Low Contrast Negatives... is it my lens?

 

 

<p>I don't know what HC-110 has as I'm not using it so perhaps never bothered to find it out but I never had seen any formula published by Kodak and I'm not sure if they ever published that formula either.<br>

Isn't that a well kept secret? Did Kodak finally published the formula? How do you know that its not contain Metol?<br>

<br /><br /><br>

As far as I know the HC-110 has similar characteristics as D-76 so if it's not Metol than it could be Phenidone which is even better than Metol together with Hydroquinone. Or it could be even a third agent there to like the high contrast X-ray developer use Phenidone and Benzotriazole. I'm using a modified DK-50,<br>

There is no single agent developer as far as I know which made for Pan films accept those which made for special applications for films with other emulsions which can be used for pan films but not with a very nice results. To low or to high contrast. I don't know all the developers content exactly as there is many (1000 thinkable) developing agents around but usually you find them in those with the ring of benzene C6H6 which are usable and they all have their own characteristics and developing abilities. I think there is ten to twenty which used today both in black and white and color together<br>

<br /><br /><br>

the films you mentioned they are all different not entirely the same emulsions either, Pan films are unique and don't have common qualities as other photographic material such as paper, blue sensitive, ortho-lith, copy, x-ray, color or any other films. They all have different chemical characteristics like duplicate films which can be developed in developer made for paper.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>graham</p>

<p>how are you processing your film ? <br />under agitation can give flat negatives.</p>

 

<p>This whole thread is balls of bellybutton Fuzz.<br /> <br /><br /> Amateurs shot good contrasty negatives using exposure meter guides that came with film; before Ansel could walk. Kodak had proven film technique before Ansel was even born.<br /> <br /><br /> **** You probably have bad development.<br /> <br /><br /> A 1902 Brownie No2 shoots a decent negative; even a 1950's box camera; or 1964 Instamatic 104.</p>

<p><br /><br /> Graham; go out on a sunny day and shoot some stuff at 1/asa at F16, then bracket at F11 and F22 to allow for variance in a poor shutter; etc. Some of these should be decent.<br /> <br /><br /> I got a 2x3 Speed Graflex off of ebay in January; shot a roll of FP4 at sunny 16 that was developed in D76 1:1 and they came out fine. I did not even measure the temperature; just developed about 8 to 9 minutes. The Ilford FP4 expired in Nov 1981; I bought dozens of bricks of it back in 1978 for about nothing at a fire sale. It has been frozens since then but was misplaced at my summer house in 2005. The sealed roll was just in some storm junk found outside that washed out; it has not been frozen since 2005 too; when I found it last fall during a vist. The whole purpose of the roll was to check for light leaks; I did not even know if the roll was any good and it came out just fine. The base fog was almost sames as the brand new roll of FP4 I got at B&H that expires in 2012. I developed two rolls at once.<br /> <br /><br /> Folks are making this problem too difficult; folks shot for 60 years with no exposure meters at all in the last century.<br /> <br /> Try to isolate the rats nest of variables;</p>

<p>shoot some dumbs shots at 1/asa at F16 and F11 on a sunny day and press on.</p>

<p>Dimes to dollars you have a development issue.</p>

<p>Folks shot for generations with out all this techno confusion.</p>

<p>Divorce the entire push pull gambit and the usage of another camerais meter gambit as a control; the sun is fairly constant light source. Go back the legal iso/asa on the film box.<br>

<br /> B&W film is more tolerant of overexpose than underexposure. Color print film is too. Disposable cameras are normall with iso 800 print film and over exposure by 2 to 3 stops in bright sun and they still make great prints.</p>

<p>If one has another film person nearby; have him/her look at your negatives; poor negatives are as easy to see as boiling water on a stove; ie easy.</p>

 

<p>Rodeo's comment of</p>

<p>"Frank, I've developed orthochromatic film and blue-sensitive copying film by inspection under safelighting. I can quite categorically tell you that the image is quite clearly visible in the developer, and before fixation, and that the most heavily exposed areas <em>always</em> appear first - just like in a print. This is entirely in line with what textbook theory of exposure and development tells us should happen."</p>

<p>is what we get with our orfho films; plates ,and paper when we process it for our process camera for 4 decades. The image is there when in the developer; dark stuff shows up first. The game one plays sometimes is you leave "it in longer" and rub areas to try to not have to waste a 42" by 72" piece of film or paper! Or one adds some more raw developer. If it is total dud you do not even waste time with stop or fix; you thrown thing away and shoot another to save time and labor costs</p>

<p>Graham,</p>

<p>I'm afraid you worked just exactly backwards, given the exposure conditions (low contrast lighting). You should have exposed at box speed, and developed normally, and printed your negative on a higher grade of paper (3 or 4) to expand the local contrast. I think Kelly's advice regarding exposure is good; don't over complicate it. </p>

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>you have some strange notions about film developers and development. Film development definitely begins in the highlights, just like paper development does, and for exactly the same reasons. There are many, many excellent single agent film developers for pan films, including Willi Beutler's (metol) acutance developer, ABC Pyro (pyrogallol) staining developer, Kodak D23 (metol) fine grain developer, and many, many others. I've even formulated a few, myself:<br>

<a href="http://gsd-10.blogspot.com/">http://gsd-10.blogspot.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.com/">http://hypercatacutancedeveloper.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<p>Benzotriazole is not a developing agent, but an antifoggant and restrainer. All B&W films and papers are essentially similar, and differ only superficially, in their sensitivities. The chemical development process is essentially identical in all cases. </p>

<p>Jay<br /> I said <em>"as I know of"</em> but, yes are many single agent developer but those <em>I know</em> not working well on pan films as contrast is either high or low. The Benzotriazol is antifoggant but it has an important developing properties as its stop Phenidone/ Hydroquinone to build up base fog in high contrast x- ray developer. Or in many other Phenidone -Hydroquinone developer.<br /> With developing the film one always should try to reach a 45 degree density curve which is desirable in any scientific needs,</p>

<p>The D-23 is producing a high contrast with a low density range.<br /> Glycyn often produce fine grain with low contrast</p>

<p>My next question is how do you know it that the highlights appears first on pan films? Do you watch it? Now it's beginning to be the same as the HC-110 not contain Metol but Kodak never published the formula as its still secret and well kept.<br /> And my second question is does similar means the same for you? If it's similar why don't you develop your film designed for paper or the other way around?<br /> Anyway here is some books you can read</p>

<p>Kowalski: Applied photographic theory<br /> Mees-James: theory of the photographic process<br /> Woodlief: photographic science and engineering<br /> And I'm not going to experiment as I allready have my developer.And untill you not showing any curves or dencity tables nothing is scientific just your own opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>Any of the single agent developers I noted, including D23, and GSD-10, a glycin-only developer, are capable of a very wide range of contrasts, from very low, to the maximum the material is capable of developing. <br>

As for pan films, yes, I have watched them develop, and I can assure you this is no Schroedinger's cat scenario; highlights develop first, <strong>exactly</strong> like ortho film, or printing paper. And, yes, I have developed film in paper developers, and paper in film developers; I even formulated a universal developer for films and papers (not the first, by any means). When I say all B&W materials are similar, I mean the differences are not relevant to the point I'm making; they all develop in exactly the same chemical process. I could show you a lot of curves- I have produced hundreds- but I don't care to go to so much trouble to satisfy you (or not). Thanks for the book recommendations; of course I already have Dr. Mees book, but the others are new to me. As a return favor, I recommend:<br>

Haist: Modern Photographic Processing<br>

Henry: Controls in Black and White Photography<br>

 

<h1 ></h1>

</p>

 

<p>Frank;<br>

<br /> RE "My next question is how do you know it that the highlights appears first on pan films? Do you watch it?"<br>

<br /> Yes; use IR goggles; or run a lab where you have some Pan film in a tray in total darkness and some Doofus opens up the darkroom door; or turn on a safelight; or the other bloke hits the 8000 watts of Pulsed strobes on the Process camera.<br>

You can also do the 1950's thing of turning on a faint dark green safelight for a few seconds to "inspect".<br>

<br />Here I have had a few accidents; I can here say that Pan film has its highlights develop first; you have the darn piece of an film in ones hand and the lights come on and you curse as it is ^$#@& ing ruined,<br>

if you instantly stick it in the fixer the the added light was say the red safelights for a second; the botched negative has its highlights and little else.</p>

<p><br /> It is baffling to think the highlights do not come first since it has been that way here since the 1950's.</p>

<p><br /> Maybe you are thinking about reversal film by mistake?</p>

 

 

<p >Okay now I'm gonna stop this.</p>

<p >What I tried to do here is to explain the modern developing process based on two agents developer.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And what I said is this:</p>

<p > <br>

The modern developer have two developing agents, the one is Metol (works on the shadow aria) and the other is hydroquinone (works on the highlighted aria) which is carefully balanced to work together in the process they are super additiv. Which means that they together have higher developing speed than the both of their sum together.<br>

Actually what happens here is that Metol oxidize faster in the beginning of the developing process than hydroquinone and loosing its developing value but this product of oxidation regenerates successive by the hydroquinone and regain its developing ability lather during the developing process.<br>

Observe: not a word of I said which comes firs the highlights or the shadows<br>

Than I continue with fallowing sentence:<br>

The chemical developing process in chemical terms called for a reduction process /as there is another one called physical development / . In case of the chemical development the developer is the reduction agent. So what happens ruffly is that from the exposed latent image the Ag forms an a visual image which shows first after the fix removed all the unexposed AgHal cristals<br>

Than somebody come in and said this:<br>

The developed image most certainly <em>can</em> be seen before fixing.<br>

Okay I thought I'm just going on with it as we are talking about Pan film and explained this and that emulsions paper and still all of you see the image before fixation. :-)<br>

Now now I wonder if you people do have any negatives in your archive as with pan film you cant see the thing! And if you do see it what do you do? Do you switch on the light? :-) But never the less I didn't said anything about not a one word word of what comes first and what you see and what you don't just explained the developing process and super additivity. :-)<br>

<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Yes kelly but IR goggles is not a priority on my list :-) I'm satisfied to see the image when its ready :-)</p>

<p>Frank<br>

** Some of us used the faint green Kodak safelight on unknown Pan films eons ago.<br>

If it is film in tray; you pull it out hold it up and step on foot peddle ( for a second) to look thru and at the negative.<br>

It gives some feedback.<br>

You do it after about 1/2 the development time .<br>

This feedback allows you to end the development earlier or develop it more than normal. This technique is as old as Pan films; it is in Kodak stuff of the 1930's. it was a speed graphic era thing!</p>

<p><br /> having different developing agents is old too; it is in my 1940's Kodak Books and 1930's stuff. That is why there are different developers; it depends on the end goal.<br>

<br /> D23 is sort of like Microdol also like Microdol-X<br>

M is for METOL<br>

<br /> World War 2 era Microdol is 5 grams Metol 100 grams Sulfite; 30 grams table salt<br>

<br /> 1960's Microdol-X adds eye of newt for thinner emulsions; long rumoured to be benzophenone.<br>

<br /> Table salt was a depression era reduce grain gambit; talked about in some 1930's photomagazines</p>

<p>D76 has both Metol and hydroquinone and is from 1926</p>

<p>Whether Pure Metol or Pure hydroquinone developers; or a mix the highlights pop out first. ( they have the most exposure)<br>

<br /> We probably have a communication problem; even with coffee developers highlights develop first</p>

<p>The green light thing is for emergencies. News shot of UFO landing.</p>

<p>Hey Kelly dont you think I didn't know about the highlights? Just that statement after I explained the process make me do it and nothing else. however I wonder how the film look like after developing in a paper developer. That trick I never triyed yet, by the way that coofee thing we are over. Here some would use urin and seriously went out in one site and asked too. :-)</p>

<p>Kelly I wonder if, that green light still works on the todays pan?</p>

<p>From personal experience and after hundreds of lenses, thousands of sheets of 4x5 B/W, I will say this.<br /> <br /> You don't really need a meter at all. If I do meter it's usually after the shot, just to see if my hunch was correct. It aint rocket science...ISO 100 :sunny day f11@1/60th, cloudy day f8@1/60th, dull day f8 @ 1/30th. Using flash : f5.6@ 1/30th....desklamp only f5.6 @ 1 second. If you do want a damn good meter, get a Sekonic L308.<br /> <br /> Cleaning lenses is best achieved with a Spudz microfiber cleaning cloth/18% grey card...if it's oily smears, chicken fingers or old age, use window cleaner. Chips and scratches don't usually affect the result unless there's many. One of my best lenses has a chunk out of the front element, close to the center and performs briiliantly. Haze WILL certainly affect contrast and resolution. I don't believe using your breath to be a suitable method, along with using T shirt material as an abrasive.<br /> <br /> HC is always 31:1, 5-6 minutes @20 degrees C, swilling the tank around a few times each minute....no stop bath, just wash out in plain water twice then add the fixer.<br /> Chinese ERA film is best for stronger contrast, I generally cut back to 5 minutes using this stuff. Most other films show nice midtones and some emulsions show quite low contrast no matter what.<br /> <br /> I don't push/pull films very often....unless I have to. Once in VERY low light I developed some negs twice over with fresh HC each time 5+5 minutes and got amazing results.<br /> I think one can spend so much time pouring over what may or may not be the exact science and in so doing, completely loose the plot!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>frank<br>

yes, the green safelight still works with todays film.</p>

 

<p>Thanks J it's nice to know, not because I'm going or plan to use it, I rather spend some time with exposing the film right or should I say I wouldn't accupy myself lower 125 iso film to 50. :-) maybe 400 to 200 but than it must be an incredable inportant image. Observe IF...... :-)</p>

<p>Frank; the green safelight has to be dim; used quickly. If too much you are adding exposure; ie like fog.<br /> It is normally an emergency thing; a guide to save unknown stuff. Used wrongly you ruin the film. Pan film is sensitive to Green. </p>

<p>Yes Kelly you wrote it before I understood that is only when any other option is run out.</p>

<p>Kelly, what did you use to hold the film on the 2x3 graflex?? Was the graflex like <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~classiccameras/camera2.htm">this one??</a> <br /> Ok anyone suffering from GAS (or embracing it) should disregard Kelly's comments, YOU NEED A LIGHT METER ALWAYS. And a full filter kit, Extention tubes, remote release, remote release extensions, extra film, sunny 16 chart, pen and paper, a calculator,.... cmon Kelly I know you are laughing. Seriously though, it is fun to shoot some vintage stuff without all the extra gadgets, its for fun isn't it. If you are shooting something serious then yeah you should have a light meter and stuff. What good is a light meter though when you are shooting something like a 1930 Agfa Ansco ReadySet Royal. You only have two choices, instant or timed. No f-stop adjustment, no focus. So you click the shutter advance the film and move on. Mine is a fairly nice one, meaning the shutter still works. The only other choice I had was when I went to develop. All the shots where in very bright sun so I decided to reduce development by 10%. Guess what, they all turned out. I am sure they would have turned out had I developed them for the full time, they probably would have been a bit darker.</p>

<p>Graham, congrats on developing your own film. Have you tried any more shots?? If so, how did they turn out?? I recently bought a Crown Graphic but I have not yet developed any film from it. The only thing that I have for developing right now is some 5x7 trays. I should probably stop being chicken and go develop what I have shot so far.</p>