Hp5+, DD-X, N-2

[evanbaines]

Hey gang!

Still trying to get the hang of this zone system thing now that I'm shooting large format. I was out doing some night shooting tonight, and have a composition that I'm pretty jazzed about. Unfortunately, I was down to my last two sheets of film, so while I could go out and repeat the shot another night, I'd love to get this right on one of these two negatives.

My zone 3 is about EV 1.5 and my zone 7 is somewhere between 7-8 (I would like to stretch for the 8, but if I can only get 7 I'm ok with that). This is giving me an N-2.

I exposed on HP5+ @ f/22, with the first frame around 30 seconds and the second around 60, using the Howard Bond reciprocity failure table and rating my HP5+ at 320.

What would be a good starting place for an N-2 for HP5+ in DD-X @20deg in BTZS tubes (or other rotary agitation)? I'm considering going to a more dilute than stock mix to keep the time long enough to ensure even development..... I'm worried that the stock DD-X solution would give a ridiculously short development time for N-2. Does 6:30ish in a 1:9 solution seem crazy to anyone? I know I also need to figure out what my dilution limit is with the tubes... can I even do 1:9?

Alternately, I'm one of those crazy fools who LIKES HP5+ in Rodinol, and could use that for lower contrast development, but in my experience I would be sacrificing some true film speed (and thus shadow detail) switching to Rodinol from DD-X. (These are the two developers I use for different looks, although I'm more experienced using them for medium format).

What are your thoughts??

[Ken Lee]

Before you experiment with these 2 images, why not put them away for a short time, and experiment with some test images first?

Once you have figured out your development times for N-2, you can process your prized shots with confidence. Otherwise, you run the risk that someone gives you bad advice, inadvertently or otherwise.

[Bob McCarthy]

You're asking the right questions, though I rarely find shooting in low light that flat. Highlights tend to be light sources or reflections of light sources. And hot, often blocking.

For this and other reasons I will suggest you follow Kens suggestion of taking a shot in the same light (if it can be created) and running some development tests. If it s a portfolio "keeper", it's worth the effort of pre testing.

bob

[Jim Noel]

HP5+, Tri-X and films of similar speeds do not expand more than about one zone unless you can use a far more active developer. Paper developers are one solution.
If you remake the negatives, use a slower film like FP4+ or even slower these will expand more.

[evanbaines]

Fair enough. I did take some other frames of that scene that I don't think are compositionally as strong, and the "point" of the expedition was testing.... I just wound up finding something I liked. I will test on the other frames, of which I have 4. Even the shot I like is only minutes from my home, and repeatable almost any night around midnight... so getting these negatives right is more a matter of convenience than anything. This was explicitly a "practice" session: my first time night shooting with the 4x5, but it would be pretty cool to get a useful shot for my series anyway.

Bob: The scene features the inside of a diner at night... there are some light sources that I'm just going to have to sacrifice... my zone 7 were the white walls inside the diner, and my zone 1 is the exterior wall of the diner and the surrounding cityscape. There is a neon sign and a few other bits of light that I'm probably going to lose.

[Jim Noel]

Sorry, I misread your post. You are looking for contraction.
You have used the better film for that.
I have not used DD-X, but you should b able to dilute it more than usual which will make it less active and enable you to contract the image the necessary two zones.
You do not mention how you are printing the negative. If you are using silver gelatin paper any of the variable contrast papers should be able to print the negative well.

[Ken Lee]

You might find this brief article helpful: Testing Black and White Film (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php)

In a nutshell, expose at 3 different speeds, and develop for 3 different times.

You take 9 shots, and get your film speed and N, N-1, N+1 times. It's not much to extrapolate for N-2.

[evanbaines]

Thank you for the article Ken!

As I experiment with this, I'm definitely thinking I need to run a more dilute developer to get the timing to work. What I am reading on the interwebs suggests that I need 30ml of 1:4 DD-X per sheet to have enough developer, which in turn suggests that I should BARELY be OK running 1:9 solution in my BTZS tubes which have 60ml caps, but I have ZERO margin for error.

[evanbaines]

So I ran some tests on the extra frames, and wound up with what seems a serviceable N-2 for this shot around 8 minutes in 1:9 DD-X in BTZS tubes.

Much to learn in this crazy world of large format. Certainly using wide-angle lenses at night is a pain!

http://www.evanbaines.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hermitage-1.jpg

[Zaitz]

So I ran some tests on the extra frames, and wound up with what seems a serviceable N-2 for this shot around 8 minutes in 1:9 DD-X in BTZS tubes.

Much to learn in this crazy world of large format. Certainly using wide-angle lenses at night is a pain!



+1! Or in a dim Church :eek:. Looks good though. I cant offer much in suggestions for improvement.

[Ken Lee]

For this kind of subject, you should really consider Divided Pyrocat developer. You place the shadows where you want them, and the high values are controlled, all the way to Zone 14 or more. I kid you not. Yes, that's Zone Fourteen.

See this discussion (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52913) on this forum.

[evanbaines]

Ken: thank you for the info! I am curious: most of the people talking about Divided Pyrocat seem to be using a hybrid workflow... How are the results with traditional printing?

[Ken Lee]

That's a good observation: someone else will have to reply. I haven't used it with darkroom printing.

Divided Pyrocat develops all negatives to the same basic contrast index, and from my experience we often need to add contrast to the image.

With a photo editing tool, that's easy, but in the darkroom, different methods are required, especially if we need to exceed number 4 paper: more concentrated developer for example.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As I experiment with this, I'm definitely thinking I need to run a more dilute developer to get the timing to work. What I am reading on the interwebs suggests that I need 30ml of 1:4 DD-X per sheet to have enough developer, which in turn suggests that I should BARELY be OK running 1:9 solution in my BTZS tubes which have 60ml caps...Per Ilford data, 62.5ml of DD-X concentrate is required for each 80 square inches of film. At 1:4, that equates to 78ml of working solution per 4x5. At 1:9 it's 156ml of working solution. Anything less means exhaustion is probable. If you used 60ml of 1:9 for a 4x5 sheet, you've likely achieved compensation, i.e. reduced density highlights, rather than a uniform N-2 contraction over the entire exposure scale. That might be just what was needed for the scene you show. :)

[evanbaines]

Per Ilford data, 62.5ml of DD-X concentrate is required for each 80 square inches of film. At 1:4, that equates to 78ml of working solution per 4x5. At 1:9 it's 156ml of working solution. Anything less means exhaustion is probable. If you used 60ml of 1:9 for a 4x5 sheet, you've likely achieved compensation, i.e. reduced density highlights, rather than a uniform N-2 contraction over the entire exposure scale. That might be just what was needed for the scene you show. :)

Interesting! Where did you get that 62.5 number? I didn't see it in the tech sheet, but might have missed it. I found some other math elsewhere, but yours is more convincing, and probably explains my results better! :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Where did you get that 62.5 number? I didn't see it in the tech sheet, but might have missed it...Go here

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427124733149.pdf

and look at page 10. Note that, under Availability and Capacity, it says that 1 liter of DD-X will process 16 rolls of film (which are 80 square inches each) when used one-shot. One liter divided by 16 is 62.5ml.

This is the type of digging and calculating that is unfortunately necessary to find minimum quantities of liquid developer concentrate or powder developer stock solution required so no exhaustion occurs. If would be nice if manufacturers stated the information explicitly, but they usually don't. :(

[Bob McCarthy]

nah, your mixing (pun intended) concentrate with working solution.

you're off by a factor of 5.

AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY
ILFOTEC DD-X is available in 1 litre bottles world- wide. Used at 1+4 for one shot processing it will develop 16 135/36 films. If reuse techniques are used it will develop up to 50 135/36 or 120 films.

One liter of DD-X will develop 80 rolls of film per Ilford.

bob

[Sal Santamaura]

nah, your mixing (pun intended) concentrate with working solution.

you're off by a factor of 5.

AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY
ILFOTEC DD-X is available in 1 litre bottles world- wide. Used at 1+4 for one shot processing it will develop 16 135/36 films. If reuse techniques are used it will develop up to 50 135/36 or 120 films.

One liter of DD-X will develop 80 rolls of film per Ilford.

bobUnfortunately, 80 rolls is wishful thinking. The text you copied is exactly what I was pointing to. Read it again. A 1 liter bottle will develop 16 rolls of film. Doesn't matter whether one dilutes the concentrate 1:4, 1:9 or some other ratio. 1000ml divided by 16 is 62.5ml of concentrate. The volume of working solution varies with dilution; minimum concentrate required stays the same.

[Bob McCarthy]

I'll agree it's not clear, but my experience with developing 4x5 diluted 1 to 9, shows it has far more capacity than your quoting.

A rough (very rough) calculation is twice what your suggesting.

Anyway a more compensating developer, as been mentioned earlier in the thread, is what I would use in this circumstance.

bob

[Sal Santamaura]

I'll agree it's not clear...A rough (very rough) calculation is twice what your suggesting...That's not agreement; it's clear as written. :)

The minimum quantity that establishes capacity is based on what it takes to absolutely avoid exhaustion regardless of scene content. Many people use less active developer and luck out because they're photographing things that don't demand as much. The operative word in this scenario is "luck." I prefer to know that the EI and contrast I've tested to will result regardless of what I'm photographing.

[Mark Barendt]

With 1-liter of DD-X mixed at 1+4 I regularly get 8-10 rolls of 120 using Ilford's reuse times.

Ilford suggests that 50 rolls of film can be processed with one liter of concentrate so 20ml of concentrate is a reasonable guess for an 8x10, 5ml for 4x5 as a minimum.

The wild card is going to be the time, Ilford doesn't suggest times for this scenario.

[Roger Cole]

Manufacturers are normally very, very conservative on capacity estimates. You can almost always do more film than they say. Whether this is out of concern for absolutely no detectable loss of quality or to sell more developer is an open question.

[Bob McCarthy]

If you take the mixing instructions, to make a working solution you mix 200ml of DDX and 800ml of water. One liter processes 4 reals in my tank. So I get 20 rolls per liter, one shot, not 16. In addition I can double the capacity by adding 10% or so to the second 4 rolls per liter of working solution. To me that shows excess capacity.

Now I used DDX 1/9 with stand processing to get long scale negatives and it worked great. Thats 40 rolls per liter.

I only switched to HC 110 only because it was readily available, DDX is not in my area..

Bob

[Bob McCarthy]

Reals = reels

Sorry, it must have been late

Or the wine

Bob