bruno Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hi all, after fighting against my own incompetence in the darkroom, findinghow I had to switch from grade 0.5 to grade 4 paper in a singleprinting session wasting time, money and patience, I decided to committo the zone System and did the following film-speed test: 1. took a "blank" frame of TriX (35 mm, the "new" one), exposed at 400and developed in Xtol 1+1 and put it in the enlarger. 2. exposed a test strip to find the shortest time that could give methe maximum density (Zone 0) reachable by the paper (in the case, AgfaMCP 312) with filter n. 2. Wrote down the time (call it t0, for brevity) 3. set up a scene with nikon 18% reflector and spot-metered. Crosschecked with an incident light meter. The scene contained also ZoneIII and below shadows. 4. Started varying exposure on a whole roll, so that I could have anequivalent setting from 800 to 100 ASA. 5. Developed the roll (alone in 500 ml Xtol 1+1), 8 minutes at 22 C. 1minute initial agitation. Then 10" every minute. Stop, fix and wash. 6. Let the film dry, then put it into the enlarger and exposed eachframe for t0. Same f setting, of course :) 7. Searched for the picture with most shadow detail. It looks like, the film performs best at 250 ASA (or maybe 200, butit's just personal taste I guess). I didn't try to correct, yet, thedeveloping time, although the 250 ASA frame, puts the gray card onZone V1/2 (circa) and keeps a sheet of white paper with some sketcheson it on a pleasant Zone VIII. If shorter developing time is needed,then I guess is for not more than 15%. - - - - - - It's quite a simple test to perform, and it doesn't take more than acouple of hours (except the time to wait for the film to dry). - - - - - - I'll try the same also with Xtol in full strength, to see how shadowdetail is affected from different solution strength. Has anyonealready performed this kind of test with TriX, would be interesting tocompare the results. - - - - - - By the way: has anyone had any difference in processing one or tworolls in a two-rolls-tank with Xtol 1+1 or ID11/D76 1+1. Justwondering if developer exhaustion might be an issue or not. I justdon't want to waste other two rolls and two hours :) - - - - - - I know that these tests are usually meaningful for one onlycamera/film/developer/enlarger/paper combination... nevertheless Ithought someone might find this of interest. Have a nice day,b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim kerr Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hey Bruno, you are to be commended as a considerable thinker. Sounds to me like you are headed in the right direction to being very competent....keep at it, love to see someone such as you trying to find out what's going on....all the best....Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 With Xtol you need a min of 100ml of developer, so 1:1 would give you a total of 200ml, so for 2 rolls you get 400ml. There "should" be no difference in processing 2 rolls in your set up. Just remember to use the stuff one shot, and dillute the Xtol just before use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Thanks Gerry, did you try this yourself or are you relying on information from Kodak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_sampson Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 My tests showed that using XTOL straight will give you finer grain and less edge sharpness. I use Tri-X and it looks much better in XTOL 1:1 than straight. I also found that D-76 1:1 (the unofficial world standard) falls between the two. Do make sure to have at least 100ml of XTOL stock per 135/36 (or 120) roll, or you risk underdevelopment from developer exhaustion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Thanks a lot Mark, did you notice any difference in film speed between the two? My impression (around 50 developed rolls in Xtol straight, 10 in 1+1) is that 1+1 gives less film speed... but the light was so different that I cannot tell... and curiously is the opposite of what Kodak claims in the technical publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexis_neel Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Use the XTol undiluted. Your results will be better. Alexis www.alexisneel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hats off for the man who prints Jim Marshall's photos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 The choice between 200 and 250 might be based on results you get in the field...you'll just have to see what kind of shadow detail you're getting. If you shooting at 250 and need some more shadow detail, drop to 200 and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexis_neel Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Bruno Trematore , wrote: "Hats off for the man who prints Jim Marshall's photos..." That would be Kirk at Graphic Resource in San Francisco. I used to do the film though. Alexis www.alexisneel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 Alexis: gosh, and I was hoping for a free Grateful Dead or Dylan print! No, just a joke, I've seen your gallery, and I think your work is very fine. Didn't know you did also development, a reason more to take your suggestion in high consideration. My prints are million miles behind yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_unsworth1 Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I've developed a lot of Tri-X in Xtol 1:3 and it works fine with 75ml of stock Xtol - i.e. my tank takes 300ml of liquid per film. Other films, such as Tmax 100, _don't_ work at this dilution/amount of developer, but Tri-X and FP4 (the films I use most) are fine. I scan with a Nikon Coolscan V rather than print through an enlarger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 Steve, you're missing the best by scanning. I scan a lot, I admit... but when printed those test photos... straight print on contrast 2 paper, no dodging, no burning... and then scanned the negatives, I realized how much work there is to do to get the same richness of tones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 By the way... thanks for the "1+3" tip, that was useful... I know that with 1+1 I'm safe :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_trochlil Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 "...The choice between 200 and 250 might be based on results you get in the field...you'll just have to see what kind of shadow detail you're getting. If you shooting at 250 and need some more shadow detail, drop to 200 and see what happens..." Precisely, how do you do that? I don't have a clue. Please advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 8, 2005 Author Share Posted March 8, 2005 I think it means: if 250 gives still too deep shadows, shoot the next roll at 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexis_neel Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Bruno, I do it all. Glad you enjoyed the work. Alexis www.alexisneel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_trochlil Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 "...I think it means: if 250 gives still too deep shadows, shoot the next roll at 200.[/i] I will try again. I have this camera, bright sun, set at f16/250 because that is the speed of the shutter. That's EI of 250. Now how do I get to EI of 200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 You need a camera that can set shutter speeds or aperture values with 1/3 stop increment... ...in my case I set the ISO speed of the camera to 250, and the aperture/speed combination will be selected accordingly. If you set an ISO of 200, this should increase the time of 1/3 of a stop, in your case it should be 200/f16. If not available, move to the closest value (which is 250). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 I was referring to ISO values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 If you're shooting at 250, when you should be shooting at 200, you are effectively underexposing your film. This will yield shadows that are too dark, i.e., less shadow detail than desired. Lowering your ISO 200, and placing shadows in Zone III (for example) should then yield shadows with better detail. To put this differently, reducing the ISO to 200 (from 250, in the case of this example) will increase negative density (for a given exposure setting), thereby resulting in better shadow detail. In a nutshell, you are trying to determine the film speed-development time combination that will yield a negative with good shadow detail AND good highlight detail (highlights that are not blown out). On those occassions when you want to either blow out your highlights, or just increase contrast (raise the "value" of highlights), you increase your development time. On those occassions when you want to reduce contrast (i.e., lower the value of the highlights), you reduce development time. In either case, the ISO setting is the same, and shadow details should not be affected too much by the change in development time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Attached is an image that, while not anything to write home about, that has a fairly wide range of tones. It was taken with a Mamiya 7 using Ilford FP4+ rated at ISO 64. It was developed using full-strength Xtol in a Jobo (7 minutes, 68F/20C, rotation speed set to 3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 By the way, exposure determined by trusty sunny-16 rule, but verfied with incident light meter, i.e., 1/60 at f16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 wonderful grayscale, Brian. 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