Re: [Leica] developing question - long reply

["J. Gilbert Plantinga" <jgp@gilplant.com>]

Learning to process my own film was the single most important step in  
improving my work for two reasons: first it made me much more aware of  
what I was doing technically, second it allowed my to shoot at least  
ten times as much film for the same money. I tried to follow David  
Allen Harvey's advice of using one body, one lens (ha! with the lab  
fees saved I bought more glass too), and one film - for an entire year.

I chose to go with HP5+ and Xtol (1=3) because I'd heard good things  
about them on this list. I bought the film in 50 roll boxes from B&H. I  
mixed the Xtol and stored it in plastic bottles contrary to the advice  
(from Mark Rabiner) that only glass bottles would store the stuff  
safely - I've had no problems with the plastic but others have had  
different experience. I use the local tap water too, which others may  
say is a no-no. I made these choices solely out of expediency.

I read the Ansel Adams' "The Negative, and "Film Developing Cookbook":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0240802772/ 
qid=1047219230/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6095693-3815163?v=glance&s=books

Both were somewhat over my head. So I continued to expose pretty much  
as the Leica's meter indicated, and I followed the Kodak Xtol  
instructions for developing the film to the letter at first. Soon I  
discovered that I could use water instead of stop bath; then that if I  
left out the hardener (Part B of the Kodak Rapid Fixer) or used  
Ilford's fixer, I could eliminate the Hypo Clearing Agent. When my  
results became consistent, I tried (again on Mark Rabiner's suggestion)  
using Ilford's agitation recommendations. Then on John Brownlow's  
recommendation I began to vary the agitation (less at the end, for  
greater compensation and edge effect sharpness). I stuck with my method  
until I could do it in my sleep.

  After about a year I ran out of film one day and bought some Tri-X  
because the store didn't carry Ilford. I adjusted the time based on the  
differences in the data sheets, but did everything else exactly the  
same. The results were horrible! A few weeks later someone complained  
that they didn't like the grain of HP5+, said it was mushy! I had just  
gotten a new scanner (4000dpi vs. 2700dpi) and so I did a comparison  
between the Ilford and that one roll of Tri-X. I liked the grain of the  
Tri-X better, but the contrast was all wrong. For a few weeks I went  
back and forth between them, but the Tri-X just wasn't working. Then I  
tried using Kodak's times and agitation schedule _to the letter_ on the  
Tri-X, and Voila! (Kodak no longer recommends diluting Xtol 1+3, and  
I've gotten to like the shorter times with 1+1). Of course now I'm down  
to the last four rolls of Tri-X, and no doubt the next bricks will be  
the new "improved" Tri-X that Kodak has come out with, so I'll have to  
change my processing and experiment some. Oh, one of the things I  
really like about Tri-X is that I can push and pull it pretty freely.

Tri-X at B&H costs $2.09 per roll, and developing in Xtol 1+1 costs  
about $0.26 per roll. To get better pictures I need to shoot at least  
500 rolls per year. There's no way I'd want to pay someone else to  
process all that film and give me back negatives that were hard to  
print and probably dusty and scratched!

Simon, regarding the scanning question, looking at your pictures I  
would say that the thing you really need to do is learn to use the  
Curves function in Photoshop. I had a Nikon LS 4000, and had the same  
problem with the Nikon software clipping shadows and highlights, but I  
actually sold it because the LED light source was picking up scratches  
in the film that I couldn't see with a loupe. I now use a Minolta DS  
MultiPro (4800dpi in 35mm!) which has a more diffuse fluorescent light  
source. IMO Minolta's software sucks too so I use Vuescan. Set the  
black and white points very low (0.02 or so, check the histogram),  
ignore the film type setting or be prepared to experiment a lot. The  
scans come out very flat, but all the detail is there. Always scan in  
16-bit grayscale and save to TIFF. Then you can ste the black and white  
points in the Levels dialog adjust the contrast in the Curves dialog of  
Photoshop without posterization. Do NOT use the brightness or contrast  
functions, you will get clipping and lose detail. One tip: when setting  
black and white points in Levels, hold the Option key(that's Macintosh,  
'alt' on PC?) to see clipping; and when adjusting curves add a control  
point by Command (CNTRL) -clicking on any tone in the image. Ok, that's  
two tips :-)

And if this lengthy tome doesn't help enough, send me a one-way ticket  
to Schiphol, and I'll come show you how it's done - no, I can only show  
you how I do it. Your mileage may vary.

Gilbert (American of Dutch descent, pining for the old country in these  
uncertain times)

On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 07:29  AM, animal wrote:

> i,ve read on this list and it,s archives many times that one should do  
> her
> own processing for optimal results.
> I,m using a large pro lab which develops black and white in 2
> hours(film,scala takes a bit longer) but am not really satisfied with  
> the
> results.
> I assume that it is just my exposure that is not consistent or  
> consistently
> off
> Consequently i am a bit afraid to add another variable namely bad  
> processing
> by myself.Also still struggling with vuescan nikon scan produced a lot  
> more
> contrast but loss of detail.
> I,d love to try techpan though which they dont accept.
> what would you recommend?
> simon
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html