Help, is my developer the problem?

[flycatcher]

Hi,

I've been shooting 4x5 film for roughly a year so far. My processing has been on a DD-X on FP4+ sheet film (125 ISO).

Trouble is that I've increasingly felt that my pictures are lifeless, lacking in contrast.

My DD-X developer is now 16 months old, and this is probably one reason. The other I guess is that my Epson 4990 scanner's glass needs cleaning. (I believe the inside portion of the glass needs attention - which means I need to involve Epson's service).

Does any one have further comments on what could be going wrong?

My processing machine is the "Orbital Tank" described here (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20how%20orbital.html).

Take a look at my results here: justtones.blogspot.com (http://justtones.blogspot.com)

If anyone can comment on what could be going wrong, it would be a great favour.

Thanks
Arvind

[Ari]

Use fresh developer, preferably a one-shot type, like HC-110 or D-76.
That way you will be assured of fresh chemistry each time you process, and rule out the developer.
If the developer doesn't add some snap to your photos, search out scenes with more inherent contrast, or shoot more on bright, sunny days when possible.
My scanner, and many flatbed scanners, have some haze on the inside of the glass; it normally won't affect the quality of your scans.

[flycatcher]

Thanks for your reply. I've ordered Rodinal. Hopefully it's legendary keeping properties would keep this doubt away.

[Andrew O'Neill]

How often do you develop film? If the developer is over a year old, then I suspect not often. How about choosing a powder develop like Xtol or D-76 and mix it in propylene glycol instead of water? Extremely long shelf life.

[jeroldharter]

Hard to tell, but the first photo looks underexposed and underdeveloped.

Large format is a lot of work. You really have no excuse using 16 month old developer, especially if you are going to the trouble to count the months! Eliminate as many variables as you can. For low volume work, always use fresh, one shot developer. Kodak Xto costs $9 for a gallon of stock solution that will keep for 6 months divided into one liter bottles. If you live in a hot place, just say you replace it every third month. That is $40 per year at a maximum, probably $20-30, so not worth the aggravation of keeping track of the 17th month...

I think buying Rodinal or HC110 is symptomatic of your original problem. At some point you will need to ask if 6 year old Rodinal is still good.

[Ken Lee]

...my Epson 4990 scanner's glass needs cleaning

If you search this forum, somewhere you'll find instructions for accessing and cleaning the underside of the scanner glass on Epson scanners.

"...my pictures are lifeless, lacking in contrast."

Many of your photos have adequate contrast - perhaps too much in some cases - so it's probably safe to assume that you're looking for richer tonality. Most of that comes from carefully selecting beautiful subjects - beautiful in terms of their tones.

That's how some people have been able to make wonderful photographs of even the most ordinary objects, like vegetables (http://masters-of-photography.com/W/weston/weston_pepper_number30_full.html).

[Bob McCarthy]

I see some areas of flat-flat greys that may be due to photo editing, specifically creating areas in curves where the slope of the curve is horizontal or nearly so.

Creates the flat silver look thats so unappealing. Just a guess, but something to concider.

bob

[Lenny Eiger]

Two things I would say. First of all, you should probably not use Rodinal. This is my opinion, others will disagree. The best developer I have found is Xtol. If you are scanning, our #1 combination has been Ilford's Detal 100 and Xtol 1;1. I say this with one caveat: that we have not yet begun our Pyro testing, which should also be magnificent once you get it balanced.

The other thing I would say is that the prints on the site don't make much sense, it is the negatives we have to see. In some it looks like a lot of overexposure. But it could also be a combination of that and underdeveloping, or a failure of your scanning technique.

It still remains the case that a better initial negative makes a better scan and print. I would say you need to bracket a bunch of exposures, both in exposure and development and get what i call a delicious result in a negative. Then your issues will go away.

Lenny