35mm b&w exp. at 250 or higher - how to get finest results in dev.?

[rondal]

Hi,

 

having recently switched from an Olympus XA to a Leica M3 with

collapsible 50/2 Summicron for my street photography, I've decided

that the current film and developer combo, which was fine for the XA,

does not mirror my high expectations of Leica glass. I'd love to get

some recommendations from the gurus here, who have been quite helpful

in the past.

 

Before anyone pipes up, I realize that the best recipe for fine grain,

crisp contrast, pronounced shadow & highlight detail etc. is to expose

at ISO 100 or lower. In fact, I'm quite happy with the quality of my

work off the tripod, especially in medium format. I also realize I

have no right to expect this quality from handheld grab shots taken on

the street on 35mm film. But at least I'd like to do as well as the

medium allows. Also, while I'm more open to exotic experiments in

medium format, I prefer more solid results in 35mm.

 

The combo I've been using so far has been Adox CHM 400 film (which I

believe is repackaged HP5+) pulled to 250 whenever possible, and

developed accordingly in Adox ATM 49 (formerly known as Calbe A49)

fine grain developer, with the stock solution diluted 1+1 at 20?C;

constant gentle agitation during the first minute, then for about 5

seconds every minute until 2 minutes before dumping, when I stop

agitating. Immediately after dumping, I fill the tank with tap water

(same temperature), agitate for about 15 seconds, and let the film

rest in this highly diluted solution for another minute before washing

and fixing.

 

The resulting negatives look rather dull through the Summicron, which

has lower contrast than the XA's lens. At the same time, the

Summicron's higher resolution shows that fuzzy, ugly grain is now the

limiting factor of image sharpness.

 

After some dabbling, I find that I generally like the results I'm

getting out of Neopan 1600 exposed at 1000, though even those could

use more "oomph" (sorry that I can't be more precise). Would you

recommend pulling this film even further than 1000; say, down to 400

or even less? Which developer would you use for this film to achieve

the most pleasing results (see 2nd paragraph)? Would you say I'm even

headed in the right direction with my choice of NP1600, or would a

different film suit my purposes better?

 

Finally, if at all possible, I'd like to stick to a single developer

bath for the sake of convenience, especially since 35mm film is

something I shoot a lot of, and - unless I'm mistaken, and in that

case please correct me - doing a 2-bath development would take a lot

longer. In bulk 35mm, efficiency is the key word for me.

 

So, please ramble away. I'm eager for instruction.

[lex_jenkins]

There's no single exposure index or development time that will produce negatives of satisfactory contrast for all situations. While it isn't necessary to become proficient in the Zone System for 35mm photography, it does help to understand the basics of how light, exposure and development interact.

 

The difficulty in trying to apply this consistently to 35mm photography is that we don't always finish a roll in lighting that is consistent from first frame to last.

 

That's why some of us choose a single exposure index that is suitable for a variety of lighting situations and develop for the most important frames. I find that Tri-X works perfectly well right at the box speed of 400 and delivers excellent results when I give slightly longer than average development in HC-110. I've used this combination for years and it produces contrast that I like on either a condenser or diffusion head enlarger, giving plenty of leeway for the use of filters during printing.

 

For low light photography I'll either push Tri-X or T-Max 400 to 1600 or use Delta 3200 anywhere between 1600-6400, as needed for the available light. I'll develop in either Microphen or Diafine. Usually I prefer Tri-X at 1200-1250 in Diafine when I might be exposing some of the roll during the day and the rest indoors or at night. But pushing film comes at the expense of less shadow detail and more grain.

[rondal]

Ah, Lex, I was hoping you'd field this one. Thanks for the tips... I'll be trying them out.

 

Do you dislike Neopan, or do you simply find that Tri-X suits your purposes better?

 

IIRC, you sometimes use Rodinal. When, why and how? Thanks again.

[rondal]

Also, if I *do* have the option of exposing an entire roll in the exact same lighting conditions, would your recommendations remain the same, or could I "upgrade" to a more specialized film/developer combo? If so, what would your recommendations be for 1) overcast daylight, and 2) bright sunlight? Finally, in the latter case, would you be exposing for shadows, highlights or a middle ground?

 

Sorry to pounce on you with all these questions, but now that I can no longer blame the camera for bad results, I want to get this right once and for all...

[kaiyen]

Ronnie,

 

You describe the issue as "fuzzy" grain. Is the issue that the grain is too soft, or that it's there at all?

 

I think Calbe A49 is supposedly the "original" Rodinal formula, so I'm disinclined to think you aren't getting enough acutance, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

Also, I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure what you are looking for (though Lex figured it out, so I'll re-read your question a few times). I feel like you're looking for finer grain sometimes, but then you also seem to be seeking the tonality you're getting with slower films. Finally, I also think you're just looking for more snap and contrast (which is also tied to tonality, of course).

 

allan

[rondal]

Actually, Allan, my phrasing was as hazy as the grain I'm complaining about, but then, I often find it just isn't possible to accurately describe what technical aspects make a pleasing negative. In fact, though, you pretty much got it right in the last paragraph of your post.

 

A certain amount of grain, IMO, can be quite pleasing. But there's crisp grain and there's grain that's just "blah". I think it has more to do with the shape and sharpness of the grain than with its size. Generally, the displeasing type of grain I think I mean is popcorn-shaped, fuzzy and low in contrast, while the pleasing type of grain is edgy, sharp and high in contrast. OTOH, I find that if *any* grain is sufficiently dominant to be noticed when you're looking for it, that is displeasing, as well.

 

Your suggestion that Calbe A49 may be the original Rodinal formula is very surprising. Could you point me to a source for this statement? The Calbe A49 I have is a powder developer, the stock is usually diluted 1+1, and it yields soft grain and low contrast, while my Rodinal comes in a bottle, the stock is usually diluted 1+50, and it yields sharp grain and high contrast (the downside being that the grain is much too dominant unless I am pulling by at least one stop, and the likeliness of losing shadow detail is greater than with the Calbe). I find that these two developers thus have practically nothing in common.

 

Thanks for listening to my confused ramblings...

[conrad_hoffman]

I don't know anything about A49, but Rodinal is not a speed increasing developer. If you fiddle about with the EI so the shadow detail is correct, then fiddle some more with the development time so the contrast index is correct, it will look almost identical to D-76, ID-11, and many other developers (diluted). It won't produce the best film speed. I know that will sound crazy to some, but you have to try it. Our inability to describe grain and developer characteristics contributes to the strong feelings people have over very subtle differences. Certainly slower films will produce finer grain and better results, but only if the image is *sharp*. For hand held subjects I usually prefer to use faster film and higher shutter speeds. A bit of grain is far better than blur. Pick a general purpose developer that has good shelf life and try not to believe there's something better just over the next rise. If you want more acutance, dilute it more. If you want a bit softer grain, dilute it less. Get a book on the Zone System and read it till you understand it. You can't take advantage of different development times with roll film (usually), but if you understand how to set speed based on shadow detail, and how to adjust development time for printable highlights, most concerns about different developers will disappear.

[lex_jenkins]

Ronnie, I have some Neopan in the fridge but haven't had a chance to try it yet. I have very little time for experimenting with new stuff these days so when I shoot I tend to be conservative and stick with familiar stuff. Three or so years ago I was experimenting with everything I could get my hands on but Neopan wasn't one of 'em.

 

FWIW, tho', if online JPEGs are any indication, Neopan 1600 looks like an interesting film. Different flavor from Delta 3200 and TMZ.

[goran_basaric1]

Hi,

Agfa made same or very similar developer under the name Atomal, it's gone by now. ORWO made it under the name A49. According to "ORWO Formulae" book it is "extreme fine grain developer". It contains developing agent T-22 and hydroquinone.

You will have hard time finding nice, sharp grain with this developer.

Regards

Goran

[StuartMoxham]

From doing some checking on the web it seems the Calbe A49 is Atomal. Calbe R09 is some sort of Rodinal. Calbe A49 is supposed to be rather fine grained and may not give the crispness that you are looking for. Rodinal may give crisper results but some say it does not work well with HP5. I like HP5(120) in HC110 but my first choice in 35mm would be TriX in HC110. I find that the TriX negs look a little crisper. For a good all round developer D76 hard to beat but I have read more than a few times on here that it can make HP5 seem a little mushy. Maybe give some TriX a try.

[kaiyen]

<p>Oops. Calbe A49 is Atomal, yes. Sorry - got confused.

 

<p>I think that, if you're looking for more crisp grain, you should consider an acutance developer first off. Even between D76 1+1 (so not quite as solvent as stock) and Rodinal (an acutance but not super high definition developer) I see some pretty glaring differences in the sharpness of the grain.

 

<p><a href="http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/albums/SF/day/normal_%7BQ-E%7D2004-11-10%20B-06.jpg"> This image </a>is FP4 in rodinal. The enlargement is 1000 pixels on the long dimension so hopefully it's big enough to see the crispness.

 

<p>I have also heard that HP5 doesn't like rodinal so much, FWIW.

 

<p>allan

[kaiyen]

<p>I'm stupid, and I'm still getting used to my new gallery.

 

<P><a href="http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=14">This</a> is the right link, with the enlargement availalbe.

 

<p>allan

[peter_svensson]

If your negatives look "dull," you're looking for more "oomph," it could be because you're pulling the film, i.e. underdeveloping, which gives lower contrast. You may try exposing HP5 at 250, then develop for the time recommended for a 400 exposure.

[gaius1]

Allan that's the kind of tonality I get from HP5+ in Acutol, tho' with more grain obviously...

[titrisol]

seems to me that you need to try a different developer.

 

If it is HP5, D76/ID11, Xtol, DDX, Clayton F76+ or something similar may improve your graininess and tonality.

[rondal]

Thanks, guys. I'm going to try Tri-X in HC-110 or in XTOL for the slower stuff, and T-Max 3200 in T-Max solution, D-76 or Calbe A49 as well as Delta 3200 in Microphen or Diafine for the faster stuff, and then decide.