rick_jones5

One approach to controlling contrast at the printing stage is to first nail the print exposure for the highlights (a subjects white T shirt or the sun lite side of a face). Only then look closely at the shadows or dark tones in the print. If the dark tones look too gray - add contrast. If the dark tones are so dark they obscure details you can see in the negative - reduce contrast. If you find you are having to, more often than not, add contrast - reduce your negative development time and vise versa.

<p>While your developing times can change significanlty with temperature changes your dilutions and processing times for stop, fix, PermaWash and Photoflo will remain unchanged. I try to carefully control my developer temperature and times but have found no problems whatsoever when remaining processing steps vary by as much as 5 or 6 degrees. But truth be told it is very easy to keep all processing temps very close.</p>

<p>HC-110, Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (liquid stop), Kodafix (liquid fix w/ hardener), PermaWash (liquid HCA) and Kodak Photo-Flo 200 (liquid used to minimize water marks and streaks as film dries). These are the same chems I used when developing bulk loaded Panatomic X in the 60's. The Covington site already mentioned is a must read especially the section on extending developing times. I have tried to keep my developing times around 10 minutes by varying the dilution of the developer of choice. Much easier to control the process at 10 min. as opposed to the 3 1/2 possible with certain HC-110 dilutions.</p>

<p>Back in the late 70's Peterson's Photographic came out with a series of how to books/magazines. One that relates to your inquiry was "Photographic Self-Assignments - A complete Course in the Art of Photography - How to See Photographically - Creativity". There were 30 assignments. As stated in the foreword - each chapter deals with a particular aspect of (analogue) photography. The subject is first discussed in detail and then an assignment is given which, if carried out, will advance your skills in that particular area of photography. Much would relate to digital as well. Author - Ben Helprin</p>

<p>In order to understand "develop for the highlights" it is important to understand how developer acts upon the undeveloped image. Changes in development time have very little effect on the shadow densities. That is why it is so important to expose them properly. No amount of development trickery will recover under exposed shadows. Thus "expose for the shadows". Highlights are a different story. Developer continues to add density long after the shadows are fully developed. Increasing highlight density increases film contrast. Decreasing highlight density reduces film contrast. Controlling film contrast is the second fundamental in creating easily printable negative (exposure being the first). However, many roll film users hesitate to extend film development because of the increased grain in the resulting prints preferring to increase print contrast through changes in paper grade or selenium treatment of the negative.</p>

<p>Never saw a shutter speed progression of 25 - 50 - 200. Very interesting that 100 was skipped or are my eyes deceiving me?</p>

<p>With so many suggestions (some conflicting) it is apparent to me that there is no single "right" way to process film in order to achieve acceptably even development. The "right" way is the way that works for you. But how do you go about finding that way. My first suggestion is to photograph clear blue sky as the most severe test as you try to zero in on what works for you. I hesitate to detail "my way" after so many suggestions have been posted but because I went through the same pain you're experiencing here goes. Tank:2 stainless steel 32oz. Reels: 2 S.S. 120 & 1 S.S. 35mm. I develop 1 roll at a time and use all 3 reels regardless of format. Developer: D76 1:1 Quantity: 20 oz. First tank is dedicated to +/- 30 sec presoak for the sole purpose of bringing film and reels to same temp as developer. With film reel on bottom of 3 stack they are dropped into the second tank prefilled with developer. Initial agitation is 30 sec using about 16 inversions (an inversion is tank up side down then right side up with a twisting motion). Thereafter agitation is on the minute with 3 inversions in 10 sec. As you analyze your sky shots realize you are not likely to achieve perfectly even density but be critical of your results and don't be satisfied until you see acceptable results. I would be anxious to hear as to what finally works for you and have clicked on "Notify me of Responses" so I can follow your process. Stick to it until you resolve this problem. It will make your hobby so much more enjoyable.</p>

<p>I would look carefully at your fixing stage. You can certainly try to re-fix but first prepare a new FRESH fixing bath and use it with agitation in processing future rolls. Bet that will solve your problem. As to your washing technique reread <a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200629163442455.pdf">this</a> (page 10 of 11). Ilford suggests 5-10-20 not with warm water but with water the same temperature as your developing solution. I don't see how the warm water wash could cause your fogging problem but it seems like something you should correct. I use a wash aide after fixing. Much of the purple disappears at that stage with any remaining tint gone after a full wash.</p>

<p>The problem is most of the effects referred to are very subtle at best. Unless you are very familiar with a particular film you may not appreciate the differences even after pinning down a new E.I. and developing time. If most of your enlargements are of moderate size (for ex. less than 8 X 10 with 35mm as mine are) you may not see any difference after changing developers. I have read and purchased a bunch of books over the years and while authors mention combinations it seems difficult to describe the "why" of their choice other than an observation of grain size. Photography as a hobby can mean very different things to different people. Some like nothing better than mixing their own brews with constant experimenting. I have preferred to pick just two films and two commercial developers more out of convenience than anything else and then concentrate on just three things - can I use a tripod, where should I point the camera and when should I press the shutter. The KISS approach.</p>

<p>If you have settled on TriX and D76 resist the temptation to switch films and developers if your results are, at first, not what you had hoped for. That combination has more inherent potential than you are likely to ever outgrow. I would limit experiments to learning how to properly expose the film and developing a processing sequence that is repeatable roll after roll. That means learning how to control developer temperature to +/- 1 degree; settle on an agitation pattern that gives you evenly developed negatives and devising a way to limit the dust that can settle on your negatives as they dry. If you have already read <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf">this </a>read it 4 more times.</p>

<p>I doubt you'll find the look you are after by changing films. First, and possibly most important, comes selecting a scene/subject that is neither neutral nor boring. Then comes framing, lighting and effective composition. Picking the appropriate exposure and development time for the scene in question comes next. Then managing the output to your liking comes last. This means knowing what you want a print to look like and how to achieve it. When these things come together neither neutral or boring will enter the mind of anyone viewing your work and no knowledgeable person will ask what kind of film you use.</p>

<p>While it is always interesting to try new films I strongly recommend you resolve your issues with TMY before moving on. If you can correct the contrast issues with TMY what you learn can be translated to any new film you choose. You indicate TMY is a bit low in contrast with a kind of dullness or short dynamic range. Based on my experience with TMY that description does not describe the film characteristics but rather how it is processed and printed. What makes it difficult to make suggestions is not knowing your process (do you print with a conventional enlarger? Does it use a condenser or diffusion system? Or do you print digitally?) So tell us more. As to your idea of increasing agitation significantly that can certainly increase contrast but I have always preferred to keep my agitation routine the same while varying the development time. Again, tell us more.</p>

<p>Because my Nalgene storage bottles are too thick to allow air to be squeezed out I use the Dust Off method to fill the empty space. After several years of using this method I'm convinced it is worth the extra expense. Only used with developer and please don't ask me to prove the benefit because I can't. It just SEEMS to be useful.</p>

<p>Larry - you say Rollei 80s is a higher contrast film that needs Diafine or dilute Rodinal to tame it. I was under the impression you could develop films to practically any CI (say .40 to .60) you desire with traditional developers like D-76 or HC-110 simply by adjusting development times. But you indicate this particular film needs special treatment to control the contrast. Would you set me straight on this?</p>

<p>It is very difficult to answer your questions because there are so many variables that can effect storage life. For example - how the developer is mixed. When I mix hot and cold at the tap to obtain a specific temperature the water comes out milky due to the suspended air bubbles. If the developer is mixed before the bubbles disburse all bets are off as to storage life. If a lot of air is whipped into the solution as the powder is mixed, again, all bets are off. If accordion bottles are used for storage all bets are off. If half full bottles are left without replacing the air with an inert gas who knows when the developer dies. Water quality must also play some part. However, if the developer is mixed and stored carefully a 6 month life should be no problem. But someone not using 5 liters in 6 months would, I believe, be better served by a developer such as HC110 which can be mixed one shot as needed with the unmixed syrup lasting a very very long time. But then again I'm one of the few that believes all developers are pretty much the same unless you have a very sophisticated eye for the possible differences.</p>

<p>Developing times will vary considerably depending on whether you are using the NEW Plus X or the OLD version. Kodak's publication <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.pdf">F-4018</a> will help you identify new vs old and provide you with their recommended developing times for the "improved" film.<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.pdf"> </a>The older films called for a developing time considerably shorter than what Kodak recommends for their new film possibly accounting for any confusion caused by the times shown on DigitalTruth.</p>

<p>My best guess is bubbles trapped between the film and the top edge of your reel. If that is the case a more vigorous rap of the tank on your table top after each agitation cycle should greatly reduce the problem if not eliminate it altogether.</p>

<p>While there's no secret I have found a few things that help take the #@&% out of the loading process. As Al mentioned those center clips drove me crazy so I ended up removing them. Much easier IMO to center the film without them. Ditch the gloves. If you wash your hands well beforehand gloves are not necessary and limit your ability to feel any buckling of film as it rolls onto the reel. If you suspect a problem as you wind the film don't hesitate to run a finger over the base side of the film - you will immediately feel any buckle. Back off past the problem and start again. For anyone having problems I recommend sacrificing a roll and practice in room light as Al suggested. Nothing beats seeing and feeling a buckle and teaching yourself how to avoid and or fix.</p>

<p>Or, you can proof on 8X10 paper by choosing to expose only 9 frames per roll. If that seems too wasteful, accumulate single 10th frames from 9 rolls and proof together, at least until you get the larger paper and trays to process.</p>

<p>My RC prints are hung from one corner on a basement clothes line. I haven't found the need to even squeegee them but after about 10 minutes take a paper towel and blot the bead of water hanging off the lower corner. Fibre prints are dried face down on plastic screens.</p>

<p>Rich - MG filters aren't really required with MG papers but they sure open a lot of options not available with graded papers. You could certainly tune your exposure and development such that many of your negatives could be printed with no filter at all. But when contrast is not exactly what you would like it is awfully handy to be able to bump the contrast up or down in half grade increments. Then again, many swear by a system called split grading where every print is made with a soft and a hard filter in proportion to the needed contrast. I like to keep things as simple as possible so normally print with single filters (or none). Another advantage with MG papers is that you can burn and dodge with different filters to alter contrast in different sections of your print. MG papers just have too many advantages to be ignored. I do a lot of printing on Ilford MG IV RC perle (I don't care for the glossy surface) then move to their fiber based paper when I have a print to mount and display. Welcome back to the dark side!</p>

<p>Sam - over the years I have had to answer the same two questions and dozens more in working out my darkroom work flow. But with all the information available on the internet just who do you believe? Some of my questions were answered in my own darkroom through trial and error. When the late Fred Picker received questions he would often stamp and return letters marked "TRY IT!" and, truthfully, that may be the best way to learn. Your two questions could be resolved with the "TRY IT" method but only with considerable expenditure of time and materials. So what to do? With certain technical questions I have come to rely on a small group of folks I trust so completely that try it and see seems unnecessary. One source is the late Dr. Richard J. Henry author of Controls in B&W Photography. A second are two retired Kodak photo scientists Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki who are still writing for Photo Technique magazine. They, in fact, have written specifically touching on both of your questions. They wrote an entire article on your temperature question (PT-July/August 2005). To para phrase - the particular temperature you choose is functionally irrelevant - but keeping that temperature constant is very important. I had to correspond with them to answer your stock solution volume question. Answer - use at least 100ml of developer in the most concentrated form for which the manufacturer lists a recommended time and temperature. For example, that would mean 100ml of stock D76. If you insist on using the minimum I suspect your times would be considearably longer then Kodak recommends. So who do you trust. Best - resolve the question in your own darkroom. If that is not practical find a trusted source. I my case that would be Richard, Dick or Silvia among others.</p>

<p>In an old Heico pamphlet on PermaWash the manufacturer claimed an indefinite shelf life if their product is in the original sealed container. My bet is 4+1 is pretty much the same.</p>

<p>From an instruction sheet from the 60's-<br>

* A compensating developer for use w/ high resolution thin emulsion, fine grain films<br>

* Times listed are for 68 degrees w/ 10s agitation every 30s<br>

* Times for gammas of .5, .6 and .7 are charted<br>

* Fastest film listed was Plus X - .6 time listed as 8:30 diluting contents of bottle w/ 15oz water. 2 rolls together 10:00 or 11:00 if 2nd roll is developed separately within 1 hour<br>

* Single use - discard<br>

As to what you might expect out of this developer we'll wait to hear from you but personally, I would be flabbergasted if you got any kind of printable image.</p>

<p>Although my primary meter is a digital spot after buying a Sekonic L-308 at a church rummage sale, strictly on a whim, I find I take it everywhere simply because it is so small and easy to use. It uses a single AA battery that should last well over a year. The flat white disc you referred to is primarily used for adjusting lighting ratios so is not really needed for calculating exposures of flat subjects. Personally, I would avoid any meter with a needle movement because they simply cannot take abuse like their digital counterparts. While the selenium models require no battery they are virtually useless in very low light situations. The B&H site offers a "reviews" tab on most of their product pages which might help you make a decision.</p>