Developing Fuji Acros 100 4x5 in Jobo CPE2

[minesix66]

Hi,

I have been searching the forums and internet and I cannot find a solid time to develop my Fuji Acros rated @ 100 iso with my Jobo Cpe2. I was planning on 10 mins, speed number 2 with PMK Pyro 1:2:100 at 13mins. I also have rodinal and Legacy Pro Absorbic Acid Film Developer. On their data sheet they don't list Fuji Acros 100. I think the legacy pro is a version of XTOL. I a have a Jobo 2336 with the 2021 reels, I can use it manually, but it takes 40 oz of chemicals to cover the reel. I took pictures of waterfalls with this film, the sun was partially out, no filters were used. From what I remember the exposures were 10 to 30 secs long.

Looking for recommendations.

Scott

[RawheaD]

I have a CPP2 and usually use the recommended time for inversion developing without any problem. I have read somewhere that you could deduct about 10% with a rotary processor but I feel that B&W film latitude is good enough to make that adjustment kind of moot.

[Mark Barendt]

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/product_pdfs/formulary/Formulary_PMK_Developer.pdf

15 minutes.


FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE USE OF LIQUID "PMK" PYRO FILM DEVELOPER, PLEASE CALL US AT 406-754-2891

[minesix66]

Thanks guys, but the instructions have the acros rated at iso 50 for 14 mins. I did 10 mins @ 70F, manually with no jobo and it appear the negs turned out fine. Some of the shadow areas were black.

[Mark Barendt]

Thanks guys, but the instructions have the acros rated at iso 50 for 14 mins. I did 10 mins @ 70F, manually with no jobo and it appear the negs turned out fine. Some of the shadow areas were black.

Ok,

Whatever works is fine.

Couple things though.

First, shooting at 100 should require more development than film shot at 50, not less, so maybe 17-1/2. Doesn't mean 10 is wrong, just a surprise.

Second, scene highlights on a negative should be dark, shadows should be light.

[Leigh]

Some of the shadow areas were black.
There's something wrong here. I get excellent shadow detail exposing and developing for ASA 100.

You should get even better shadow detail when you over-expose by a full stop (ASA 50).

- Leigh

[polyglot]

I get bucketloads of shadow detail from Acros at EI100 in Xtol 1+1, rotary development for 9:00. Alternatively you can shoot it at EI50 and process in Rodinal 1+50 for 8:00 rotary. They look different but both are excellent.

Some medium-format examples: Rodinal (http://brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/index.php?id=2012/05/24), xtol (http://brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/index.php?id=2011/09/10b), xtol (http://brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/index.php?id=2011/09/10). For an idea of the contrast, these print well on my diffusion (DeVere 504) enlarger at about 80M to any of Foma (Arista), Kentmere or Ilford papers; I haven't done a full BTZS characterisation yet.

[minesix66]

Thanks for the help. To make sure I am doing this right, here is a picture of the negative, a scan from the epson 4990 using vuescan. It is a jpg from the scanner, no adjustments. The PMK Pyro I opened on Feb 28, 2010.

I used my Jobo 2336 with reels, hand inversions a couple of times at 30 secs intervals, Temp was 70F and did this for 10 mins. The mix was 15 ml + 30 ml + 1500ml h2o. I used water stop for 1 min, TF-4 for 4mins and washed for approx 20mins at 68.8 F.

The first pic is the negative, the second is the straight jpg scan and the 3rd is adjusted via dng in photoshop.

816538165481655
Is the non-adjusted photograph better than the processed one?

[Mark Barendt]

minesix66 you got a workable negative it seems, that's good, the question that pops into my head is "why?".

If we assume for a moment that the directions are right, at least under tightly controlled lab conditions, that gives us a "normal baseline" to think from.

Your scene answers a big part of the question. From deepest shadow with detail, to brightest highlight with detail, that scene type is typically "longer in scale" than "normal".

Long scale scenes can benefit in many cases from a bit of underdevelopment (minus development in Zone System terms) which if we use the directions as the baseline, you used. This flattens the film curve a bit allowing more of the scene to "print" easily. A good choice in your case.

A different scene, say a beach scene on an overcast day where there aren't any bright whites or really dark shadows, is a "shorter than normal scale" scene.

Short scale scenes can benefit from plus/extra development and the resulting steeper film curve because it can make it easier to print (less work needed in PS or an enlarger).

If you used that shortened development time for the beach scene I described you would have had to adjust more in PS and it may not have worked as well even then.

Exposure placement on the film curve is at your choice. As long as you get the info you want on the curve in the "printable" range, you have done ok.

Although not required, extra exposure is very often used with minus development to get important shadow detail up off the toe of the film curve for better tone separation.

Reduced exposure (compared to the norm/directions, like you used by shooting at 100 instead of 50) can help minimize grain, reduce printing times, and shoot in darker situations. As long as you don't lose important shadow detail reducing exposure doesn't hurt. Notice I did not say underexposure there, underexposure for me means I lost shadow detail that I wanted to print.