PDA

View Full Version : Help me identify mistakes of first processing



Bob Kerner
27-Feb-2011, 10:07
The attached thumbnails are the results of my first LF processing session yesterday. Obviously I screwed something up. I've processed B&W film before (35mm) and--I must be lucky--haven't produced such crap.

My workflow was:
1) Kodak TriX 320 shot at 320
2)Negs loaded into CombiPlan tank in Harrison tent. Lid applied in the tent. Caps were on the lid. 4 sheets in the tank. 2 sheets stuck together but appear the same, suggesting they developed equally.
3) Ilford DD-X developer for 7min 20 secs at 20 degrees, based on data from the Massive Dev Chart. Total volume in the tank = 1050 ml. 1+4 dilution as per Massive Dev chart and the Ilford data sheet.
4) Inversion agitation. The negs were in the soup longer than 7:20 because I underestimated the time it would take to empty the tank.
5) Stop bath with Ilford product as per its instructions. Fixed with Ilford product, wash with water for 8 minutes.
6) I was consistent. I did not shorten any of the other steps once I realized it was taking longer than expected to drain the tank.
7) The edges of the film are clear. I can read the Kodak product identification.

The negs are almost 100% transparent! I haven't done anything to the scans other than re-size for the web. They both appear horribly "underexposed," yet I'm pretty certain I set the exposure correctly when making the pictures. The first is my son sitting on a couch, the second is his sister annoying him on the couch. The couch is the giant dark blob (actually green) in the background.

Confounding variables:
1) First time using this camera. At first I was concerned about light leak etc but now that I see the scans I don't think that's an issue.
2) I "guessed at" the development time for this combo of film and developer since the data sheets for the developer don't address TriX at 320, only 200 or 400...so I split the difference.
3) I did not pre-soak. The data sheets for the film and developer did not call for it.
4) All the chemicals were fresh from the original bottles.

I'd appreciate any trouble- shooting help people can share. My first reaction was that it the film was over or underdeveloped. Now I'm wondering if I fouled up the initial exposure (I used a light meter and everything...honest:( )

Thank you in advance for sharing your wisdom

Daniel Stone
27-Feb-2011, 10:24
underexposed, and underdeveloped(yes, both).

being "transparent" means that not enough light reached the film to expose it. The hightlights in these photographs(the white bands on the boys shirt), see how they're still kinda "muddy"? That means that NOT ENOUGH development(time) was given.

Since it looks like your pictures were inside, how were you metering your shots? I've never used TXP, but IIRC, 1s-->2s, 2s-->5s,etc... At least for reciprocity.

one last thing that comes to mind:

were you using a digital camera to meter your shots? Make sure it wasn't on AUTO ISO, cause what you thought was ISO 320, might have been 3200! just an idea to explain the severe underexposure.

-Dan

Ari
27-Feb-2011, 10:33
I agree with Daniel, underexposed rather than underdeveloped.
Your first shot suggests that your metering was not that far off, the second is about 2.5-3 stops underexposed, and had you got the development bang on, you'd be dealing with a lot of contrast.
Check your meter, shoot a Polaroid if possible, and do a test of several sheets at different exposures, from +3 to -3 stops from the indicated metered value.

Peter Mounier
27-Feb-2011, 10:38
I agree with the others. The lack of any shadow detail indicates underexposure. If you're sure about the exposure, and if this is the first time you've loaded and processed (or had processed) film, then you may have put the film in the holders with the emulsion facing the film holder rather than the dark slide.
It's not necessarily the development in this case because if there were any shadow detail at all in the exposure/film, it would show up in the first minute of development, and the exposed silver in the shadows would be fully developed in 3 (+-) minutes.
If the film was in backwards then the film development time may have been ok.
If you're loading the film with your right hand, the emulsion side would be up if the notch code is at the top and on the right side of the film.

Peter

Bob Kerner
27-Feb-2011, 10:58
underexposed, and underdeveloped(yes, both).

being "transparent" means that not enough light reached the film to expose it. The hightlights in these photographs(the white bands on the boys shirt), see how they're still kinda "muddy"? That means that NOT ENOUGH development(time) was given.

Since it looks like your pictures were inside, how were you metering your shots? I've never used TXP, but IIRC, 1s-->2s, 2s-->5s,etc... At least for reciprocity.

one last thing that comes to mind:

were you using a digital camera to meter your shots? Make sure it wasn't on AUTO ISO, cause what you thought was ISO 320, might have been 3200! just an idea to explain the severe underexposure.

-Dan

I was under one second. 1/60th is the lowest I try with kids. That I'm certain about. One thing that I can't recall...and now it's seeming to be the culprit-- is bellows factor. I was using a 210mm and was about 5 feet away from the couch. So right there, I'm underexposed and didn't identify that until I asked the question here.

I was using a Sekonic digital meter, which I've used before with B&W without making a mess like this.

You also mention that it is also underdeveloped. Is this a matter of trial and error to find the right amount of time when using a developer and chemicals that are not matched to one another? I chose 7:20 because someone suggested I split the difference between the 200 and 400 ISO specs. What could I have done differently?

Thanks for taking the time to respond

Bob Kerner
27-Feb-2011, 11:02
I agree with the others. The lack of any shadow detail indicates underexposure. If you're sure about the exposure, and if this is the first time you've loaded and processed (or had processed) film, then you may have put the film in the holders with the emulsion facing the film holder rather than the dark slide.
It's not necessarily the development in this case because if there were any shadow detail at all in the exposure/film, it would show up in the first minute of development, and the exposed silver in the shadows would be fully developed in 3 (+-) minutes.
If the film was in backwards then the film development time may have been ok.
If you're loading the film with your right hand, the emulsion side would be up if the notch code is at the top and on the right side of the film.

Peter

Thanks Peter. Although this is my first time developing LF film, I've been shooting for a few months now and producing acceptable stuff. I had the film in the holders properly. It looks like I overlooked a fundamental set-up step (bellows compensation). Thanks for taking the time to help.

tgtaylor
27-Feb-2011, 12:30
When developing a film for the first time, I think it's best to eliminate as many variables as possible from the equation. For me that means using one of the developers recommended by the manufacture and at the temperature, concentration, and even the recommended agitation. That way if anything is off you can be sure that it is a result of a error on your part and not the film or developer. You can tweak the development or even change developers later.

You can download the tech manual for Tri-X 320 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Note the distinctions made between small tanks, large tanks, and trays.

Good luck!

Thomas

Bob Kerner
27-Feb-2011, 13:18
When developing a film for the first time, I think it's best to eliminate as many variables as possible from the equation. For me that means using one of the developers recommended by the manufacture and at the temperature, concentration, and even the recommended agitation. That way if anything is off you can be sure that it is a result of a error on your part and not the film or developer. You can tweak the development or even change developers later.

You can download the tech manual for Tri-X 320 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Note the distinctions made between small tanks, large tanks, and trays.

Good luck!

Thomas


Thanks Thomas. I read that pdf from Kodak. And in principle I agree that keeping it simple would have been to get the chemicals mentioned in the Kodak tech specs. But....

I'm trying to be frugal and not end up with a shelf full of chemicals for each type of film I shoot. I have the Ilford chems because when I started to teach myself processing I was shooting 35mm HP5. I ran through all my 4x5 HP5 and have TriX in my film holders for the time being. I know the chemicals are relatively inexpensive but storing them in a small home (apartment) becomes something of a pain. So I was trying to stick with one brand.

Now I'm thinking that my biggest problems happened before I put the film in the developing tank b/c I wasn't paying attention to bellows draw. Will try again next weekend.

Pawlowski6132
27-Feb-2011, 13:24
Shold we be looking at negative details and not prints??

Bob Kerner
27-Feb-2011, 13:32
These are scanned negatives.

ki6mf
1-Mar-2011, 04:52
You may have poured in Fixer first! This gives clear negatives every time! A good tutorial for film speed test, ISO test can be found on line at Jerry Orabona's web site. He has step by step methods to get your work flow down properly.

http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

ki6mf
1-Mar-2011, 05:03
Also while figuring all your work flow out shoot a back up negative if the first is bad try and reason why it did not turn out and then proceed with the back up. Do not EVER change film chemistry etc in the middle of your testing. If you decide to change anything pick one element then retest using your entire procedure once you finish the prior procedures! Why? the tests your do on one set of film chemistry will not translate to another set. i.e. Tri X with the above chemistry will not give the same density as Ilford HP5 with the same chemistry.

Rick A
1-Mar-2011, 05:39
The first thing I do when shooting B&W film under artificial (tungsten)light , is rate the film at half speed. Then add in my bellows factor and reciprocity (if speed is very low)factor. I also bracket by shooting first exposure at figured time/f stop, then second exposure giving a half stop more time. Slight overexposure is far easier to print than under exposure.
As for the post that suggests you used fix first, there would be NO image on the negative at all if that were the case.

Pawlowski6132
1-Mar-2011, 07:07
These are scanned negatives.

But you inverted them so we're looking at the positive image.

I think you'be be best served either re-scanning w/o inverting or taking a picture of the negatives.

For all we know, all your problems could be due to scaning issues.

Brian Ellis
1-Mar-2011, 11:16
I was under one second. 1/60th is the lowest I try with kids. That I'm certain about. One thing that I can't recall...and now it's seeming to be the culprit-- is bellows factor. I was using a 210mm and was about 5 feet away from the couch. So right there, I'm underexposed and didn't identify that until I asked the question here.

I was using a Sekonic digital meter, which I've used before with B&W without making a mess like this.

You also mention that it is also underdeveloped. Is this a matter of trial and error to find the right amount of time when using a developer and chemicals that are not matched to one another? I chose 7:20 because someone suggested I split the difference between the 200 and 400 ISO specs. What could I have done differently?

Thanks for taking the time to respond

I don't think that bellows compensation by itself, given the lens and subject distance you mention, would create the severe underexposure problem you've apparently encountered.

You said you used a 210mm lens and were 5 feet from the subject. There's a rule of thumb, which I've found to work well, to the effect that you don't need to factor bellows compensation into the exposure unless the subject on which you're focusing is closer than 8 times the focal length of the lens (some people say 10 times). Using 8 times, 8x210 = 1680mm = 67 inches = 5 1/2 feet or almost exactly the subject distance at which you were working, which would indicate no need for any bellows compensation.

Even if you used the more conservative 10 factor, you still were only a couple feet closer than the distance at which no bellows compensation is needed. That might indicate the need for a half stop or so of additional exposure, which with b&w film is a negligible amount.

So while bellows extension might have caused some slight underexposure I don't think that by itself it would have created the degree of underexposure that you apparently have.

Bob McCarthy
1-Mar-2011, 11:30
I suspect it was a metering problem, either the meter is not working properly or the user didnt know how to use it.

Developing is likely not the issue, even if the time is off it would have created a more substantial negative.

Metering inside is much more critical than outside, (many accomplished photographers dont even need a meter).

Inside, aim it so a light source (window, lamp)is in the field of view of the meter and bang big time underexposure.

like this,


What meter were you using?


bob

corgan4321
1-Mar-2011, 18:07
I suspect it was a metering problem, either the meter is not working properly or the user didnt know how to use it.

Metering inside is much more critical than outside, (many accomplished photographers dont even need a meter). b

Right on. No way, under the given conditions, was bellows extension the problem. If possible, double check you meter readings with both incident and reflected readings. I find incident readings in front of a subject to be most accurate, especially for indoor work.

Sirius Glass
1-Mar-2011, 20:06
Rather than worry about tungsten and artificial light. Go outside, use the manufacturer's film speed and Sunny 16. That will take lightmeters and the way the reading was take out of the equation. You will then be able to see if there is a shutter problem [probably not because shutters tend to slow down rather than speed up when they need to be CLAed] or if there is a problem with the developer and development time.

Once you have the development process understood, you can then go back to artificial light. OR you can get yourself into the endless and mindless film speed testing and spend the rest of your life doing only that because you will never have time to take a REAL photograph! [That alone would help the film manufacturer's stay in business making LF film!] ;)

Steve

Brian Ellis
2-Mar-2011, 07:11
Rather than worry about tungsten and artificial light. Go outside, use the manufacturer's film speed and Sunny 16. That will take lightmeters and the way the reading was take out of the equation. You will then be able to see if there is a shutter problem [probably not because shutters tend to slow down rather than speed up when they need to be CLAed] or if there is a problem with the developer and development time.

Once you have the development process understood, you can then go back to artificial light. OR you can get yourself into the endless and mindless film speed testing and spend the rest of your life doing only that because you will never have time to take a REAL photograph! [That alone would help the film manufacturer's stay in business making LF film!] ;)

Steve

Second paragraph is total nonsense. Film speed testing takes a half hour to an hour at the most and is done once for a particular film. After it's done once it's done for that film and developer unless you make some change in your procedures. IMHO it's a real disservice to totally misrepresent what's involved with film testing and then on the basis of that misrepresentation discourage a relative newcomer from determining what his film speed really is.

Sirius Glass
2-Mar-2011, 18:01
Film testing should take a half hour, but I am amazed that I have come across many people recently who have made it a lifetime career. Jeez, the object of photography is to take photographs, not test every film-developed combination while varying the film speed, developing time, for every combination imaginable or not. ;)

Steve