Printable View
I am confused by your description of the processed negatives. Do you think you over exposed, over developed, or both? Can you share the lighting conditions, the ISO you used?Quote:
Originally Posted by OeT
Personally, I shoot CSX Green @ ISO 50 and process in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes (in trays). Not sure how that compares to your ISO and developer.
I used ISO 100.
Maybe I overdeveloped since you used half the time and twice the dilution.
I took a photo of the negative with my phone
http://i.imgur.com/SX8Y2Sl.jpg
Does it look alright?
Might it be the filmbase that adds to the darkness?
If it's overdeveloped, depends more on the way you'd like to print this. It looks pretty much on the money for Van Dyke brown, but quite hard for silver gelatin. You may want to check the edges of the film to see if you have fogging and/or uneven development along the edges; I can't tell from the photo, it may be just fine.
I was going to make salt and albumen prints but might give Van Dyke brown a try to.
The problem might be my old HP G4050 scanner, the preview scans look ok but "real" scan gets all blown out.
I did a couple now that came out ok but I had to pull the sliders in scanner software for highlights, shadows and gamma all the way down as far as they went and then adjust even more in Photoshop.
http://i.imgur.com/HiZOLq5.png
http://i.imgur.com/CbviZIH.png
Uneven developing on the first one?
Don't mind the lines it's the scanners fault to.
Yeah, not all scanners will be able to deal with these high-density negatives. I can't complain with my aging Epson 4990; it does quite fine even with the densest negatives I have produced so far. It helps that the Epson software allows to adjust the curves quite well.
Going by how your negatives look, you may just be in the ballpark for albumen printing, although you'd be surprised at how insanely long-scaled negatives need to be for this process and salt printing. Van Dyke requires a bit shorter curve so if you get too much contrast in a Van Dyke brown print, you're at least close for salt printing and albumen.
Both your images in the post above look like they suffer from very uneven development, unless this is also caused by the scanner, but that seems not entirely plausible. I know that some get away with intermittent agitation as with regular film, but I haven't been able to get even development that way. For me, the only way to get even development is by using a large tray (at least one size larger than the film used), frequent flipping of the negative so both sides receive equal development and constant but gentle agitation. Your mileage will vary.
I did use large trays and constant agitation but I didn't flip the negative.
If I remove the backside emulsion might that help a bit?
I tried a saltprint for about 15 minutes but that was probably way too short.
Yeah, you could also consider using only one side of the film and stripping the other side. I personally don't like that approach; it's an extra step, it's messy, the edges of the film never look nice to me and there's the risk of bleach seeping to the image side, partly ruining the image. You would also need to increase development time or concentration significantly to get usable negatives for your purposes. I've done the stripping act a few times and it does work, but I just don't like it.
Developing without flipping the sheet doesn't work for me (I think Andrew O'Neill pointed out it works just fine for him though); the developer has easier access to the underside of the film along the edges than it does towards the center, causing gross unevenness. If you find a way to suspend or float the film in the developer, this shouldn't necessarily happen, but I haven't yet found a way to do this personally.
I do all of my scanning with the 4050, so the scanner isn't the problem--mine does quite a good job. Maybe you could hold a neg up, in a room or outside for surrounding context, and shoot a picture of that to post. That way we could see what you have to deal with. My negs look more dense than I am used to, but not unreasonably so.
I think the negative image looks about right, as far as density goes. And the tree growing out of her head looks about right also (sorry, couldn't resist :) That old train bridge is fantastic - where was that taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by OeT
B&J Commercial View 5x7/Ilex 90/8
MXR xray film 1/8 sec @f16, (ISO 50)
Rodinal 1+100-8 mins
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2061/3...88ffe5_z_d.jpg