Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/04/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You're on to something, Mark. However, I will say that the only way you are really going to know what your iso ought to be is to go to the trouble of testing. Most people don't want to do this - your point 2 is right on, here. In my tests, I haven't found most box speeds to be as stated. Now, I must qualify that by saying also that I very rarely - almost never - use developers that you can buy in the store. My tests are done for very specific reasons. I work hard to get those shadow values exactly as I want them, and usually what's written on the box doesn't do it for me. Also, how one determines the exposure once that iso is keyed into the meter makes a big difference, too. ISOs are determined by laboratories using standardized methods and controlled conditions; photographers in the field, as a population, don't do it that way. For me, an underexposed negative can never give me quite the print I want, but an overexposed one can't either. Sure, many years in the lab have given me the ability to deal with a wide variety of negative conditions, but if it's not there in the negative, I have trouble conjuring it up. I think we may each have our own idea of just what an underexposed negative would look like. On 4/29/11 4:37 PM, lug-request at leica-users.org wrote: > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:43:00 -0400 > From: Mark Rabiner<mark at rabinergroup.com> > Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - Wet Darkroom Wizards > To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> > Message-ID:<C9E0B734.DFF3%mark at rabinergroup.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Larry! It's rare I see a post on the lug which agrees with my position on > film developing and yours here really does. > What should kept in mind is this person of course did not expose this 400 > film at 100 on purpose. As if they did they'd not be asking for advice on > dev times. > > 1. The first culprit as I see it is the long ongoing attitude since the > Speed Graphic days that in black and white neg shooting a little more > exposure is never a bad idea. When in doubt give it another stop. In roll > film this turns out to be not just not so great advice it really is just > really bad advice.. An under exposed neg can still get you a gallery > quality > image. In the darkroom an over espoused neg will have you going through a > full box of paper and you'll never get it right. > In these days of scanning though I think you make a raw scan of such an > over exposed neg and you are in the no problemo department as far a > crafting > a quality image from that negative. As the crushed high areas can be > separated out without much problem in Photoshop and I'd think even > Lightroom. > The modern way this problem appears is not a retro over exposure ideal; > but a smug value held by photo intermediates. These are The Pullers. Their > manifesto is that most films are over rated and need to have their ISO's > cut > in half. They know that Tri x is really iso 200 and so on and they feel > sorry for all the dumb masses rating it at 400 as they'll never no what > quality results are all about. They know not what they do. They are the > modern day ascetics. Winning through shooting at f 30th when a 60'th is all > it needs. > The result make for over exposing everything . > As Tri x really is 400 and most films have ratings on the box fairly right > on the money with most developer dilution combinations. > Pulling is over exposing with some under developing to keep the contrast > manageable. You've crushed the high tones. And the only way to un crush > them > is with some intermediate scanning technique. > > 2. A second culprit is The Massive Dev Pie Chart... > Who are providing information not misusing it. But its format seems to lead > to that. Misused by a typical internet photo geek not someone who had taken > real world photo classes or read real photo books its like: > "Gee I'll shoot Tmax 100 today rated at 400 and shoot Tmax 400 tomorrow and > rate it at 100 and read the times off the times in this chart!" > Its not the charts fault that it leads to this. > But if you dumped a lot of dollar bills on the sidewalk somebody's going to > come along and pick it up. > > > > -------------------- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > > > >> > From: Larry Bullis<kingfisher at halcyon.com> >> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> >> > Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:29:05 -0700 >> > To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> >> > Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - Wet Darkroom Wizards >> > >> > If the roll has any importance, I'd sure shoot and process a test roll >> > first if you are going to alter your time a lot. >> > >> > No amount of "pull" is going to compensate for the fact that your roll >> > is overexposed. For some strange reason, there seems to be a >> > misperception out there that exposure and development are somehow >> > interchangeable. They're not. Your shadows will be firmly placed in the >> > region on the curve that is appropriate for middle tones and the middle >> > tones will be moved into the highlight region. Maybe you can pull the >> > highlights down, but it doing so, you probably won't save the print >> > from >> > looking odd. >> > >> > I suppose one might experiment (word chosen deliberately) with adding >> > bromide, or even better, some benzotriazole to inhibit development in >> > the areas of least exposure. What's working for you is that box iso is >> > usually a bit overstated anyway, so your overexposure may not be all >> > that serious. >> > >> > That happened to me once; I shot a roll of tri-x on a job and noticed >> > that I hadn't changed my iso setting from Kodachrome 64. I used an old >> > developer that I knew cost about that much in speed, pyro acetone. It >> > is >> > an ancient glass lantern slide developer. The acetone doesn't harm the >> > current film bases, but in old books it was not recommended for films >> > since acetone dissolves some plastics. The results were absolutely >> > amazing. Most beautiful ordinary pictures I can imagine of a guy >> > digging >> > a hole in the ground! Come to think of it, I wonder why I'm not using >> > that now. >> > >> > Unless you like the darkroom a lot, I don't think this sort of stuff is >> > likely to happen for your one roll. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 4/29/11 9:46 AM,lug-request at leica-users.org wrote: >>> >> Message: 33 >>> >> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:00:03 -0400 >>> >> From: Chris Saganich<csaganich at gmail.com> >>> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - Wet Darkroom Wizards >>> >> To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> >>> >> Message-ID:<BANLkTik-rSABvkSU-v0Q7fZ77UzkeE2Y7Q at mail.gmail.com> >>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >> >>> >> My experience with HC110 was very very light agitation with no >>> >> twisting. >>> >> The twisting part can cause uneven development with dilution. I >>> >> would >>> >> dilute 1:42 4 minutes at 20C with 1 min continuous agitation and >>> >> then 2 >>> >> inversions in 5 seconds every minute. You will have nice shadows and >>> >> compensation in the highlights. >>> >> >>> >> Pretend something inside is fragile. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Photo<charcot at comcast.net> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>>> I bought a new used camera and I shot HP5+. I failed to >>>>> >>>> notice that the >>>>> >>>> ISO was NOT set to 400 but instead to 100. Now for the >>>>> >>>> interesting part - >>>>> >>>> I >>>>> >>>> only have Kodak HC110 to use ( no I am not stranded on Kodiak >>>>> >>>> Island) but >>>>> >>>> this is what I have. What dilution, temp and/or time do I use >>>>> >>>> to "pull" >>>>> >>>> process this film. There is no prize to the wizard that helps >>>>> >>>> me out but >>>>> >>>> I >>>>> >>>> will post pictures. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> ernie >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> >>>> Seehttp://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> >>>> information >>>>> >>>> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > Seehttp://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >