Re: [Leica] developing question - long reply

["animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>]

Sound advice i think thanks.
It maybe silly ,well it is but never realised their would be such a
difference in cost.
The dust thing amazes me too even though i handle the negs with care and use
an air bottle it still shows in the scans

The old country hmm i find it a bit annoying that in these interesting times
people have more interest in popular contests like "idols " you have that
over there allready?
simon
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Gilbert Plantinga" <jgp@gilplant.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] developing question - long reply


> 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

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