andy_laycock1

If your locale does not have a lab that specializes in B/W printing I would suggest contacting your local archive or library. They should have a lab that does their printing for them and they will have lots of experience with older negatives.

Great advice from Alan. Another alternative is to take an inexpensive introductory darkroom course at a community center etc.

The great thing about the responses to my question has been the variety of philosophies surrounding the technical aspects of securing that great negative. As some know I am not overly fond of talking about developers and Dmax's etc. - preferring to concentrate on the creative aspects of photography - but I have to admit that those who understand the process tend to produce images with that extra quality that comes with a good negative and print. For myself I want (and need) to see first hand the relationship (via graphs) between exposure, development and density distribution of the material that I have chosen to use. I have tried the 'overexpose - underdevelop' protocol and have not been satisified with the results. I have a studio and grey card at my disposal so I might as well make use of it during the dark, cold months of winter when I tend to shoot less. However to do this I need reliable reference material for calibration and making my own defeats the whole purpose. If a kind-hearted individual, with confidence in their equipment and abilities, wants to produce the film strip that I have described I would happily pay them for their effort.

Thanks for the replies to my question. I haven't looked up the step tablet but will, however I've noticed that photo accesories are ridiculously overpriced (check out Nikon eyecup mounts sometime) and I hate to encourage the bastards. I was thinking that a roll of 36 exposures of stepwise, known densities would be all I would ever need. Then I could contact print both this film and my test films on the same paper using the minimum exposure to print the base + fog black and then merely comparing each individual 'neg' image with the standards. I am hoping that I would be able to construct film curves this way and see no reason why it shouldn't work - perhaps the paper would be the limiting factor? If anyone can forsee major problems with this I would really appreciate hearing it now.

I have been reading 'Beyond the Zone System' with the view to improve my 35mm and 120 negatives. However I am hampered by the fact that I don't have a densitometer, spot meter or a shop to build the holder and no intentions of buying any of the above. I realize that the system is really meant for individually developed negs but feel that alot of it can be adapted for improved negs of any format. I was wondering if it would be possible to get a roll of exposed 35mm film with a series of known densities to at least be able to approximate my values by eye. I think that if the steps were fine enough that it would be useful. Does anyone know of a service that could provide this film or would be willing to create one that I could then purchase? Thanks and merry christmas.

I have been given the excellent opportunity to use a Jobo processor and a 4x5 camera for the first time. I was wondering what advantages, or disadvantages there are between the Jobo and dip n' dunk for sheet film developing.

Thanks for the great responses to my questions. I have read all of Adams books (including his autobiography) but it was so long ago that I had forgotten the definitions. I guess coming from a pure science background I get frustrated when I don't have exact, statistically significant data to help me understand but I guess that's the nature of the beast in photography. There seems to be no alternative but to experiment myself, which I find extrememly tedious. I like the ISO definition because it gives me a better known starting point. I am still a little unsure of the usage of the word 'speed' though, as in a previous posting someone described the use of a certain dilution of developer as giving 'good speed' to the film. I have also seen it used to describe paper and paper developer. Thanks again.

I've found the discussions of film development in this forum to be very interesting and useful. However, because I don't know the jargon I am a little confused about 1 or 2 points. First when someone talks about speed when comparing development times and developers what are they really talking about physically. I thought film speed defines the way the silver grains react with photons and was a result of it's manufacture and developing would mainly affect contrast. Also it seems that many people state what the 'real' speed of a film is although there seems to be alot of discrepency between them. Unless someone is sure that their meter, shutter, ASA and aperatures are perfectly calibrated against set standards isn't it irrelevant? And finally does anyone know of a site or book that actually gives examples of the above concepts and development procedures?

I have to agree with Brian and wouldn't recommend using alcohol of any kind. Commercially available alcohols contain many impurities that could damage the structure of the negative but may not show up for awhile. As I had posted previously, distilled water obtained from a supermarket (reverse osmosis) as a final rinse is very cheap and exceptionally effective. Remember that those spots are fine grains of silt and wetting agents merely spread them out on the film. Why not wash them away entirely. After rinsing in the tank twice I hang the film and pour more distilled water down them before drying.

I am interested in 'agitation'. Does anyone know if there is a noticeable difference when agitating film more often but for less time compared to agitating less often but for more time?

Personally I have no problem with this new forum. Would it be a good place for neophytes to ask basic questions?

I have found the same problem with Rodinal (1:50) and Delta 100. I thought at the time that it was due to the concentrated developer being too old and have not been willing to use it since then.

I thought I would take advantage of the great expertise in this forum to ask what might be a dumb question. I was shooting in an urban environment with another photographer on a very bright and harsh day. He said in that situation he overexposes his 400 film by one stop and underdevelops. I understand the underdeveloping part but I'm not sure of why you would overexpose in this situation (assuming the meter and your judgement are correct).

I usually hear this sort of comment from slide shooters; that for print film your exposure can be off by X number of stops because you can make up for it during printing. I have always found this advice to be flawed since it encourages sloppy exposure. It is true that you can compensate somewhat to give 'acceptable' results but an accurately exposed negative will produce an exceptional print. There is no replacement for proper exposure no matter what the medium.

Living in a temperate rain forest we commonly have dirty water at certain times of the year. I have found that the grit is only of importance during the final rinse and the most inexpensive way to solve this is to buy a large jug of filtered or reverse osmosis water from any large supermarket. In Canada, Safeway provides filtered water refills for about 55 cents US for 4 liters. After washing the film just rinse two or more times with the filtered water. I get perfectly clean negatives without having to mess them up with junk like PhotoFlo and this amount will do about 5 35mm films - pretty cheap.

This film is of the same type as Ilford XP2 etc. It uses standard C-41 processing and since it is (lab) printed on colour paper you can request the results to be 'toned' by filtration. It also prints well on BW paper but you have to bump up the contrast. I've never seen it used for landscape but primarily for portraiture.

I recently took a course about how to approach galleries with your work and the instructor had some practical advice about portfolios. The main point was to keep it simple and don't try to get too cute or lavish. If you run out and buy the best leather portfolio case it might actually compete with your images. The suggestion was to use a simple binder with 8x10" plastic sleeves. You can insert paper background (either black or white) that will function as a matt and attach your images to them - it looks better if you have a generous border. You can use 5x7 prints but shouldn't go any smaller and make the finest ones you can - 12 - 20 will be enough. Have a standard typed label for each image with your name, date and title of the image if you have one and the final dimensions of the exhibition print. Your photo choice should be consistent and function as a complete show itself although you don't have to include all of these images in an exhibition. Include your cirriculum vitae (only relevant artistic information) and an artists statement. You can have a number of portfolios to cover different venues etc. I know that there are many other ways to do it depending on what you are looking for (fine art, commercial etc.) but this seemed to give a reasonable start.

I have been using Delta 400 (35mm) for the past few months and generally finding it way too grainy when developed in D76. I have tried using both inversion and the twirler with fresh D76 at 1:1 but often the grain is quite noticeable even on prints smaller than 8x10! Has anyone had this same experience or perhaps know of a better developer for this film. The tonal range is just fine with normal developement so I would like to keep using this film. Thanks.

Hi Holly,

 

<p>

 

I just looked far enough back in this forum to see your question and was curious as to what you meant by screening. I have been looking for special effects screens for printing, is this what you mean?

I think you should chuck your old film. Even if it does work you are not going to get as nice of results as with new film. Film is cheap and there's no second chance.

The problem may be with the batch of TMAX 400 film. Have you tried either film from another source or TMAX 100? TMAX films were originally created using D-76 as the developer so there should be no compatibility problems. You might even want to contact Kodak with the lot # of the film to see if they have had any other complaints.

Tony I wouldn't use either of those D-76 developers. Even if they are still in the package in dry form you just don't know their storage history i.e. extreme temperatures etc. D-76 is dirt cheap so why not save yourself possible heartbreak and start fresh...with whatever developer you choose.