carolyn_jones3 Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Ok I am very new to developing film, I just started in class this summer...well my teachers are on break until fall and I don't know how to develop film. The ISO was set at 100 for the film with is 400. What changes should I make in processing this film? TIA Carolyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbreak Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Try developing about 15-20% less depending on how contrasty the scenes were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Argh... 400 to 100 is a big step. I shoot (on purpose) this picture as 200 Asa and developed 30% less. http://www.photo.net/photo/3291125 I think you will have to live with blown out highlights. If you reduce too much development you will end up with no midtone separations and risk uneven development. I would suggest rather 40% less... OR ... try to use a developer as Rodinal. I don't knw what kind of devs you have access to, but Rodinal is a slow speed developer... Rodinal 1+50, 20 degrees Celsius, 7'30" you will get quite grainy images, but Rodinal has a distinct grain pattern with TriX that provides a nifty look. Have a look at www.digitaltruth.com on the "massive dev chart". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 You will have to reduce development time, but you might be close enough. I actually rate my Ilford FP4+ at 32 which is an equivalent two-stop overexposure. Tri-X is pretty forgiving, and rating it at 100 as a matter of practice is not unheard of. You could try to mix some D-23 (water, sodium sulfite, metol) which is a compensating developer that might keep your highlights from being too blown. I actually use this developer all the time and am pleased with the results I get. On the upside, you should get great shadow detail, so all is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Check out digitaltruth for the formula for D-23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_mckeith Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 That's my usual ISO for TX- D-67 1:1 7 min. 68 degrees three inversions per min. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Repeat the error with another partial roll, about six exposures. Cut off 6 in the dark and develope about 40% less than normal. Then print them and if they are ok, develope the original roll. If not, shoot 6 more and adjust the development. You will learn a lot doing this. The pictures are salvageable, infact they are potentially quite nice. Start with D76 1:1 and 5 minutes at 68. Agitate 10 sec per min rather than 5 sec every 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_mckeith Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Ronald- I do this all the time.I won't try to explain how nice the "tonality "is,nor do I have a scanner.Try a roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pa.patriot Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 I recently did the same thing with Ilford HP5+ (normal 400 ISO film) Check the thread here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D01u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 To me, this is a no brainer. Develop in Microdol X. It is a soft working developer to begin with and it effectively reduces the speed of Tri-X. While straight Microdol and Tri-X yield a speed of about 200, I think that the tonality at 1:3 is worth risking a little density. I would suggest Microdol 1:3 and pulling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 As a rule-of-thumb reduce development time by 1/3 per stop downrating. 400 to 100 is a 2 stop pull (downrating) so reduce the dev time by 1/3 and then 1/3 again. So, if the dev time at 400 ASA were, say, 12 minutes, for 100 ASA reduce to 5.5 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolyn_jones3 Posted August 7, 2005 Author Share Posted August 7, 2005 Thanks for all of the responses...now my next question is do only reduce the time in the developer, or do I reduce the time for all other chemicals as well? I really like the idea of reshooting another roll and doing test strips, this way I can truly learn more about developing my film...I think try that...thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patric_dahl_n Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 Only the time in the developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 If you cut the development time you'll reduce the contrast too. You might be better off not reducing the time "according to the math" because while the density might make for fast printing times your pix will be way too flat. Maybe cut the time 15 to 20% max, and live with the slightly dense negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_fyffe Posted August 7, 2005 Share Posted August 7, 2005 you can always use farmers reducer to fix dense negetives just be sure to watch them carfully and constantly adj in a dish. do 5 neg strips at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_mckeith Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 AL- that's right- the theory might say 5-6 min. for D-76 1:1,but in actual usage,7 min. gives a better neg.imo 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