Snow -- developer considerations? (Weak Rodinal?)

[todd_b1]

<p>Hi,<br>

Forgive me if this is a really ignorant question, or worded poorly, but here I go.<br>

I am back from shooting a lot of pictures in the snow, sometimes mixed on the same roll with "non-snow" pictures. Are there any development considerations that will give optimal results with snow?<br>

I have been using Rodinal and TriX almost exclusively to "keep these variables constant" and work on exposure fundamentals. With Diafine use when temperatures get really hard to control.<br>

I accidentally ordered Acufine instead of Diafine (or maybe I was shipped the wrong thing), so I have that sitting in a drawer.<br>

For pictures shot in the snow is there a recommended Rodinal dilution or time? A very weak Rodinal?<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Todd</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>How did you select exposures? If you used through the lens metering with no exposure compensation, the shots are all a little under-exposed, since the meter tried to make all the snow "18 percent grey". In that case, you're not abusing the film in any way, don't need to worry about the highlights blocking up. If the shadow details would be important to photos, you might want to try a little extra developing time.<br>

On the other hand, if you chose exposure based on "sunny 16" or incident metering, you are at some risk of blocked-up highlights, In that case, you might want to try a little less developing time. (N-1 or N-2 in zone system.)<br>

No ideas on whether you'd want different Rodinal dilutions. I'm just not versed in the Rodinal karma.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>The big thing is to preserve the details in the snow. The trick is to gently swirl your tank like a fine wine and perhaps do this every 2 mins and slightly extend your time. This should work with any developer but really works well with Rodinal.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>@John: I tried to meter off my subject (e.g. person) close-up and use that, or something more generic and compensate 1.5-2 stops. I don't have a meter on my camera so it's always a bit of guesswork, but I tried to compensate by overexposure and liberally bracketed because I don't know the next time I'll be at 10,000 feet :)<br>

@peter: Thanks! Any suggestion for Rodinal solution?</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>I found this:<br>

http://forum.mflenses.com/1979-pop-photo-rodinal-article-t37502.html<br>

Very cool classic article from 1979 with some examples and times. From this article 1+75 for 9-10 minutes is recommended.<br>

"To get the longest tonal scale in this backlighted outdoor situation, Johnson gave about one f-stop overexposure, then cut development time back to only 9 minutes in Rodinal diluted 1+75. Although a 1+100 solution gives even more highlight development, its middle-tone and shadow detail is far too flat for high speed [Trix] film. 1+75 is an advisable limit"<br>

My bottle says 14 mins at 1+50. Boy I'm about to mess things up!</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I used 1:100 or 1:200 for stand with great results. I would tend to stick with 1:50 for normal dev. I don't think the suggestion for 1:75 is that far of a stretch and maybe you should try it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Stand developing in dilute Rodinal will help with contrast control, but the snow will appear very grainy, especially in the upper midtones where you might prefer to see cleaner subtle gradations. Just depends on whether you like that look.</p>

<p>If you'd prefer finer grain use another developer with standard technique and cut around 10% or so from the usual recommended time. I've never used Acufine but Larry Dressler has. I've seen several of his high resolution scans of subjects, such as graveyard markers in high contrast light - pretty comparable to your snow scene challenge. It doesn't seem to produce as much grain as Diafine so it might be well suited to snow photos.</p>

<p>BTW, Rodinal grain can be reduced a bit by adding a pinch of borax, but you might not want to experiment with this roll. Try it on another less important roll first. Or shoot two or three more rolls of the same types of scenes and try a different developing technique on each. Great learning opportunity.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>I was about to try 1+100 when I realized my tank wouldn't be big enough for two rolls with the minimal amount of Rodinal, so I tried "bottle time" for Rodinal and reduced by 10%. This worked out to 1+50 for 12 minutes. I am contemplating the results. (Two rolls down, four to go).<br>

IMAGE 1<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/i9xoeT7l.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p>IMAGE 2<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HE3yGTgl.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The exposure and development seem okay. Can't tell whether the uneven top and bottom edges are due to scanning or are present on the negatives. The tone of the skier's clothing, ski lift and bridge indicates your exposure was appropriate for this scene.</p>

<p>Grain appears noticeable in the upper midtones - sky and shadows in snow - as I'd expect with Tri-X developed in Rodinal. Scanning negatives will emphasize grain. If you like this effect, all is well. If not, and you plan to scan the negatives rather than make optical enlargements, you might consider another developer to minimize grain.</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>Many thanks Lex (the edges are definitely scanning, I have a problem with this). Here is a "non-snow" image from the same roll. I'm really happy with the way these turned out (the helmet not sure what I can/could do). I'm tempted to try the Acufine at minus 10%, as well as the Rodinal 1+100 to compare, I have four more rolls to go. Would you suggest any adjustment for 120 or am I just splitting hairs?<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/UXTikVgl.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Something to try... <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157621747994875/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157621747994875/</a></p>

<p>What I did is mix up a liter of dist water with 5g of borax. After normal development (great thing for stand developing) the borax reactivates what ever is left soaked in the film and gives it a cleaner "pop".</p>

<p>If I have to develop for lower contrast, this is what I do to normalize it a bit.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Stand developing in dilute Rodinal will help with contrast control, but the snow will appear very grainy, especially in the upper midtones where you might prefer to see cleaner subtle gradations. Just depends on whether you like that look.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Just to illustrate this affirmation, check the pic below; APX400 in Rodinal 1+100. This negative appear specially grainy, don`t know why, it looks really ugly in a V750 scan (my scanning knowledge is ugly, too). Needless to say that wet-printed, things use to look quite different.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[peterbcarter]

<p>That's why god invented scanning fluid. ;)</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>(Yes, this odd thing is a light leak).<br>

Now a left side crop, scanned at 1200ppp. You have to like this look to use Rodinal 1+100, I think. Personally, I`d only use this combination for traditional wet printing.</p>

<div></div>

[peterbcarter]

<p>If you use vuescan, select infra red for the BW conversion. This will shift the focal plane ever so slightly that the grain will seam to disappear. Look at my link above to see the results.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I was about to try 1+100 when I realized my tank wouldn't be big enough for two rolls with the minimal amount of Rodinal</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although Rodinal sheets say a minimum of 10ml of developer are needed, I never have used more than 3ml in 297ml of tap water.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Peter, I have been looking at your link, it looks really better than mine. I`ll check it; I had Vuescan but for any reason I cannot remember I uninstalled it and started to use Epson Scan, with this ugly results (I`m now used to it). I`ll try to re-install Vuescan to check that IR conversion (!).</p>

<p>About the scanning fluid... I`m too lazy for that. It is easier&faster to directly make a wet print! (At least to me... :D)</p>

[todd_b1]

<p>Jose, my tank is only about 500ml or so for two rolls (I could be wrong!) this would have meant ~600ml of developer+water. For the next roll from the set I'm going to try the Acufine -10%. Will post to show how it compares.<br>

Peter, I'd never even heard of scanning fluid before, Google shows some interesting things. Now I have even more to think about!</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Try this for a read..... <a href="http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html">http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html</a></p>

 

[todd_b1]

<p>(Great link Peter!)<br>

I did not use the Acufine after all because it is (as I understand it) for a much higher exposure index. So I did 1+75 Rodinal for 10 minutes, as per my early post. I didn't know what to expect.</p>

<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/AgVILnzl.png" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>