Reciprocity issues

[Scott Kathe]

I think I understand the cause of the issue I am having. I was shooting in a forest under overcast conditions and I placed my zone III in the shadows where I wanted to see some detail (right under the central root towards the top of the rock). My exposure worked out to be 30 seconds with FP4+ that I rate at 80, due to reciprocity failure my adjusted exposure was 156 seconds so I did a 2 1/2 minute exposure. Zone III turned out about perfect but the lighter components within the image seem to be way overexposed. From what I understand that is because the brighter areas are less affected by reciprocity failure than the darker areas. I didn't realize how severe this problem was till I took a look at the negative. In the future I can try and cut my development time down but Steve Simmons thinks that FP4+ expands well but doesn't contract well. I'm developing with D76 1:1 in a Jobo 3010 on a Beseler motor base with a 5 minute presoak so my developing time is only 5 minutes. My question is, should I move to HP5+ for a couple stops more speed since that will give me more breathing room before I have to deal with this degree of reciprocity failure? I'd love to try Acros but it seems to be REALLY expensive since it only comes in quickloads.

The images are shown below:
The first is an unmanipulated scan from my 4990 with Silverfast Ai
The second was 2 stops less exposure at the scanning step with Silverfast Ai
The third image was made from the second scan with a simple level and more complicated curves adjustment in CS3

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Scott Kathe

[vinny]

I've had the same issue with fp4 and it's the only problem i have with that film. I'd rate it at 125 next time for a long exposure such as this. Nice shot by the way.

[Vaughn]

I think you will find that FP4+ will "contract" fine to account for the increase exposure to deal with RF.

But the proof will be in the printing rather than in the scan. What will be your media for making a print? Also your print size comes into play -- losing a little detail in very small shadow areas is relatively unimportant in regards to the whole image -- but greatly enlarged, those shadow areas become larger, thus more important.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If the rumor that the film freestyle used to sell as ultrafine was Ilford fp4 is true, then I can tell you that fp4 contracts very well and is capable of good development times even when reciprocity compensation is used, it is all I used for my 12x20.

SInce I use the BTZS I am unable to give you better times, but I would recommend to you that you skip the pre soak, it increases contrast. That you dilute your developer 1+2 and that you increase the rating to 125 as was posted above. You should be able to get a good neg with fp4.

[Bruce Watson]

Zone III turned out about perfect but the lighter components within the image seem to be way overexposed. From what I understand that is because the brighter areas are less affected by reciprocity failure than the darker areas.

It often happens that the lighter parts of the scene keep that part of the film above the reciprocity failure limit completely. So some of the film is in reciprocity failure mode, and some is not. This of course drives your exposures crazy. Yet, you still have to expose for the shadows.

The develop for the highlights part is more interesting here. You could try decreasing agitation to semi-stand or even stand development -- let the developer exhaust in the highlights which will keep them from "over developing" as it were. Another approach is to try a two-bath developer like divided D76 -- accomplishes the same thing more or less (developer exhaustion in the highlights).

But for my work I decided to go with a more modern film with much better reciprocity characteristics. Something along the lines of Tmax, Acros, or Delta. BTW, Badger Graphic Sales (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=178) has Acros in quickloads and in loose sheets.

[Scott Kathe]

I think you will find that FP4+ will "contract" fine to account for the increase exposure to deal with RF.

But the proof will be in the printing rather than in the scan. What will be your media for making a print? Also your print size comes into play -- losing a little detail in very small shadow areas is relatively unimportant in regards to the whole image -- but greatly enlarged, those shadow areas become larger, thus more important.

Vaughn

For now I'm doing inkjet prints on a cheap Epson R220 running with MIS Eboni black and I print in black only mode so my maximum print size now is 8x10. I think I may end up with an R2400 or a B9180 (or HPs less expensive but similar printer) this summer. My maximum print size would be 11x14 and maybe a 16x20 if I had someone like WCI do a better scan.

Scott

[Scott Kathe]

If the rumor that the film freestyle used to sell as ultrafine was Ilford fp4 is true, then I can tell you that fp4 contracts very well and is capable of good development times even when reciprocity compensation is used, it is all I used for my 12x20.

SInce I use the BTZS I am unable to give you better times, but I would recommend to you that you skip the pre soak, it increases contrast. That you dilute your developer 1+2 and that you increase the rating to 125 as was posted above. You should be able to get a good neg with fp4.

I've definitely thought about skipping the presoak but the darn presoak comes out almost black and the thought of that in with my developer bothers me. I used to develop in trays without a presoak and never saw the 'black'-I wonder if the high pH of the developer stops the color from showing up. People seem to get close to the Ilford published times without the presoak. In general I am very happy with most of my FP4+ negatives.

Scott

[Scott Kathe]

But for my work I decided to go with a more modern film with much better reciprocity characteristics. Something along the lines of Tmax, Acros, or Delta. BTW, Badger Graphic Sales (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=178) has Acros in quickloads and in loose sheets.

I've been under the impression that Tmax and Delta are pretty finicky with respect to processing so I'm trying to steer clear of them. I'd love to try Acros but Badger lists the loose sheets as out of stock. I have a friend in Japan and work with another Japanese person and I may see if they can get the film for me but I'm really concerned about the film being opened or x-rayed when it leaves Japan and/or arrives here in the states.

Scott

[mcfactor]

I have found delta to be very easy to process. I have a hard time messing up development with delta.

If you are scanning, and you are able to "expose 2 stops less" with Silverfast, why bother worry about exact exposure? It seems like the results would be about the same as N-2 development when your output is an inkjet.

Just out of curiosity, how does pre-soaking increase contrast?

[Brian Ellis]

Increasing exposure time past 8 seconds due to reciprocity failure calls for a decrease in development time for conventional films such as FP4 unless you want the increase in contrast that results from the increased exposure. According to the table I use that was provided by John Sexton in one of his workshops, a metered time of 30 seconds and an exposure time of 136 seconds with conventional films (i.e. non-TMax type) will give you the equivalent of approximately N+2 development if you develop for your normal time. In effect you've bumped your highlights up by roughly two stops, which is why you got the overly bright highlights that you got.

So instead of developing at your normal time and getting the effect of N+2 development in that situation, develop for approximately your N-2 time or thereabouts. Obviously a little personal testing would help if you frequently encounter situations where reciprocity failure affects your exposure but this should give you a pretty good starting point. This only applies to non-TMax type films because as Bruce noted, those films are less affected by reciprocity failure than conventional films.

[Bruce Watson]

I've been under the impression that Tmax and Delta are pretty finicky with respect to processing so I'm trying to steer clear of them.

The new TMY-2 seems to have an improved reputation for less finicky processing. I'm gearing up for it, using a 3010 tank like you. I'm going to be using XTOL 1:3, at least initially. I'll get to do some EI and normal development testing this upcoming weekend (I hope).

There have been a few recent threads here about TMY-2 and processing it. In particular Sandy King is having good success with it and his PyroCAT-HD.


I'd love to try Acros but Badger lists the loose sheets as out of stock. I have a friend in Japan and work with another Japanese person and I may see if they can get the film for me but I'm really concerned about the film being opened or x-rayed when it leaves Japan and/or arrives here in the states.

Didn't know that Badger was out of stock. Did you call Jeff Taugner at Badger? Besides being a good and efficient LF guy, he can at least tell you when they expect more. He can also probably tell you how it ships from Japan (which shipping company).

Another place to look for Acros in loose sheets is Megaperls (http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?cPath=25) in Japan. I've never tried it, but I've read that they'll ship to the USA. Hopefully they can ship it without it being harmed in transit.

[david mcmahon]

[QUOTE]So instead of developing at your normal time and getting the effect of N+2 development in that situation, develop for approximately your N-2 time or thereabouts. Obviously a little personal testing would help if you frequently encounter situations where reciprocity failure affects your exposure but this should give you a pretty good starting point. This only applies to non-TMax type films because as Bruce noted, those films are less affected by reciprocity failure than conventional films.[QUOTE]

I think you would also want to rate your film at a lower ISO to account for the N-2 development time.

david mcmahon

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE]So instead of developing at your normal time and getting the effect of N+2 development in that situation, develop for approximately your N-2 time or thereabouts. Obviously a little personal testing would help if you frequently encounter situations where reciprocity failure affects your exposure but this should give you a pretty good starting point. This only applies to non-TMax type films because as Bruce noted, those films are less affected by reciprocity failure than conventional films.[QUOTE]

I think you would also want to rate your film at a lower ISO to account for the N-2 development time.

david mcmahon

Perhaps but I don't do that, my film speed is my film speed, determined after appropriate film speed testing. I don't change it for plus and minus development.

[Kevin Crisp]

I've been under the impression that Tmax and Delta are pretty finicky with respect to processing so I'm trying to steer clear of them.
Scott

TMAX is arguably not a good choice for a really sloppy darkroom worker. You don't sound like one of those. If you measure your temperatures, agitate consistantly, and time your development instead of guessing at it, it is as reliable as anything else, with the added convenience of doing contractions and pushes without long changes to the development times.

[Ken Lee]

TMY and TMY2 are reputed to have very long straight density/development curves. TMX and FP4 also.

I may be mistaken, but isn't a film which displays a long straight curve, the opposite of finicky ?

[Scott Kathe]

TMY and TMY2 are reputed to have very long straight density/development curves. TMX and FP4 also.

I may be mistaken, but isn't a film which displays a long straight curve, the opposite of finicky ?

I think the issue was if the temperatures were different and the agitation and timing was not consistent the results were inconsistent.

All I know is that when I tried Delta 100 with 135 years ago when I was starting out with photography the negatives were terrible. My FP4+ 135, 120 and 4x5 negatives look really good but I had a lot more experience by that time.

Scott

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I may be mistaken, but isn't a film which displays a long straight curve, the opposite of finicky ?

The problem comes when you change the slope of the curve. Minimum changes in development can change the slope of the TMY curve, this is why people call it finicky.

[Diane Maher]

I've been under the impression that Tmax and Delta are pretty finicky with respect to processing so I'm trying to steer clear of them. I'd love to try Acros but Badger lists the loose sheets as out of stock. I have a friend in Japan and work with another Japanese person and I may see if they can get the film for me but I'm really concerned about the film being opened or x-rayed when it leaves Japan and/or arrives here in the states.

Scott

Midwest Photo may have Acros in sheet sizes in stock. I bought some 8x10 from them last year. I have also bought 8x10 Acros from Japan via the Megaperls site with no problems. The film was fine when it arrived to me.

[Scott Kathe]

If you are scanning, and you are able to "expose 2 stops less" with Silverfast, why bother worry about exact exposure? It seems like the results would be about the same as N-2 development when your output is an inkjet.

I don't want to rely on the scanner to fix my mistakes, it seems kind of sloppy to me. I don't mind doing that to recover an image but I'd like know my film well enough to be able to produce the best negative I can under different conditions. I am really torn between the traditional wet darkroom and the computer darkroom. I like to keep things simple but no matter which 'darkroom' I end up using in the long run a properly exposed and developed negative is key.

Scott