larrydressler Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>Well talk about a pull. I had a bulk roll of what said FP4+. I put it in the F100 set the meter to 125 and went out to shoot. Turned out it was a short roll so that means it was the last one from a bulk roll. I developed it in Xtol 1-1 for 10 minutes which is the time for FP4+. I hang it to dry thinking hey these look pretty good and then I see the edge rebates. Arista Premium 400. Yep it was Tri-X. Most of these are right out of the scanner. I did pump the contrast a little on a couple.<br>http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/sets/72157631193497362/<br><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8303/7838650906_bf9475ac33_c.jpg" alt="" /></p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maury_cohen Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>Tri X has always been an excellent candidate for overexposure-underdevelopment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_stockdale2 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>In fact like many users I call Tri-X a 200 speed film for most purposes, especially portraits. So calling it 125 is only 2/3 of a stop "pull" which is not unlike typical meter variability combined with different metering techniques.</p> <p>I had to change my meter setting from 400 to 200 when I went from centre-weighted metering to matrix metering. It took me a while to realize that my metering technique which had worked so well in the past (meter pointing away from the sky, then reframing) was not so relevant to matrix metering which was trying to do all that for me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>Well I used Matrix and Spot on these.... But the thing is I had no idea of what I did until I hung the film.. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>Nice results. After the safety factor was reduced around 1960 Tri-X was officially rated at ISO 400, but many users continued to rate it at EI 200. Many users prefer the look. With scanner technology it's even better, I've heard (though I haven't tried the EI 200 rating since I got a scanner.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_wilson1 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Very nice Larry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p>Some of my friends are starting to call me All Luck Larry. LOL Thanks Dave. I am now wondering if the times for FP4+ with other developers is to be the same for this pull and look. Looking at the first scans then pixel peeping I could not help but think of Plus-X. Maybe this is another replacement for my lost friend Plus-X.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 <p>Your photo really tamed the high contrast in that scene, BTW. Now if the light were very flat, you'd probably want a much higher rating or at least up the contrast in post processing of your scans. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 <p>Yep.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 <p>I'm a little surprised it wasn't contrastier. I usually need to give less development when I expose Tri-X or HP5+ at EI 200 or so. But my old Minolta Scan Dual may not handle dense highlights as well as newer scanners.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 <p>Well I am using a V700 but the negatives did not look overly contrasty. Most of these are right out with no adjustments. I had to increase the contrast on a couple.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_gordon_bilson Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 <p>It is a little-known fact that negative films thrive on (moderate) over-exposure. The results are almost always better than under-exposure.<br> Considering you used Matrix metering (which means the camera has used an algorithm to peg exposure),it is entirely possible you didn't overexpose much,if at all.<br> Sometimes,the odds balance out in your favor. Enjoy, and try center-weighted next time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 <p>Looks great, Larry. Sometimes I like to push my films and developers to extremes, just to see what happens/ where the breaking points are. I find film, in general, to be quite forgiving. </p> <p>Here's an example of doing just about everything "wrong": I used Adox 25 for a portrait, I shot handheld in direct sun at full box speed, and I developed in a dilute, acutance developer with low frequency agitation. This is asking for trouble, right? But, I had a few tricks up my sleeve. First, I used my 150 SF-C lens, which turned the granite boulder into something like a wool blanket as it drifted out of focus, but I stopped down enough to keep my subject sharp. Second, I used Obsidian Aqua, a highly compensating developer, to check highlight density. I really like this combination, and I'm very disappointed this film is going away. <br> <a href=" <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 26, 2012 Author Share Posted August 26, 2012 <p>Very nice Jay. When someone writes me these days with a problem the first thing I think is. Oh boy what now? The reason for this is because as we both showed B&W film is so forgiving.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 <p>Thanks, Larry. Yes, it really is forgiving, and I'm grateful for it!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wblynch Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 <p>I just made nearly the same mistake. Put in a roll of Arista Premium 400 (tri-x) thinking it was the 100 (plus-x).</p> <p>I used the Massive Development Chart recommendations for Tri-X at 200 in HC-110 (b) and reduced that time another 15 seconds.</p> <p>The film came out way overdeveloped. I still haven't mixed up the Xtol. That'll teach me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 <p>Bill! That is 2 old timers in a week that have messed up.. what is going on? OH and now you will trust me and my Xtol I see. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wblynch Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 <p>Well Larry, I'm know I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I !</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 <p>Sigh.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now