Dark Negs

[edward_feltman]

I have recently switched to using Xtoll and have immediately reached

frustration. The first roll that I developed over a month ago

created beautifull negatives, however the three that I have developed

since have turned out extrimely dark. The roll that came out so well

was Delta 100. Since, I have developed one roll of TMax 100 and two

rolls of FP4 and have been left with very dark negatives (see

attatched JPEG which was made by placing the neg on my flatbed

scanner).

 

I have used Xtoll at 1:2 and 1:3 and ended up with the same problem.

The fixer is about 60 days old, but the hypo check shows that it is

still good.

 

My procedure is to develop for the reccomended time (have not had

time to calibrate yet) and add 10%. Agitation for the first 30 sec

and then 5 sec after every 30 sec. thereafter. 30 Sec stop bath and

10 minute fix. After that a 10 min wash and 30 sec in photo flow.

 

As far as I can tell the exposure should not be a problem. Any

advice as to the source of the trouble would realy be appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

Ed

[m0002a]

The images appear grossly overexposed. There is light is bleeding past the edge of the frame into the word "Kodak" on many of the shots. You also need to use Hypo Clearing Agent to get rid of the purple stain. I would switch to Rapid Fix and fix for about 5 minutes with agitation. Forget about hypo check. Read the fixer directions (or web page) for capacity and keeping properties and then cut those numbers in half. Make sure you mix the fixer to film strength and not paper strength.

 

Maybe you should explain the camera and exposure methodology in detail.

[art_haykin]

Those are simply massively overexposed negs, and it has nothing to do with the hypo. Maybe your shutter is sticking.

[lex_jenkins]

I'd agree with Mark and Art - your negs look overexposed. TMX really isn't as tricky or picky to process as rumored and FP4 definitely ain't that picky.

 

The only time I get that kind of "bleeding" of light into the negative margins with my Rolleiflex TLR is when there's an extremely contrasty situation in which I've exposed for the shadows. This is fairly common with medium format pressure plates which don't hold the film quite as flat as 35mm, but only extreme overexposure can produce the effect I see in your negs.

 

I'd be inclined to re-evaluate my exposure techniques and check the shutter for reliability. My Rollei shutter lags at speeds below 1/30th and gets particularly sluggish at the 1 second mark, delivering an actual two seconds of exposure. Big difference in films like TMX which have relatively less latitude than FP4 or even Delta 100 and APX 100.

[stuart_todd]

I agree, they look a little 'well-done' in the exposure department, check your light meter, make sure that's working.

 

I'm in the same boat with Lex Jenkins on the leader fog/light leaks. I get the same problem when using any of my 120 roll film cameras, the film just doesn't sit tight

enough.

A recent example was a portrait I took at the observatory, because I was exposing for the indoors, the light coming in from the barn doors (the slit on top of the

dome) was really overexposed and carried across on to the leader. Doesn't bother me so much, I don't use black boarders when printing. But if you DO want black

boarders by using the film edge, time to dodge and burn.

 

Stu :)

[scott walton]

Over exposure here... looking at the lettering on the edge of the film also there might be a little over development but only about 10%... There seems to be alot of problems with Xtol since it has been on the market. My suggestion is to go with HC110 or D76 1:1.

[edward_feltman]

Thank you all for your input on this. The camera is a Mamiya 645. It has recently been services by Mamiya. The shutter speeds sound about on target, but I suppose that untill I have a professional check them, I will not be sure.

 

My meter is actually another camera. Though the Mamiya has a meter, it is a little off, so I use the meter in a Nikon n-70, which is better because it has a spot meter option. I meter for the shadow, but in most of these cases, there appeared to be only a one stop difference between the shadow and highlight areas when I measured them.

 

Perhaps it is my metering teqnique: Measure the shadow, measure the highlight, place the shadow. As an example if the shadow measures f4 and the highlight f5.6 and I want the shadow in zone 4, I shoot the shadow in at 2.8?.

 

Thank you all!

 

Ed

[m0002a]

It would have to be a very overcast day (or very flat indoor lighting) to have such a small difference between shadows and highlights. I would try to meter off a gray card just for testing purposes. Also, run a test of all your shutter speeds to check relative accuracy (i.e., there should be a one stop difference in density between them).

[m0002a]

<p><i>"As an example if the shadow measures f4 and the highlight f5.6 and I want the shadow in zone 4, I shoot the shadow in at 2.8?".</i></p>After thinking some more about your metering technique, I believe I see a problem. Meters are calibrated so that they assume they are pointed at an 18% gray card, or a scene that has a mixture of tones that approximate 18% gray. This is also known as Zone V in the Zone System. If you point it at a Zone III shadow area, you will get 2 stops overexposure. If you then open the aperture one stop (from f/4 to f/2.8) you are at 3 stops overexposure.</p> I also strongly suspect that your scene has more than a one stop range from shadow to highlight. TTL meters (even in spot mode) seldom are selective enough to measure individual zones, since they are specifically designed to compute an average scene exposure, even if they are in center-weighted or spot mode. To measure the individual areas of the scene using the Zone System, a 1 degree spot meter is necessary. This may have contributed another couple of stops of over-exposure in your shots.</p>As I previously mentioned, you would be better off buying an 18% gray card and just using it for your exposures. I carry a 2" x 2" square cut-out of a gray card in my pocket when photographing. It is usually a good idea to move the gray card around at different angles of reflectance (especially in bright lighting) and use an average of the meter readings from the card. If the scene is in sunlight, and you want good shadow detail, you will need to take a reading in the sun and a reading in the shade and average the two. If you still insist on using the Zone System to place shadows on a certain Zone (assuming you have a good 1 degree spot meter) then the gray card can be used as a sanity check of your calculated exposure.

[edward_feltman]

Mark,

 

Perhaps I mis spoke (not having the camera in front of me when writing). To clarify, if the shadow meters in zone V and I want it in zone 3, I reduce the apature while watching my meter to place it two stops below the metered reading. I then check the fall of the highlight (in this case it should be zone 5 assuming a 2 stop range from highlight to shadow...correct? (this is the way that I have been doing it).

 

If this is the inapropriate forum for this discussion I apologise as at first I thought the problem was with development.

 

Thank you,

 

Ed

[dave_t]

<i>To clarify, if the shadow meters in zone V and I want it in zone 3, I reduce the apature while watching my meter to place it two stops below the metered reading.</i>

<p>

Sounds right, if by reducing the aperture you mean by going to a larger number. But

<p>

<i>As an example if the shadow measures f4 and the highlight f5.6 and I want the shadow in zone 4, I shoot the shadow in at 2.8?.</i>

<p>

puts the shadow in zone 6, and if the highlight is only 1 stop greater that's already zone 7. The latter case is consistent with the negs you posted. Perhaps you normally do it right but had brain-fade this time around? (I do stupid things when I ought to know better all the time)

<p>

Re: XTOL. Never had a problem with this stuff,it's my favorite general purpose developer. In the early days there were instances of XTOL failure, but the symptoms of that were clear negs, not dense ones.

[m0002a]

<p>This is the correct forum to discuss exposure and development of film. You may have over-developed the film, but the negatives are so over-exposed and dense that it is difficult to know. Over-development increases <b>contrast</b> by raising the density of the highlights, but has little or no effect on shadow density. Over-exposure raises the <b>density</b> of all Zones by the same amount (within the limitations of the film).</p>

 

I can only go by what you tell me in your post, and based on what you said in your first explanation of the exposure, the result would be over-exposure of the film by at least several stops. Your latest description is somewhat vague. For example you say that you �reduce the apature [sic].� But does that mean you make the aperture opening smaller or the aperture number smaller? </p>

 

As I previously mentioned, if you meter a 2 stop difference between highlights and shadow area, there is probably a something wrong with the metering technique unless the scene had a extremely dim and diffuse lighting situation. I simply don�t believe that anyone can accurately meter individual parts of the scene with a TTL meter system in a 35mm camera. These meters are designed to come up with an overall average reading, even in center-weighted mode. Most Zone System photographers use a 1 degree spot meter.</p>

 

I strongly suggest that you use an 18% gray card to verify your exposure methodology. Even if you use the Zone System or some other creative methodology to determine exposure, the reading from the 18% gray card should be close, probably within 1 stop of your Zone System exposure. You might want to practice using the gray card with you current methodology to make sure are in the ballpark, or whether you are adding exposure when you should be reducing it.

[edward_feltman]

What a great group. Everyone is so helpfull and willing to share expertise!

 

Yes, I did mean make the apature smaller! Taking your advice I went to the park today just to shoot a roll as I used to without using the Zone System. I shot the scene at all shutter speeds just to see what will happen, however will not have time to process the roll for a day or two.

 

A question on the use of the grey card. If you have a very small card as suggested, and no spot meter, is it usefull to bring the camera to the grey card to meter it to be sure that the only thing being read by the meter is the card (assuming that the card is the light that you are trying to meter)? I have always wondered about the intensity of light falling off with distance. Putting the question another way, if I had a spot meter to measure the light from the card (or any object for that matter at say 20 feet, and then at 2 feet, would I get the same reading?

 

Ed

[al_kaplan1]

Light intensity falls off with distance, but when you read the grey card outdoors it doesn't matter how far you are from it. You're not measuring the light in this case. You're measuring the light reflected off the card and the card will be just as bright at 6 inches from the camera as at 60 feet. What will change the brightness of the card is how far it is from the light. I'd suggest getting an incident light meter. It only reads how much light is falling on the subject, and doesn't care about the color or tone of the subject.

[m0002a]

I agree with what Al has said, and you don't need to worry about how far the away the meter is compared to the subject, so long as they have the same lighting falling on both. You do need to worry about the angle of the card in some cases, but just move the card around and take an average of the various readings. It actually is better if the lens (or meter) is not focused on the card.

 

An incident light meter is an excellent choice, but an 18% gray card costs a lot less if you already have a meter.

[m0002a]

I forgot to address your question about the size of the card when you don't have a 1 degree spot meter. You just need to make certain that the card completely fills up the TTL meter patern (spot, center weighted, etc.), so it probably needs to be a little bigger than what I use (2" x 2"). But it does not have to be in focus distance of the lens. Just make sure that it is not so close that the camera blocks the light hitting the card. I hold the card at arms length with my spot meter.

[edward_feltman]

Oke doke then, I think I have got it and will give it a try. I shot a test roll yesterday without trying to use the zone system, have a fresh batch of D-76 and fresh fixer, so I�m back in familiar territory. Hopefully I will have time to develop it tonight to see that everything is still OK with my system and procedures.

 

While shooting my test roll I noted that when I compared readings of the spot meter (on the N70) and center weighted, the spot meter called for significantly more exposure, perhaps the source of all of my trouble so far.

 

So my first sojourn into the world of the Zone System has been kind of a bummer probably because I change to many variables at on time, developer, camera and metering tecnique. I was so excited by the first roll developed in Xtoll, and now am disappointed. Thank you for all of your help. I will let you know how the film turns out after tomorrow.

[Troll]

The first thing that occurs to me is that the aperture is sticking open.

[edward_feltman]

I found the source of the trouble! I developed the latest roll shot with my old metering style, developed in fresh chemistry and D-76 and lo and behold the same problem. However this time I shot the scene at all shutter speeds and noticed the proper exposure three stops under where I metered proper exposure.

 

As the shutter speeds sound right on, at Bill Mitchell's suggestion I looked at the apature and found that it was not closing. Closer inspection revealed that the flange in the camera designed to move the peg on the lens that closes the iris was bent. I simply bent it back into place and am now good to go.

 

Now back to learning the Zone System! Without the help of this group I would still be cursing the entire process. I have learned quite a lot from you all. Thank you for everything!

 

Regards,

 

Ed