from the straight scan, then you have your EI. When you get the highlights looking like you'd want, then you have your development time.

There's a similar way to do this when using an enlarger, but I don't think you're doing this, and I have to go to class. I hope that helps.

If setting up cards...is anathema, go outside and find a scene with a 5-stop range. Place the shadow with detail on Zone III. Expose and develop. Do the scanner test. Do you have enough shadow detail? If not, cut the EI in half on the meter and try again. If the highlights are too high or low, adjust appropriately.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This helps out a lot. I am currently scanning, but will eventually be printing black and whites. I will pretty much just keep scanning the color stuff. I am gonna do this test this week. Thanks for the info. Have fun in class.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Question, why use half box speed? For the Tmax100 that would then be 50 (of course :) ) I see this all the time, and curious why not use the rated box speed of 100?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Your library probably has it, (if you can't find it I'll send you my copy) but this is the outline:

Load up some holders. My Jobo drum uses 6 negatives, and so that's what I have on hand. Place a flat black card in shade. It has to be big enough to easily see/measure later, but it doesn't have to take up the whole frame. Focus your camera on infinity, as that will not require any bellows correction. Meter the black card. Set your meter to 1/2 the box speed and read the card. Make sure it's evenly lit. If you set your camera to what the meter reads, you're placing the card on Zone V, a middle gray tone, but we want to find out Zone I, just enough density above film base plus fog to shot a bit of detail. So take the meter reading and figure out what would give 4 stops less exposure.

Pick f-stop and shutter speeds to avoid reciprocity, and to allow you to open up the lens in following shots. Take the photo. This is to see if half box speed gives enough shadow density. Now close down 1/3 stop (you mean open up 1/3 stop?). Take photo. Repeat. For Tmax 100, this would being trying to find a good Zone I density at Exposure Index 50, 65, 80, which is likely the right range.

.

[Peter De Smidt]

Question, why use half box speed? For the Tmax100 that would then be 50 (of course :) ) I see this all the time, and curious why not use the rated box speed of 100?

The results of doing many of these tests. Unless you're using a speed-boosting developer, such as Xtol, you're unlikely to get a good Zone I density using box speed. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely. If your Zone I densities are too high, extrapolate. If they're too low, then you can't do that as easily.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm a bit rushed, but you start by Zone I at EI 50 with TMX. If you close down 1/3 stop, you're now treating the film as if it's EI 64. Opening up would be giving more exposure, which is in effect rating the film even lower.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Which densitometer? X-Rite The 361T Densitometer, X-Rite 810TR or X-Rite 810? I looked in the archives and people seem to recommend the X-Rite 810, but that was 15 years ago.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I'm a bit rushed, but you start by Zone I at EI 50 with TMX. If you close down 1/3 stop, you're now treating the film as if it's EI 64. Opening up would be giving more exposure, which is in effect rating the film even lower.

Okay, makes sense now. Thanks.

[Pere Casals]

Which densitometer? X-Rite The 361T Densitometer, X-Rite 810TR or X-Rite 810? I looked in the archives and people seem to recommend the X-Rite 810, but that was 15 years ago.

I'm finishing a darkroom calibration/proofing tool for masking that has a densitometer. You make a low/fast dpi scan of the negative alongside with an Stouffer wedge, you mark the position of the 1 and 21 patches with two clicks, and after that you point any spot on the negative with mouse to see density.

Under desnsity it shows the lux.second the silver paper will receive and the related H value, for that you enter the lux.second exposure the paper would receive if the carrier was empty.

If you want to be a beta tester just PM and I'll send it to you, it does many other things like film/paper automatic, masking proofing, etc but user interface has to be refined a lot. The density readings are very accurate, as gray levels are compared to the Stouffer.

I don't know if the rest will be useful, but densitometer is pretty convenient and accurate.

194500


194501

These are the Pyrénées

I wanting a real densitometer you may take a RX surplus one, I've a Nuclear Associates Model 07-443 that I got near for free, now there is one at ebay for $125 or auction. Highly accurate.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I'm finishing a darkroom calibration/proofing tool for masking that has a densitometer. You make a low/fast dpi scan of the negative alongside with an Stouffer wedge, you mark the position of the 1 and 21 patches with two clicks, and after that you point any spot on the negative with mouse to see density.

Under desnsity it shows the lux.second the silver paper will receive and the related H value, for that you enter the lux.second exposure the paper would receive if the carrier was empty.

If you want to be a beta tester just PM and I'll send it to you, it does many other things like film/paper automatic, masking proofing, etc but user interface has to be refined a lot. The density readings are very accurate, as gray levels are compared to the Stouffer.

I don't know if the rest will be useful, but densitometer is pretty convenient and accurate.

194500


194501

These are the Pyrénées

I wanting a real densitometer you may take a RX surplus one, I've a Nuclear Associates Model 07-443 that I got near for free, now there is one at ebay for $125 or auction. Highly accurate.


Will it work on a mac? I don't use a pc. If so, I wouldn't mind beta testing.

[Pere Casals]

Will it work on a mac? I don't use a pc. If so, I wouldn't mind beta testing.

sorry, it's win32, from xp to w10, but perhaps WINE may make it run in mac

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Or jack Daniel's

[Pere Casals]

Or jack Daniel's

:)

Another choice is VirtualBox in Mac, and installing Win there

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yeah I have seen that and others. Not a fan of windows.

[Peter De Smidt]

A densitometer can be helpful, but you don't need one. I'll give some advice regarding them in a minute. Zone I is a small amount of density over film base plus fog, so as long as you can see a distinct density difference between Zone I and FB+F, then you're fine. If you can't quite tell if there's a difference, move to the next 1/3 step. If you have the black card touch the edge of the negative, then it will be easier to compare FB+F to Zone I on a light table.

A good general principle is to keep your test as close to what you're going to do as you can. So if you're going to scan, then scanning is the best test. If you're going to print optically, then that's the best test.

I've owned and used a bunch of densitometers: A Cosar, Mantis, MacBeth 810, and now I have an X-rite 316T. For Zone I testing, any will work. You want one in good shape, and the calibration strips are helpful. For non-staining developers, any of these are fine. With staining developers, as densities get higher, the proportion of density from the stain increases, which is the case with Pyrocat. This stain blocks more UV than visible light, and many alternative processes are most sensitive to visible light. For Zone I, none of this really matters, as the stain is such a small part of the density at that level, but for Zone VIII tests it does matter. So if you read a Pyrocat negative with a standard BW densitometer, it will under-report density. Better would be the blue channel reading of a color densitometer, and the best would be a UV reading unit. But you can make do with any of the densitometers, as the percentage of density to stain is fairly well known.

In any event, even after the densitometer tests, you'll want to keep an eye on your negatives, and if you're not getting the tonality that you want, then you make adjustments, as it's the prints/scans that really matter.

If you can find a densitometer in good shape for a reasonable price, well, that's fine. If you can't, that's fine, too. I only use mine a few times a year. Note that many of us here have them, and I expect many of us would be happy to read a small number of negatives.

The important thing is to give enough exposure to get good separation in the darker areas of the scene while developing long enough to get good tonality in the middle and brighter areas. Especially with TMX and TMY, you don't want to give too little exposure or too much development. They don't have much toe, so there's little cushion on the low end, and they can reach very high densities.

[Pere Casals]

Yeah I have seen that and others. Not a fan of windows.

I'm a fan of linux, but my expertise is in windows.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks. Maybe I will send out some negatives after performing the test so I can compare my results with those who have done this such as yourself and see if I have understood the concept.

Now, after I have done this and for sake of argument, lets say, box speed is what I come up with (iso100, to make numbers easy) for zone 1 and zone 8 (curious why not zone 9?). When I go into the field now, I should be able to say, meter for zone V (this is what meter does) the darkest area I find (again, just an example) and then I can determine the amount of detail I want in that area and adjust exposure to do so. Say, I then place it to zone 2 or 3 stops darker from what I measured. Then I use the developing time I came up with (this is the purpose of the test I assume) to develop the film. But also knowing how my developer reacts with the film, I can further make logical adjustments to developing time to either slightly compress the highlights or possibly expand the shadows (but I understand it is not very practical to try and expand the shadow)

For Pyrocat as an example, I would want a densitometer that is color or has uv capability or both if I wanted to be very accurate. Otherwise, I would carry out the tests in the same manner as with other developers?

Since for the time being I will be scanning (I assume the same negatives can be used to dial in printing in the dark room at a later date, correct?) I would measure the negative with a densitometer, as well as scan the negative. If I use Vuescan it has a density function. Question, would I save the scan as a linear file (no gamma correction) and then apply the gamma correction in PS without converting the negative or do I convert the negative using whatever method I normally use? I would think you would not convert it and just apply the gamma correction.

It sounds like once I have done this, my process would need to use the same scanner, etc in order to keep consistent results. But, having the negatives with good notes, I can always calibrate to a new scanner or to printing once I get that far. And would do this for each film I use, which in this case right now is Tmax100/400, Acros100. Maybe 1 or 2 others down the road once I get the hang of this.

Would this work for color film as well? Slides?

I know I ask a lot of questions so I apologize. I am taking this in and want to be sure I do it correctly.

[Peter De Smidt]

The standard way is to spot meter the darkest area where you want good detail. Your meter will tell you want to expose for to get Zone V (or close enough). You want to place that subject area on Zone III, which requires giving two stops less exposure. Now meter the brightest area you want detail. The meter says how to make that mid-ish gray, but you want it brighter. N-development assumes of 5-stop scene, Zone III to Zone VIII. So the highlight should be 5 stops brighter. For instance, a shadow might be EV3. For N development, the highlight should be EV8.

Standard Zone System is to vary development depending on the subject brightness range, the range between the darkest and brightest areas of detail. If the range is less than 5, than use + development. If it's less, then use minus. But I don't do any of that. Today's films are quite different from those of the 1940s. In particular many have much longer straight line sections of their characteristic curves, and we have more flexibility in printing and scanning. I never use minus development because it tends to cause a loss of good tonality. In an extreme case, I use other measures. I will only use + development if I need +2 or more. Changing development time is more about getting the tonal separation you want than it is matching densities.

Yes, you can do all of this with color, but the sbr requirements are different, and development changes are more limited, and now I have class work to do.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks for the info. I think I have a good idea how to proceed. will try to get the test shots done this week. Will make development at standard time and temp with Tmax developer to start.

[Peter De Smidt]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/conrad-meter-cal.pdf

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Okay, here is example from latest shoot where I exposed darkest shadows for Zone V (meter reading). This was on Tmax100, developed normal times in PyrocatHD (single bath) Yellow filter, 75mm Nikkor f/4.5@f/32 for 16 min. I scanned at 6000dpi, converted using colorperfect module. Left the color channels (I scanned as linear raw tiff, image -ie, what you see is what you get using Vuescan) I did some dust deletion in the sky (not foreground yet). Other than that, I did zero adjustments in PS other than the conversion to positive.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48588817136_2052ba87d1_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2h2Cowu)

If anyone wants the full size or negative sent to them, let me know.

[Corran]

(This is also in response to your post in the LF Landscape thread)

Definitely hard to make too many statements about your exposure/development from an extremely long exposure and all the variables that come along with that. Sounds like you are definitely noticing the problems with overexposure, especially in scanning. Keep at it.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, I am. While not traditional, it does help me to understand things better and how the traditional testing will help me to achieve good negatives for scanning and for printing.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The one I was working on will not scan. Now I have an idea of how dense a negative will not scan correctly. I missed this one by at lest 3 stops. Interestingly enough, there are still areas that are very dark, while the the rest just sucks. Not to mention the image is super grainy. What I did notice is that all of these "over-exposed" images developed with Tmax developer at normal time and temp are over cooked. The ones developed with Pyrocat seemed more normal, like the one above. I will be making a series of test shots this week to determine how I should be exposing properly. I wonder if these dense negatives would print very well traditionally? Or if they are just crap.

[Peter De Smidt]

Reciprocity does add complications. The scan seems ok, though, with enough shadow detail and low contrast. That's preferable because it's easier to add contrast while keeping everything looking good than lowering it. I'm not sure why your using Colorperfect. Why not just invert with a curve? Look at each color channel, i.e. press ctrl 2, then 3, then 4 at 100%. Which looks best? Use channel mixer, click make monochrome, put the best channel at 100% and the others at zero. At that point you can convert to your BW working space, which will save a lot of space, unless you need an RGB file for some of your filters/actions.

[Corran]

The one I was working on will not scan. Now I have an idea of how dense a negative will not scan correctly. I missed this one by at lest 3 stops. Interestingly enough, there are still areas that are very dark, while the the rest just sucks. Not to mention the image is super grainy. What I did notice is that all of these "over-exposed" images developed with Tmax developer at normal time and temp are over cooked. The ones developed with Pyrocat seemed more normal, like the one above. I will be making a series of test shots this week to determine how I should be exposing properly. I wonder if these dense negatives would print very well traditionally? Or if they are just crap.

Yep, not surprised whatsoever that your T-Max developer negatives are overcooked. When I did an actual Zone System test, T-Max developer needed something like 50% less development time than indicated for me. YMMV.

Graininess is indicative of overexposure and overdevelopment.

Later tonight I'll be posting some T-Max 100 exposed normally in "perfect" conditions (contrast range is perfect I mean) developed at 75F in Pyrocat 1:1:100 for 9 minutes, as I mentioned earlier.

[Peter De Smidt]

Brian's right on regarding graininess.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I use Colorperfect because it is what I learned and when I do color negatives I get decent results. Other methods I totally pooch. It seems to work well enough for me, but I assume there is always a better way. Sometimes I use NIK silverefx pro which requires an rgb file.

I will try as you suggest tomorrow with curves and compare results. Wish I could spend a month just practicing and learning.

[Andrew Tymon]

Apparently Tmax developer (not Tmax Rs) is only meant for roll film not sheet film according to the data sheet https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j86.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi2nqDL55PkAhUCvlkKHT8iAZUQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2jQLhz4vCR7PjLLG7VwYRW


You can get Dichroic fog if it's used with sheet film.

[Peter De Smidt]

Andrew is right. TMax RS is what was recommended for sheet film. I forget why. And why is important detail about the shot put in another thread? Just to make commenting usefully as hard as possible?

[Pere Casals]

Apparently Tmax developer (not Tmax Rs) is only meant for roll film not sheet film according to the data sheet https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j86.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi2nqDL55PkAhUCvlkKHT8iAZUQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2jQLhz4vCR7PjLLG7VwYRW
You can get Dichroic fog if it's used with sheet film.


The non RS version can also be used, many people used the non RS version for sheets without problems, it looks that DFog may happen if some kind of tap water is used to mix the working solution. Anyway if having problems (with the non RS) then one may mix it with distilled/deionized water, with some (low residue) mineral water, or also one may use a reverse osmosis filter for tap water.


At the time Kodak UK detected that problem only with a few customers, but of course if there is a chance to ruin LF sheets they have to mention it.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is the info. I was just making a comment about an observation. My bad.

"Thanks Bryan. I'm finding out too, that negatives that are really dense, even though they look good on the light table, really suck for scanning. I'm working on one now developed with Tmax dev at normal times, but I cooked the negative by about 3 stops over exposed. I mention because the lightening one was super thin in the foreground but I still got detail with little work. The current one is just the opposite."

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Getting ready to do the test shots.

I plan to make 4 exposures on a single sheet of film for the dark and the light that would represent iso 50 to 100 in 1/3 stops, ie, 50, 64, 80 and 100. I will make several sheets of dark and light so I can see how each of my developers work at standard dilution and temp and then what happens when I say dilute the Tmax dev by 50% as suggested earlier. This would be for Tmax Dev, HC-110, Pyrocat. I will also test using each of these in a semi-stand method as well as 2-bath pyro, etc.

I would rather spend 100 bucks doing this than 100 bucks on so so images with a higher than average failure rate.

This would give me 25 sheets of Tmax100 with 4 exposures for dark and 25 sheets for the lights shot the same way.

If I am going to test, might as well test and learn what the products I have will be able to do. Hopefully, I can get this done by Sunday.

[Peter De Smidt]

How are you going to do that, namely 1/3 stop increments on a sheet of film?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I was thinking of doing by varying time using the timing setting on the lens and a stop watch however, if the required time is too short then it would not work (perhaps at f/32 the times would be reasonable enough to do it). By moving the dark slide out in increments or pulling it out and then pushing it in in increments.

I am just trying to figure out a way to get the most bang for my buck. If it can't be done, then I can't do near the testing I would want since the cost would be prohibitive at about 4 times what it would be if I can do strips. If 1/3 stops are not needed, and say 1/2 stops that would make it somewhat easier. But I am not the expert. So, any help to do it in strips would be welcome. If it can't be done, then it can't be done and I will have to do otherwise.

An option would be to use my 35mm and Tmax100, but that is problematic because rolls only come in 24 and 36.

Just looking to optimize money and resources.

[Corran]

You don't want to run into reciprocity with exposure times for your tests. Do you have a self-cocking shutter?

Another option would be a 120 roll back. That film size will be more akin to the LF film.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I don't have a roll back, although I might be able to get one, but would delay testing a bit. My shutters are not self cocking, I have to do them manually. Yes, times would need to avoid any reciprocity so would need to be sure that does not happen.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have been looking for a while for a roll back, something that does 6x12 and smaller. Most of what I find is from Hong Kong or Japan. Horseman, Day and Shen Hao. Which of those are good? Anyone have one they want to offload? (if not allowed to ask that question here, question can be deleted)

[Corran]

Get the Horseman. I have a Graflex 6x7 back you might could borrow for your test purposes. Never used it, came with a camera.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yeah, I like the Horseman, held one before. Sure, I will let you know if I decide to wait and buy one. Thanks for the offer!

[Peter De Smidt]

Time out! Does someone have a ref whistle? Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect In short, beginners are likely to think they are much better at something than they really are, and experienced people are likely to underrate their own skill.

A few principles:
BT: A bad test is worse than no test.
S: The simpler the test, other things being equal, is a better test, as there's less chance of going astray.
RT: The closer the test is to actual use conditions, the better, other things being equal.
T: Some tools are better for some tasks than others.

First, if you don't know how your going to develop film, materials, techniques...for you're standard work, then you're not ready to test. If you change technique, the results of the test might not be applicable. This applies more to development time than film speed, but it can matter for film speed, too. Switching from Microdol-X to Xtol will change film speed, for example, as will making a major change in agitation.....

Second, you want to use the best tools for your test. You want the density to be even over the testing area. So don't use a lens with fall off. You want shutter speeds to be as consistent as possible, and so use your most accurate shutter. Something like a 210mm in a modern shutter in good condition is ideal. It's easier to change aperture settings consistently in 1/3 stop increments than it is to mix shutter speed and aperture changes. A stopwatch is a horrible idea. I try to exercise my shutter before taking an important exposure, and so I fire it a few times before I load the film holder into the camera.

Set up as stated earlier. Position your flat black card in open shade. Poster board is easy to use, something like a 2x3foot sheet works well. Whatever you use, keep that as it's what you'll always use in the future for consistency. Make sure to use your meter to make sure the card is evenly lit, and don't do the test when the light is changing! Put your 210mm f/5.6 lens on your camera and focus on infinity. Now aim the camera at the card, with the card taking up about 1/4 to 1/3 of the ground glass. Don't change focus! Meter. Set your lens at a speed from about 1/4th second to 1/30th, likely the most consistent speeds. Now set your meter to 1/2 box speed, read the card, and find your aperture to place that reading on Zone I. Anywhere from f/8-f/16 is ideal. Lets say you get f/ll. Take a picture. Close down 1/3 stop. Take picture. Close down 1/3 stop. Take picture. Close down 1/3 stop. Take picture. With TMX, that would give exposure at 50, 64, 80, 100, which is probably right, assuming you're using a D76 type of developer, or one that give a similar effective speed. Don't use roll film. Is your roll film processing exactly the same as your sheet processing? It isn't. So don't use it. Now do the Zone VIII test as described earlier, closing the aperture down by 1/3 stops in exactly the same way.

You want to use less sheets? Sure, you can use 1/2 stop, but it's not as good, as the results won't translate directly to EI settings. But you can. Hell, you can shoot one sheet at EI 50 and estimate film speed on that basis.

Do the full test once. For one film/developer combo. The one you're most likely to use. It is a bargain compared to wasting trips.
From this basis, you can compare other tests to the densities of the first one on a light table, unless you switch from a non-staining developer to a staining one, the film base is different (xray film?), or there's a lot of fog.

The biggest waste of time is to do the test incorrectly, especially with multiple films! It's like someone who gets their first scanner who immediately scans 1000 slides only to find out later that other settings would have been better.

Stop changing the test. You don't know enough yet.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Okay

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I will use Tmax Dev. Since this is testing, should I use standard dilution, temp and time or 50% of dilution (that was one suggestion) at normal temp and time? Seems to me since I am testing, I should pick a dilution and time and stick with that. So what would be the recommendation?

[Corran]

Just to be clear, there should be data for T-Max 100 developed in T-Max Developer (RS) at both the 1:4 and 1:9 dilution.

In my testing, the film needed much less developing time to get my "normal" development times for my development routine (I decided on the 1:9 dilution before testing, since it was more economical). You should pick one dilution or the other and run your tests based on what the recommended development times are for that dilution.

For simplicity's sake, just do what Peter says basically.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've never used Tmax developer. Bryan's suggestion makes sense. You do have a good thermometer, right?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, I have two actual dial thermometers for photography.

[Peter De Smidt]

Those are unlikely to be accurate.

[Corran]

A Kodak Process Thermometer would be money well spent. I use a Type 2 for b&w chemicals and Type 3 for color.

Or they have cheap digital thermometers at Wal-Mart that seem to be fine, back when I used them.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

What I have at the moment. I can have them calibrated in our lab at work and see how far off they are. Otherwise I will need to wait to test till I can get different ones.