|
Does anyone have any experience developing film with Rodinal/Adonal? Just got some from B&H.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Does anyone have any experience developing film with Rodinal/Adonal? Just got some from B&H. I've done stand and regular development with it, this is the best guide I've found for stand development: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47 Personally I did stand development for high contrast landscape type work, and use a high concentration (1:25) if I was working with portraits and indoors shots. The stand development can bring out grain, and provide very high acutance, which I got a little tired of. But Rodinal worked great for the eastern european films, (Adox, Foma) and Fuji Neopan 100 in my limited experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Acros in Rodinal 1+100 semistand gives incredibly beautiful negatives, but I have recently realized I may have been shooting myself in the foot doing that because a lot of them have contrast too high to be really usable when scanned. I'm going to try non-stand development next to see if it changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Acros in Rodinal 1+100 semistand gives incredibly beautiful negatives, but I have recently realized I may have been shooting myself in the foot doing that because a lot of them have contrast too high to be really usable when scanned. Think about what you're doing. Agitation increases contrast. Stand development is a procedure with no agitation, particularly when combined with high dilutions of developer which further reduces contrast by inducing local depletion of developer. If you go to a non-stand development or increase the concentration, you will almost certainly increase contrast. I'm the last guy to tell you not to experiment but I think you're barking up the wrong tree there. Have you tried widening your exposure when scanning to fully take in the range of the negative? It's ok if it looks really flat at first, those scans can actually turn out great when you hit them with some Lightroom/Photoshop. You could also try exposing it more, which should tend to compress the image more onto the shoulder of the exposure curve which will reduce contrast (particularly in the mid-bright tones). Maybe it'll work better at 80 instead of 100 or something. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Does anyone have any experience developing film with Rodinal/Adonal? Just got some from B&H. Confirming: it works GREAT on Acros. I generally do 1:50 for 18 mins because I don't have the time to do a bunch of single rolls stand-development style anymore, but I used to do 1:100 stand developed for an hour. It probably does enhance grain a bit but I can't tell on Acros. It also works great for pushing Tri-X. It's my most-used developer to be honest. Normal development: Acros, Rodinal 1:50, 18m. Agitate for first minute, then 3-5s every 3 mins. Stand development: Acros, Rodinal 1:100, 60m. Agitate for the first minute, then for 3s at 3 minutes and 30m. Tap out the bubbles really well as stand development doesn't give many opportunities to shake them loose. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
Is anybody using Tri-X with HC-110? Kodak's recommended times are generally believed to be wrong, and unofficial recommendations I've read are all over the place. I've used this combination in the past, but it's been a logn time and I can't remember what worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Is anybody using Tri-X with HC-110? Kodak's recommended times are generally believed to be wrong, and unofficial recommendations I've read are all over the place. I've used this combination in the past, but it's been a logn time and I can't remember what worked. I used HC-110 dilution H (half B) for 13m, so B probably works at 7:30 (they are roughly 2:1). It's just a little bit longer than their standard time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Speaking of stand development, I can confirm that Ilfotec HC also works well for that, and HC-110 should as well. Same procedure as with Rodinal, make 1:100 dilution, agitate for first minute, leave alone for an hour, then stop and fix as usual. You can do your Tri-X like that 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I used HC-110 dilution H (half B) for 13m, so B probably works at 7:30 (they are roughly 2:1). It's just a little bit longer than their standard time. It should be, but I have better luck at 6:45-7min. Maybe it's a bit warmer in my apartment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Does anyone know whats a good Ilford developer substitute for HC-110?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Does anyone know whats a good Ilford developer substitute for HC-110? Ilfotec HC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Ilfotec HC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
This is probably a longshot, but does anyone have experience with bashoproject.org? Or taking film development classes in general? It's down the street from me, and I'm debating between taking the 5-week film darkroom class for $300, or the one day film processing class for $150.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Don't waste $150 on a 1-day film processing course. It's super easy, I can pretty much guarantee you will be able to figure it out first time with some Internet Help. There's a few tricky parts but nothing terrible. Darkroom printing can be tricky at first but it's still doable on your own. If you can get access to enlargers for a while it could be worth it. Or, if you have a bathroom or something you can completely black out, you can hunt Craisglist and probably come up with a 35mm/6x7 enlarger for $50-100 within a couple weeks and figure it out on your own. The extra $200 represents a shitload of paper (like 3-400 8x10s). Once you have the knack of it it's pretty easy. The Wet Printing Megathread is the best resource on this, if there's not a tutorial in there I'd be surprised. Feel free to ask questions here, there, or by PM. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Nov 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
This course? http://www.projectbasho.org/workshops/tutorials/film-processing-tutorial.html I would never spend $150 on that. For $50 you can buy the equipment and everything you need to process dozens of films. Plenty of tutorials on the internet. Shoot a few practice rolls and develop them, it isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
Yeah that is a big waste of money. If you are the sort of person who really benefits from hands-on teaching, I'm sure you can find someone in PA who will go over the basics of loading a reel with you. On another note: I love Velvia.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
red19fire posted:between taking the 5-week film darkroom class for $300, or the one day film processing class for $150.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
considering the last time i used an enlarger was in 7th grade, it'd probably be useful to have someone walk me through it. buy i'll be damned if i'm paying someone to learn how to do test strips again buy poo poo instead. trial and error will be cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Paper stocks change anyway. Do split-grade printing like is mentioned in the Wet Printing thread. Totally owns and makes printing incredibly controllable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
nthing don't spend $150 on learning how to develope film. I just read up on it and dove in. Perfect at the start? No, but I got usuable negatives the first go arround. The hard part is learing how to spool film on the real, and $2-4 buys you a sacrifical roll of film and you can practise to your hearts content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Paper stocks change anyway. Do split-grade printing like is mentioned in the Wet Printing thread. Totally owns and makes printing incredibly controllable. Split-grade printing is the best. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 09:07
|
|
is go
|
Split filter printing is ok, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
I'm playing with VueScan again. I was hoping it might be better than Epson Scan, but I just cannot. make. it. work. Every single time I try to do a scan it reselects my crop for me, so I end up scanning the negative holder instead of the film. Also, the dialog boxes randomly disappear and I have to click less/more to make them come back. I've tried deleting my config file. No luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
I've never had a problem with the VueScan interface, but I can't get a good scan out of it. I mean... they're okay I guess... I just think Epson Scan gets a better scan out of the scanner (a V500). Maybe it's placebo, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
I'm really tempted by the idea of 64-bit RGBi DNG files. The advantage would be you could keep the image unaltered and do infrared cleaning later, with better algorithms. But I just can't make it work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
I also much prefer Epson scan. I don't really have much of a problem with epson scan after i made the follow adjustments: 1) Scan as positive film in colour(48 bit, even b&w film) 2) Select each frame individually 3) adjust histograms as needed for each individual frame 4) do all processing (convert to negative, convert to b&w, contrast adjustment) in photoshop I'm not sure if this is how you are supposed to scan negatives but compared to the default epson scan settings i find my scans look much better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Developed my first roll of film last weekend: Arista 100 in their liquid developer, shot on a Kodak No. 2 Model C Hawkeye (big name for a simple camera). Results were not perfect, but a lot better than I was expecting: Church and Beaver Street, former bank now a restaurant, October 2011  Intersection at High and Main with Masonic building, October 2011  Belfast waterfront, October 2011 The photos on the outside of the reel had generally more uneven developing marks and the inside of the reel was filthy so of course some crud is visible too (as well as marks from a difficult reeling process). Hopefully the next one will go better. Only question for now is: I used photo-flow and still got spots (3rd picture)--anything I can do about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Jellyko posted:Only question for now is: I used photo-flow and still got spots (3rd picture)--anything I can do about this? As long as the picture (emulsion) hasn't been damaged you can re-wash the film. Your photo flo dilution may have been too thin, try adding a few drops more this time. Also make sure you still brush as much water off the film you can before hanging it to dry. nielsm fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Nov 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Jellyko posted:Only question for now is: I used photo-flow and still got spots (3rd picture)--anything I can do about this? Those look great! I have two Rapid Rectilinears I stole off Kodak folders. I really need to give them a shot sometime. Follow the PhotoFlo dilutions precisely. Make them with a baby syringe if you need to (and then don't use that syringe for any other chemicals unless you like air bells/bubbles on your film). Make the solution with distilled water. I thought tap water would be good enough, but I kept getting mineral fallout. I made some with distilled water, and the problems went away. I recommend using distilled water for everything, but particularly Photo Flo since it's last. It's like 25c a gallon at your grocery store, it's not worth loving up valuable pictures/film to save a quarter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Even with just distilled water and no water wetter i don't get spots. I just let the film soak in distilled water for a few minutes and then hang it up to dry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
I use tap water and it's fine, but then again I'm in Vancouver so our water comes from rain and glaciers as opposed to underground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
So I had my roll of Kodak Gold 200 and BW400CN developed at the camera store around the corner. Considering they use minilab like everyone I feel like the $12 + tax they charged me for develop only was too expensive. Can anyone recomend a develop place in the Los Angeles area for me? Secondly, I'm really disappointed in the pictures I got back. Not in the artistic merit of them, but in the sharpness/contrast. I feel like every single picture is really soft. I got a Epson 4490 off craigslist to scan them. Are there any tricks or guides on how to use it to get the best out of the negatives? I'll post some of the better ones later [when I get home], but I wonder if my N90s [also from craigslist] needs a cleaning, or service? The 35-70 f/2.8 that I'm using on the N90s takes GREAT pictures on my D7k, but I'm really not impressed with what I'm getting on the film so far. Perhaps part of the problem is how I'm scanning them, so I'll post later and get feedback. I suppose also that the camera and lens aren't focusing great together? I got a roll of Tri-X and Ilford HP5+ to shoot this weekend at a family baby shower. The BW400CN seems to have mostly come out 'better' than the roll of Kodak Gold 200 that I shot. I'm somewhat disheartened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
When I was visiting a friend in LA, she used Richard Photo Lab almost exclusively http://richardsphotolab.com/ So, there's an option, if you're looking for a "real lab" vs. a mini lab. $12 for develop only is a little steep, but I think even the Ritz camera around the corner from me charges $4-5 per roll for developing. And to weigh in my $.02, I'm really really not a fan of Kodak Gold. Same goes for Fuji Superia. Maybe I've just had some off days when I was shooting those, but everything came out just boring and awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:When I was visiting a friend in LA, she used Richard Photo Lab almost exclusively I'm just getting more 'soft and low contrast' I'll certainly be trying to shoot at faster shutter speeds whenever possible. What ISO setting should I set the N90s to for the Ilford HP5+ and the Tri-X 400TX? I don't really understand what the ISO setting does on the camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Set it at 400. Technically, the camera setting is EI (Exposure Index). Film ISO is rated by the manufacturer and you can't change it. Increasing the EI and processing longer will tend to increase contrast. Lowering the EI and processing faster will reduce contrast. By the way you won't be able to develop real B+W film at a minilab. It could just be that lab scans suck (they always do). Scan it on your PC and put it through Lightroom and they'll look a lot better. Do not use ICE/infrared dust cleaning for real B+W film, only C-41 and E-6 film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Set it at 400. Technically, the camera setting is EI (Exposure Index). Film ISO is rated by the manufacturer and you can't change it. Increasing the EI and processing longer will tend to increase contrast. Lowering the EI and processing faster will reduce contrast. By the way you won't be able to develop real B+W film at a minilab. I'm scanning it on my home computer on the Epson 4490. I will set the ISO to 400 on my camera. When people talk about 'pushing' film, is that something that you do in develop then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
The n90 should automatically read the iso from the DX coding on your film, unless you have taken it off that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
tijag posted:I'm scanning it on my home computer on the Epson 4490. Excuse me if I'm telling you things you already know... The lower the ISO rating of a roll of film, the "slower" it is. That is to say, more light will be required to properly expose an image. If you have a roll of film that's rated at 100 ISO, you'll have to shoot in sunlight basically (unless you're using flashes, etc.) If you're shooting a roll of 3200 ISO film, you're going to be shooting in a low-lit room or a small club concert or something. 400 is a happy medium in that you can shoot outdoors in the sun, you can shoot some (well lit) indoor stuff, it's good stuff. HP5+ and Tri-X are both rated at 400 ISO. If you "push" film, that means you're shooting it AS IF it were a faster film. So, if you set your camera to 1600, your camera thinks you have 1600 film in there, and it will meter for a faster exposure. For example, if you have 400 film in there, and you meter at 400 ISO and get 1/30sec - if you set your camera to 1600, it will metter for 1/90 or 1/125 or something. I'm not good at doing the reciprocity stuff in my head, but you get the idea. Since the film isn't changing at all, but you're technically UNDERexposing the image, you have to increase your developing time. For example, two of the same shot on two rolls of film: Roll A: 400 ISO, 1/30sec, develop for 5:00 Roll B: 1600 ISO, 1/125sec, develop for 11:00 There are guides out there to tell you how long to develop your film for which speed. That's why I know that HP5+ at 400 in HC-110 is 5:00, while at 1600 it's 11:00. Pulling is just the opposite. So, why would you want to push/pull? Well, I really like HP5+ and Tri-X. And they both push and pull a long way really easily. So, if I'm shooting in a coffeeshop or something and all I have with me is a roll of HP5+, I'll push to 1600 so I can shoot at 1/60 or faster, instead of having to set up a tripod and getting blurry 1/15, 1/30, etc shots or using flashes. Same deal with pulling - if it's bright outside and I'm shooting HP5+, I might pull to 200 so I can shoot at f/2.8 instead of having to stop down to f/8 or f/11 in order to compensate for the brightness. Okay, so I just spit out probably way more than you'd want to know, but there you have it. Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
He asked. That's what pushing/pulling/EI adjustment is. And HP5+ and Tri-X actually do better pushed than dedicated 1600/3200 films in many cases. Strange but true. I recommend stand development to try and take a bit of the contrast out. I do Rodinal 1:100 for an hour, agitated for the first minute, at 3m, and at 30m, standard temp (20C). Reichstag posted:The n90 should automatically read the iso from the DX coding on your film, unless you have taken it off that. Yeah, if you set it manually it's probably overriding the N90's auto-DX.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Pulling is just the opposite. So, why would you want to push/pull? Well, I really like HP5+ and Tri-X. And they both push and pull a long way really easily. So, if I'm shooting in a coffeeshop or something and all I have with me is a roll of HP5+, I'll push to 1600 so I can shoot at 1/60 or faster, instead of having to set up a tripod and getting blurry 1/15, 1/30, etc shots or using flashes. Same deal with pulling - if it's bright outside and I'm shooting HP5+, I might pull to 200 so I can shoot at f/2.8 instead of having to stop down to f/8 or f/11 in order to compensate for the brightness. Other reasons you may want to push or pull is contrast and graininess. When you push film you unavoidably get heavier grain, though I'm not sure you also get smaller grain when pulling. The more important thing may be contrast: When you pull, you increase contrast of the image, while you get a softer image when you pull. My main point here is really just that you can use pushing and pulling not just to compensate for light but also to obtain specific effects. The disadvantage of roll film is that you have to develop an entire roll at a time, you can't just decide that you want to push 3 pictures on a 36 exposure roll by 2 stops. Paul MaudDib posted:And HP5+ and Tri-X actually do better pushed than dedicated 1600/3200 films in many cases. Strange but true. I recommend stand development to try and take a bit of the contrast out. I do Rodinal 1:100 for an hour, agitated for the first minute, at 3m, and at 30m, standard temp (20C). You get acceptable Dmax for pushed HP5+/Tri-X with (semi-)stand development? I'll have to try that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 20:04
|
|