Thin negatives, crushed shadows and a curse

[mbntr]

Short backstory, I recently got a Sinar A1 with a Schneider-Kreuznach 150mm 5.6, and never having shot large format I did the financially responsible thing of buying Fomapan 100 to try it out so I only lose 80 cents a frame! The problem is, for each of those frames I have shot I did end up losing my money, basically the shadows seem to be consistently crushed.

 

I took this frame in direct sunlight at 1/60 f/22, in theory it should have been enough? Correct me if I'm wrong, and looking at the metadata from that picture taken with my phone, it used f/1.9 1/3774 at ISO 45, which if you do the math should be equivalent to f/22 1/60 ISO 100

There doesn't seem to be an issue with the shutter, I did some testing which basically consists of placing my Sony A7 body in the focal plane and taking a picture at at a certain shutter speed with the copal shutter of the LF lens in bulb, then again taking a 0.4s exposure on the Sony with the copal set to the same shutter speed as the mirrorless before, the pictures I got were identical except for the top speed of 1/500 where the one I took using the copal was slightly overexposed (I'd say by half a stop-ish), and let's say there was a demon screwing with the shutter mechanism when I have actual film loaded... usually old shutters don't get faster, do they?

Since there doesn't seem to be a technical issue I have to blame my technique, so help me out here.

For exposure I usually just take the reading from my Sony A7 which I use as light meter, the fuckup here could be:

1. Taking a general reading without really metering for the shadows 

2. Not accounting for how much light is passed by the Sony's lens compared to the Sinar's

3. Not accounting for bellows factor, but afaik I should only start considering that once I pass 150mm of bellows extension

Of course this could be caused by my dev process, I develop at home since I'm cheap, and since I'm cheap I devised my own way to do it without having to buy extra equipment. I basically tray develop in three casseroles. 

For the developer I use Rodinal 1+50, it's getting warm here and my tap water doesn't go down to 20c so I develop at 21. At the end I get a temp adjusted dev time of just about 8 minutes. Since I develop one sheet at a time I use only 200 ml of water with 4 ml of concentrate, this should be enough for a single 4x5 slide. 

I agitate, or more accurately rock the casserole slightly, once every minute, more or less. The film lies on the bottom of the casserole emulsion side up.

I honestly don't see where the problem could be in this process

After the eight minutes have elapsed I rinse under the tap and fix, I don't see those last steps being the issue personally. 

So the question is... where did I screw up?

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by mbntr

[AJG]

A couple of thoughts:  I have frequently had the experience of finding ISO ratings to be optimistic (the film really isn't quite as sensitive as the manufacturer states that it is) so this film may not be ISO 100.  I haven't used this film so this is only a guess on my part.   Second, is your thermometer accurate?  The highlights look underdeveloped in the negative that you've shown us.  I don't use Rodinal so I can't comment on the time/dilution that you used, but if your thermometer is reading a higher temperature than the solution actually is then that could account for this.  I don't want to go full Ansel Adams on you, but some testing of this film/developing combination and your thermometer would seem to be in order.  Your camera exposure sounds plausible (sunny 16) for this film, but this isn't always correct. I agree that your rinsing/fixing procedures shouldn't change the negative density.  Good luck!

[James G. Dainis]

When developing individual sheet film it might be best to go "Ansel Adams" or expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights.

http://www.jdainis.com/zone.html

[conrad_hoffman]

Overthinking and over-measuring. Sunny day so sunny-16 rule. 1/ISO @ f/16, or in your case 1/50 @ f/22. So your exposure is OK if the film is OK. None of that other stuff amounts to a hill of beans. This is a box-Brownie kind of scene. I've made many negatives that look just like that using Rodinal. The stuff can work well, but it can be hard to dilute accurately and times have to be developed (no pun intended) by the user. It's also not hard to have too little developing agent to work when using high dilutions. I've little love for the stuff. Try D-76 or some equivalent metol-hydroquinone brew. Use it as a one-shot or for a limited number of sheets in one session. Once things work with D-76, try other stuff, but it's the reference point to work from. IMO, avoid Xtol and HC-110 for now too.

[maris_rusis]

I've shot hundreds of sheets of Fomapan 100 in 4x5 and 8x10 formats and faced with your scene my exposure would have been 1/30 @ f16. No need to use a light meter for this very familiar lighting arrangement. In difficult lighting where I do use a spot meter I set Fomapan 100 at an exposure index of 50, read the darkest shadow where a trace of detail is wanted, and give two stops less than the meter reading. This enables the darkest shadow detail to fall on Zone III where it should be, I think. My developer is Xtol replenished but it's activity is not radically different to Rodinal. Adequate exposure (or a trace more) is good for Fomapan 100.

[chris_autio]

I agree with Conrad in that Rodinal is difficult to dilute accurately. When measuring light, I would hold ambient setting toward camera, making sure no sunlight lands on the white bulb.  Not sure if your 150 requires some bellows ext correction.  (my 210 lens usually requires some bellow ext correction.)  I don't think you need to shoot more than 3 trials to get a great negative.   On this type of scenery (to get detail in trees and building shadow) I would overexpose +2  and develop 20% less.  I know this sounds contrary to the problem you are trying to solve because you have a thin negative.  When tray processing, make sure there is nothing in tray that might scratch neg, draw bottom neg up to top, gently drop neg atop others, wear thin gloves.

[glen_h]

On 6/18/2023 at 3:57 AM, mbntr said:

 

 

There doesn't seem to be an issue with the shutter, I did some testing which basically consists of placing my Sony A7 body in the focal plane and taking a picture at at a certain shutter speed with the copal shutter of the LF lens in bulb, then again taking a 0.4s exposure on the Sony with the copal set to the same shutter speed as the mirrorless before, the pictures I got were identical except for the top speed of 1/500 where the one I took using the copal was slightly overexposed (I'd say by half a stop-ish), and let's say there was a demon screwing with the shutter mechanism when I have actual film loaded... usually old shutters don't get faster, do they?

Since there doesn't seem to be a technical issue I have to blame my technique, so help me out here.

 

I don't know about the rest of the question, but this one is easy to explain.

Kodak used to put it in their data sheets for fast film.

Leaf shutters overexpose at small apertures.

The times are based on the shutter opening all the way, and then closing all the way.

That is, based on the average opening with the lens at full aperture.

At small aperture, it is all the way open earlier, and closed later.

(Consider looking through the lens while it is opening and closing.)

 

Have you done any developing of other films, or developers?

Other than you might want a little more agitation, it seems fine to me.

"Rock the casserole slightly" might not be enough.  You want to be sure new developer gets to the film.

It might splash at the top, but barely move at the bottom.

For paper developing, it is usual to actually move the sheet through the liquid.

Otherwise, rock just a little less than to splash out.  There should be a good sized wave moving across.

But to be sure for one shot, use print tongs and really move the sheet around.

 

You could also try a Unidrum, or something like that, which does almost continuous agitation.

The 8x10 Unidrum will hold four 4x5 sheets.