Good advice about adding to exposure for minus development! I hope you get some magic light on your scene! In this case, thin fog or clouds and just enough direct sun to throw distinct shadows...like when the fog is just lifting.
Good advice about adding to exposure for minus development! I hope you get some magic light on your scene! In this case, thin fog or clouds and just enough direct sun to throw distinct shadows...like when the fog is just lifting.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Delta 100 is capable of very good highlight gradation, but quickly builds high contrast. So it sounds like you overdeveloped it.
Catchetol, the primary ingredient in pyrocat has a unique ability to manage extreme N- and N+ when used in reduced agitation procedures. There is an extensive body of work on this topic online. Bottom line. Conventional developers don't do it worth a damn. You can overexpose, change the developer ratios and reduce development time etc. with DDX and shortly you will figure out this is not a productive course of action. DDX does an excellent job in a very narrow bandwidth. Try to take DDX outside of its comfort zone where it does not want to be and it falls short. Don't ask it to do what it is not supposed to do. But in the process you will gain some valuable experience. Why rely upon your local store if they can't get you the tool you need for the task at hand.
Nor does anyone else. Jones and Nelson showed that a fractional gradient speed (0.3G) correctly predicted the minimum exposure for an excellent print. This is the basis if ASA and subsequently ISO.I had no idea of more exposure when minus development,
Extra exposure of shadows in zone I to meet the 0.1 density point when development is less than required to fit the ASA triangle is something someone made up. It is not needed but the extra exposure won't destroy your negative if you choose to do it.
Another way to tame contrast is the use of what we used to call "Wink Flash". A strobe , close as possible to the lens, dialed back to just open the shadows. If you can see the secondary (flash) effect, you have used too much.
We don't even know his own specific definition of "normal" in this case, or where he placed the shadows and midtone values, or even the original contrast range, so how can we anticipate what -2 development will do? For all I know, he overexposed the film to begin with and blew out the highlights that way, although sheer overdevelopment is also an and/or possibility. So asking him to bludgeon the life out of a negative using flashing or gross compensation might not be the answer at all. My own tack with Delta 100 is to get it well off the toe by rating it at 50, and then reining in the highlights via pyro stain. But unless you overdevelop it (it does build contrast quickly), it should be able to handle a normal bright sunlit outdoor scene just fine by itself, without resorting to special tricks (but nothing like 10 or 11 stops of range - that does take a trick or two).
Wrong! Anyone who began learning negative control in the 40's or earlier learned this very early on. Super XX was a highly controlleable film and + and - development was not uncommon, but meters were. We either depended on experience and memory, or a very unreliable extinction meter.
There ain't no Super-XX, not even any Bergger 200. Wish we still had them. The last "straight line" film left, Foma 200, isn't very amenable to development control, at least compared to the aforementioned. TMax films are as good as it gets at the moment if you want a long straight line, but are fussier than Super-XX. But at least TMax does go steeper into the toe than Iford's t-grain offering under discussion, Delta 100, which is why I have to rate Delta a whole stop slower in order to get it above the toe onto the straighter portion of the line for sake of an image reminiscent of TMaX 100 results.
I shoot a lot in lighting situation similar to the OP’s. I’ve found reducing agitation controls contrast better than reducing development. I second what Michael says about catechol.
I find that reducing tray inter-leafing frequency risks more air bubble halos and perhaps streaking too, depending on the specifics. HC-110 is a developer which works quite well over a wide range of dilutions; but again, not all film respond equally well to that approach. Basically, I tend to defer to films with the longest straight line to handle high contrast scenes, rather than overexposing and compressing less suitable candidates with longer toe sections. When necessary, I employ unsharp masking too, which is in certain ways the most elegant answer because it can do other things at the same time, like automatic dodging and burning, and microtonal enhancement as well.
Bookmarks