|
 "hello, do you have D76 in a can?" Gnomad fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 23, 2010 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
I burn through XTOL like gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
How far can you push Tri-X with Diafine before it just doesn't work anymore? I have a roll of Tri-X I shot at 3200 and one at 6400 and I'm not all too sure how to develop them. I'm thinking Diafine isn't going to be able to go that far, but for future reference it would be good to know. There is a shop around here that says they will do them for like $13 a piece, but clearly I could do it cheaper if I could just figure out wtf to do...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Depends on the lighting you were shooting in. I've seen people expose tri-x at crazy EIs in daylight, 6400+, and it looked great. But if you're shooting high-contrast scenes at night, there's only so much you can do. It can't work magic and create detail out of nothing. If these scene was contrasty, your negs will be in black and white, not grey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Depends on the lighting you were shooting in. I've seen people expose tri-x at crazy EIs in daylight, 6400+, and it looked great. But if you're shooting high-contrast scenes at night, there's only so much you can do. It can't work magic and create detail out of nothing. If these scene was contrasty, your negs will be in black and white, not grey. I fully realize they're probably going to come out pretty weird looking, but it was really more of an experiment than anything, and the shots aren't particularly un-recreatable (there has to be a better word for that but I can't think of it right now) so if I do end up with abstract black and white shapes...meh! The 6400 roll was at night and was pretty high contrast, and the 3200 roll was right after sunset so there was still a decent amount of light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
The 3200 will probably come out fine then, it doesn't really make a difference, but I let my film go an extra few minutes in each bath when I'm pushing in Diafine. e: And the 6400 might be too! Try it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
penneydude posted:How far can you push Tri-X with Diafine before it just doesn't work anymore? I have a roll of Tri-X I shot at 3200 and one at 6400 and I'm not all too sure how to develop them. I'm thinking Diafine isn't going to be able to go that far, but for future reference it would be good to know. There is a shop around here that says they will do them for like $13 a piece, but clearly I could do it cheaper if I could just figure out wtf to do... Tri-X has a speed of about 1250 in Diafine. If you need 3200 and 6400 you need to use something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
I went to my local camera shop today and I think I got everything needed to develop b&w. Everything came to just over $70, I probably could have gotten it for cheaper online but I didn't feel like waiting. How important is the temperature of the water? I don't really have any super-accurate way of measuring water temp, will it really be that horrible if I just develop at room temperature (72 degrees or so)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:
I would invest in a thermometer, its more important for your developer to be at the right temperature to get accurate developing times, but i just leave my water standing for a few hours in jars before i use it and dont worry about the temperature of that really, as long as its not really cold or hot you will be fine. its fine to develop at 72, as long as you know it is 72 so you can adjust your times accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
I suppose if you're very sure about what your room temperature is then you might be OK guesstimating. Personally I want to spend as little time waiting, so I throw my thermometer into a jar and just mix hot/cold until I get a nice 20 1/2c mixture. I develop at 20c, but my developer sits in a fridge with my film stock so I need that extra half degree to balance out its' temperature. So honestly, you should be able to buy a thermometer at any drugstore. Just go pick one up and you'll probably be a lot happier. If nothing else, you'll at least have one facet of developing under strict control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Well I ordered some Diafine for processing all my other Tri-X, I think I've decided to just take the 3200 and 6400 to the shop to get them processed, since shooting at 3200+ isn't really something I plan on doing much in the future anyway. I'm looking forward to trying this stuff out though, it sounds really cool!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Well I ordered some Diafine for processing all my other Tri-X, I think I've decided to just take the 3200 and 6400 to the shop to get them processed, since shooting at 3200+ isn't really something I plan on doing much in the future anyway. I'm looking forward to trying this stuff out though, it sounds really cool! Well the shop will probably do an okay job. You will most likely not be happy with your shadow detail though, depending on what developer they use. My old pro shop back home does all their B&W in T max developer which is terrible for pushing film. Mix that in with an agitation technique most likely designed for box speed and be prepared to see lots of black. I use HC-110 and semi stand development for big pushes and it does make a difference. I know you said you probably won't do a lot of it in the future but if you do it might be worth the 20 bucks for a bottle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I use HC-110 and semi stand development for big pushes and it does make a difference. I know you said you probably won't do a lot of it in the future but if you do it might be worth the 20 bucks for a bottle. Elaborate on your semi-stand development cycle? Which dilution?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
Enlarger-chat:quote:Omega D2 enlarger - $40 Unfortunately, it doesn't come with any lenses, although he does say he has a couple cones and it has a built-in condenser. I'm planning on printing B&W only, no massive enlargements, but from 35mm and 4x5 negatives, with a handful of 6x6 thrown in. Would this be economical to put together (assuming I had to use eBay/the internet for the rest) or should I hold out for a more complete rig? I'd like to spend under $200 on the setup, as I don't think I'm going to have access to it much more than a couple months, and it seems you can scarcely give this poo poo away. This guy would be like 7-8 hours round trip but seems more complete, although it's at my price ceiling. Girlfriend does have a Hyundai that could do it on a single tank though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Elaborate on your semi-stand development cycle? Which dilution? I usually use dilution H (twice as dilute as B) to expand the time spent in the developer. You could probably use dilution B with good results I just didn't mind taking an hour or so to develop a roll of film. I use three very gentle inversions every 15-20 mins. Decreased agitation allows the developer to remain on the film longer, fresh developer hitting the emulsion equals increased development in the highlight areas. For the same reason I used a long water bath with no agitation to stop the film instead of an acid stop bath. When you do this the developer soaked into the film continues to develop the shadows a bit more. Typed out that all sounds a bit crazy for what was at most a stop's worth of shadow detail. The shadow to highlight transition in high contrast situations just seemed a lot smoother to me when I did it this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 08:07
|
|
|
Even though I'm just about the most unqualified person on earth, I run my dorm (yes you read that right, I'm pretty lucky) darkroom, and so I'm responsible for keeping equipment and materials on hand. We just ran out of developer (TMax) and I'm wondering if I could do better than just buying a new bottle. The focus would be on being beginner-friendly and convenient - as an example, I'm mentally slapping myself for buying new Kodafix instead of a non-hardening fixer so that wash time could be cut. It's pretty funny how our darkroom is state of the art in some ways and woefully underequipped in others. We have a nice Durst 4x5 enlarger but only a 50mm lens so we can't make prints from MF, a nice long sink but really tiny trays, a film dryer but we're not allowed to drill the wall to hang it up (ever tried holding up one of those at head height for an hour?), and so forth. Also could anyone quickly go over how print filters work? There's a box of Ilford Multigrade filters here and I haven't been able to detect any difference with or without them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 11:44
|
|
|
HC-110 is used on many campuses because it's a bit more environmentally friendly than most developers (partly due to dilution), is very versatile, and rather forgiving when used at dilution H, or even B. It's a lot more versatile than Tmax, lots of films react pretty badly to tmax dev. Are you sliding the filter-holder under the lens? Sounds dumb, but some people forget. Lower number = lower contrast. Make 3 prints of the same photo with no filter, a #00 filter, a #2 filter, and a #5 filter. Make sure to adjust times and such to make a proper print with each, the difference should be marked. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jan 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 12:09
|
|
|
Any Australian film shooters want to share their secrets on getting cheap 35mm film? It's hella expensive in all shops I have seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 12:31
|
|
|
Has anybody used the Massive Dev Chart iphone app? Looks like it could be handy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 13:11
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Enlarger-chat: One thing to note is that 4x5 enlargers are really huge. My Beseler 45 barely fit in the backseat of my car, and I had to move the front seats all the way forward...my trip was only across town, but I wouldn't have been able to drive much more than that. breathstealer posted:Also could anyone quickly go over how print filters work? There's a box of Ilford Multigrade filters here and I haven't been able to detect any difference with or without them. FasterThanLight fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jan 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:HC-110 is used on many campuses because it's a bit more environmentally friendly than most developers (partly due to dilution), is very versatile, and rather forgiving when used at dilution H, or even B. HC-110 also keeps well for extended periods of time and doesn't require preparation beforehand like XTOL or other powder developers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
is https://www.freestylephoto.biz still the best place to get general purpose 35mm color film?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Well I ordered some Diafine for processing all my other Tri-X, I think I've decided to just take the 3200 and 6400 to the shop to get them processed, since shooting at 3200+ isn't really something I plan on doing much in the future anyway. I'm looking forward to trying this stuff out though, it sounds really cool! I love my Diafine. If I *had* to push to 32 or 64K, I'd probably use Accufine. I've had good luck with it in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:is https://www.freestylephoto.biz still the best place to get general purpose 35mm color film? If by "general purpose" you mean inexpensive average film for non-critical photos, your best bet is to get some store-brand film since it's all made by a handful of manufacturers anyway like Fuji or Agfa or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:HC-110 also keeps well for extended periods of time and doesn't require preparation beforehand like XTOL or other powder developers. Plus you can do 80 rolls of film at H dilution. I'm only half way through a bottle I opened 9 or 10 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
I guess I might as well go into my regular developing and printing process just so someone can help me catch mistakes in any part of the process. Film (normally HP5 but now that I'm out I may start bulk rolling whatever's cheap) goes into tank, pour in one-shot TMax (soon to be HC-110 I guess), soup for about 8 minutes while constantly forgetting to agitate, dump developer out, fill tank from tap and fully change water twice, fix with Kodafix for 10 minutes (do I need to agitate), dump that out and save it, run the tank under the tap for 20 minutes, attempt to shake a few drops of Photo-flo out of the bottle, shake up the tank, take out the film, hang it up. Then printing - paper is Ilford MGIV RC, developed for 1 minute (this is impossible to get exact) in Polymax T, stuck into water for a couple seconds, and then fixed for another minute in Kodafix. I have a feeling my inability to figure out filters is because my print dev times are crazy inconsistent (depending on whether I drop the tongs or not). Do I just reduce the enlarging time and then increase the developing time accordingly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
I don't think the paper dev time is very critical. Paper is supposedly developed 'to completion'. Development doesn't stop completely, but it slows drastically after a certain point. So try putting the paper in the developer and just timing how long it takes for the picture to stop developing (as far as you can see). I've seen people at school forget a photo in the dev tray for 5+ minutes and it wasn't ruined. I've tried leaving a photo in the tray for several minutes longer than normal to try to eek out a slightly darker image but it didn't do squat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
I'm teaching a film developing class this Saturday. Here's the "shopping list" document I plan on passing out. Any glaring omissions/typos/ding-dongs? Any feedback appreciated as this is my first class. Thanks! Start paste: "In order to process film yourself, you’ll need the following items: Black light-proof bag – get a large one that can easily accommodate a three-roll tank. Scissors – Small, rounded-end ones so that you don’t accidentally puncture the bag. A can opener – the kind that has a magnetic strip does double duty. A tank and reels - a tank that accommodates at least 2 rolls is recommended. 3 light-proof plastic bottles 32-oz. or larger 2, 1-gallon jugs. Recycled bottled water ones are fine. A variety of graduated cylinders An immersible thermometer (like a meat thermometer) A timer A stirrer A calculator A funnel Skirt hangers clothespins or binder clips Developer : Ilfosol, HC110, and Rodinal are all liquid developers and are easy to mix. Diafine and D76 are popular powdered developers. Stop (recommended but not 100% necessary) Fix Fix check Hypo clearing agent Wetting Agent For storage: negative sleeves and a three ring binder If you’re scanning your negatives, an orange cloth and compressed air"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Has anybody used the Massive Dev Chart iphone app? Looks like it could be handy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
fenner posted:Any Australian film shooters want to share their secrets on getting cheap 35mm film? It's hella expensive in all shops I have seen. eBay. Film is so light and small that shipping from other countries (such as Asia or the US) really isn't that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:I have a feeling my inability to figure out filters is because my print dev times are crazy inconsistent (depending on whether I drop the tongs or not). Do I just reduce the enlarging time and then increase the developing time accordingly? You can use multiple filters on a single print too, McMadCow had a good writeup on it here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3194159&pagenumber=2#post367635098
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
Ric posted:I use their lookup table and it's great; I presume the app is the same info in a format appropriate to the iphone. It also seems to have a timer etc built in to it. I might buy it and see how it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Its probably inconsistent exposure time. If you're not already doing so, try making a test strip - put a sheet of paper down and cover it up with a piece of cardboard. Then, turn on the enlarger lamp, and move the cardboard across the paper in ~3 second intervals (more or less, depending on lots of things - aperture, height of enlarger head, lamp, etc). Develop, pick which section looks best, and make another print using that exposure time. If you want higher contrast, you can try a higher-numbered filter (and vice-versa). Don't be afraid to waste paper, the results are definitely worth sacrificing a sheet or two to test exposure! I'm pretty sure my inconsistent printing isn't due to exposure time though - that's one variable I'm sure I have locked down. The enlarger is connected to a timer, and I do make test strips - but sometimes the results are wildly different even with the same time dialed in after testing. Are you guys sure that developing time is not a relevant variable? My other theory is that the level of developer isn't quite high enough in the tray, and the print isn't getting immersed. Edit: also our safelight is hosed up and it's essentially impossible to tell what's on the paper in the tray.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:I'm pretty sure my inconsistent printing isn't due to exposure time though - that's one variable I'm sure I have locked down. The enlarger is connected to a timer, and I do make test strips - but sometimes the results are wildly different even with the same time dialed in after testing. Are you guys sure that developing time is not a relevant variable? Are you sure your enlarger bulb is putting out a consistent brightness? There's a certain effect called intermittantcy that has to do with the time required for the bulb to cycle from dark to bright, but that's a minor variation. I would take a close look at the light your enlarger head is putting out and watch for any flicker or dimming. Development isn't going to affect much if you stay reasonably close to the recommended times. RC paper should develop about 1-1/2 to 2 minutes, and fiber paper should be around 3 minutes in most developers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:It also seems to have a timer etc built in to it. I might buy it and see how it is. I own it, it's much nicer than just using a stopwatch or a clock. It reminds you to agitate which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:HC-110 stuff I need to try that. I started on D76 and still mostly use that, but for certain films, I absolutely LOVE Rodinal. Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal made some of the most gorgeous negs I've ever seen. HC-110 seems pretty rad though... any particular film combination you'd recommend for it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 09:24
|
|
is go
|
Acros 100, I am in love with the shadows it gives me at dilution H, and it makes my tri-x pretty smooth. See here for my results. It works well with most modern emulsions, I haven't really done any older style films in HC-110 yet. Eveen though it's been linked before, this is the hc-110 resource: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ I've been meaning to try rodinal for awhile now, I'm considering using it in 1:100 stand with Efke PL100 in 4x5, when I get around to using my crown graphic. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jan 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 09:33
|
|
|
Acros 100 is awesome in general. It's like silk with XTOL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 13:03
|
|
|
I had an old expired roll of Acros that I developed in Rodinal and turned in for a photo class. Even in Rodinal it has a very fine grain. I was really impressed with how well it turned out. I really should order some.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Recommendations for a fast B&W 35mm? Shooting a gig this weekend and I thought I might take my pentax along for a bit of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 23:36
|
|