PDA

View Full Version : Unexpected Development Results



Pawlowski6132
16-Feb-2010, 20:00
So, in trying to get to some more expected and consistent results, I decided a different kind of test (I tried Fred Picker's too but, I wasn't happy with the results.)

I just wanted to shoot a Zone V test; Just shooting a grey card at my PEI and developing for my Personal Development time and see what I would get. My biggest concern was that my development time was "wrong."

So, I shot the same scene and then developed N, N+1 and N+2.

I expecxted to see the shadows remain relatively constant and then the highlight densities increase.

Here are the facts:

TMY2
PEI 200
F11, 1/5
EV 8

D-76 1:1
68 degrees
Rotary Processing
N 8'
N+1 9'
N+2 10' 30"

Dektol 1min

The images are contact prints scanned on an Epson V500

N (http://galleries.detroitdigitalimaging.com/galleries/test/content/Test001_large.html)

N+1 (http://galleries.detroitdigitalimaging.com/galleries/test/content/Test003_large.html)

N+2 (http://galleries.detroitdigitalimaging.com/galleries/test/content/Test002_large.html)

Peter Mounier
17-Feb-2010, 08:35
Something's not right. Your number two shot looks like it's N dev., #3 looks like N+1, and #1 looks like N+2. Could you have mixed the film up before posting?

Peter

ic-racer
17-Feb-2010, 09:16
Are you sure your contact exposure was the same on all 3?

Could you leave step out and just show us the negatives?

Pawlowski6132
17-Feb-2010, 10:22
Something's not right. Your number two shot looks like it's N dev., #3 looks like N+1, and #1 looks like N+2. Could you have mixed the film up before posting?

Peter


Aughhhh.

IGNORE THIS POST PLEASE.


I'll have to do this again. I'm trying to be so meticulous on my record keepingbut... I have four or five neg/proofs of the same subject...all I have to do is drop 'em once out of order and...everything is for naught up to that point.

Thanx to those who took the time to look.

Paul Kierstead
17-Feb-2010, 10:49
If I may suggest, perhaps a little card in the shot.

Ken Lee
17-Feb-2010, 12:17
Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.html) are a few suggestions.

Robert Hughes
17-Feb-2010, 12:34
If I may suggest, perhaps a little card in the shot.
Huh? He's already got that gray card in there - How many more does he need? :confused:

(alright, I was being a weisenheimer here - the "little card" should be an informational one with film & exposure data, as shown in Ken Lee's comment below.)

Ken Lee
17-Feb-2010, 12:44
By card, he means something in the image itself, which will clearly identify the film speed, or other testing parameters.

This eliminates the risk of unexpected development results, from what he described as "drop 'em once out of order and...everything is for naught up to that point".

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/testing2.jpg

Grey cards are nice, but it's good to have a human face and other recognizable tones in the image too. Having objects whose tones are in a broad range of zones, lets you gauge development times qualitatively: White paint should not be blocked, shadows should have texture, etc.

Having no model, you can provide the skin tones and trip the shutter yourself, with a long bulb-release.

Brian Ellis
17-Feb-2010, 13:48
You don't have shadows and highlights in a gray card so I don't follow this part of your post. You also don't test development times on the basis of Zone V because all you can control by exposure and development are the highlights (development) and the shadows (exposure). There's no such thing as a "personal development time for Zone V" (or if you have one it's useless). Everything in between the shadow on which you base your exposure and the highlight on which you base your development time just go along for the ride (i.e. you have no control over them). So you're pretty much wasting your time photographing gray cards and developing the negatives if you're trying to establish your N, N-1 and N+1 development times.

I suggest your read the chapters in Picker's book dealing with exposure and development testing again, then try his testing methods again.