rick_jones5

Kris - as to your foggy question, all developed films have a specific level of B+F (base-plus-fog) density. If you had a densitometer you could measure that density in an unexposed area and simply ask others to make a similar reading and compare results. My bet is you are seeing a normal B+F level for 320TX. While I have been developing and printing for 40+ years I don't have experience with a lot of different films. In fact, up until recently I used only 400TX and APX 100 in 120. Now that my APX stock is almost gone I have started to use Acros 100. I can say my TriX looks absolutely "foggy" next to the Acros which looks almost like window glass. Both are great films but with very different base characteristics.

You might want to give this a quick read - http://www.butzi.net/articles/zone%20VI%20reprise.htm If you still

feel limited by your unmodified meter I would start by contacting Richard Ritter. While I have no idea if he can

replicate the original modification I bet he can answer most of your questions - http://www.lg4mat.net/index.html

"Should I add an extra minute to my total development time?" First - a short explanation. When you mix D76 per Kodak's instructions you have what is termed a "stock" solution. Kodak provides time/temperature tables for using the stock solution and also for diluting the stock 1:1 (equal amounts of water and stock). The stock solution can be reused while the diluted developer must be used immediately and discarded after use. Every roll of film requires a a minimum amount of developer not only to cover the reel(s) but also to get the job done. Sorta like doing a load of laundry - you need a certain minimum amount of detergent to get the job done. Kodak is saying their time/temp tables are based on using 8 oz of stock per 36 exp roll (80 sq in) whether you dilute 1:1 or not. They go on to say if you choose to develop 2 - 36 exp rolls, that's fine, but because you are using a bigger load of laundry (film) you have to wash (develop) longer - thus the 10% suggestion. So, should you add time for two rolls? I would but would also be quick to make adjustments. Kodak's times are based on the assumption you will be printing with a diffused light source. I print with a condenser enlarger so that 10% would create problems for me (too much contrast). My negatives also seem to print better when exposed slightly more than Kodak suggests (more shadow detail). Just be guided by your results. Too much contrast reduce development. Blank, empty shadows with little detail, review metering technique and/or lower film rating.

Your enlargers max format is unimportant. As long as the enlarger head can be raised high enough to project a patch of light large enough to cover the paper size you are using it can be used to contact print any size negatives that will fit on your paper.

Using a wetting agent: there are two things that I have found contribute to clean spotless negatives - mix WA at the minimum dilution that allows water to sheet ( I use 1 drop of LFN in 28oz tap water) then discard after use. Immediately after removing film from the reel I hold it at a 45 degree angle allowing water to flow down and off the lower edge - I give it a full minute + to flow to the edge before hanging to dry.

Edge marks: I have experienced the same problem using SS reels and agree with Chris' diagnosis. I'm cautiously optimistic I have lessened if not eliminated the problem with 1 drop of LFN in my presoak combined with a much more vigorous bubble bumping agitation and tank rapping. Time will tell if I can truly announce a cure.

While processing B&W is not difficult the devil is, as they say, in the details. Most of us had the luxury of learning by making mistakes unless we had someone experienced to guide us through the process. The details I refer to are things like learning to load reels, choosing an appropriate film and developer, temperature control and consistent agitation resulting in even development. How you expose can be effected by your choice of developer and development times are effected by your chosen output (condenser vs diffusion enlarging/scanning). A simple thing like drying film can result in clean spot free output or a spotting nightmare. If your project can wait while you work through the details I say go for it. A suggestion: initially expose duplicate rolls/sheets allowing a reputable lab to process one set while you work with the other. You will quickly determine if you are on the right track. Wile you don't say if the project is personal or for a paying client that puts you on a schedule, those kinds of circumstances would guide my approach.

I would test drive the film at EI 200 developing in D76 1:1 for 10:00 minutes if printing by diffusion or 8:30 if printing by condenser - normal contrast scene. You should know very quickly if the films age is an issue.

Jay Jay - I had the same question having in hand a bottle of Sprint hardener and Sprint fix without hardener. I had in mind fixing, then toning, then hardening in a separate step. I e-mailed Sprint and was told their hardener was only effective in an acid environment (that is with fix) so I never pursued using their hardener in a separate step.

I often use 8 oz at a time for a 32 oz working solution for my negatives. If I squeeze the bottle of concentrate bringing the solution up to the neck and cap tightly the remaining fix will stay clear for a very long time. My guess would be at least 6 months (Kodak claims the shelf life of the unopened concentrate is "indefinite"). If I don't squeeze the air out the solution quickly develops large amounts of floating particles which must be the sulfur Frank mentioned. After filtering the fix seemed to worked as before but the squeeze method has eliminated that problem in my case. Try it!

I too believe you have an agitation problem. My first suggestion would be to leave sufficient air space in your tank to allow for free movement of developer through and around your reel(s). I moved up to a 32oz SS tank for just that reason but the larger tank also allows more flexibility with developer dilution without worrying if I have enough stock or concentrate to get the job done. Typically I develop one roll at a time with three SS reels ( 2 - 120/ 1- 35mm) using from 16 to 28oz of solution depending on the developer and dilution. For sure others get great results in smaller tanks filled to overflowing but the less is better approach has worked for me. One last thing - I drop the loaded reel into the developer rather then pouring through the top. I too went through the increased edge density thing and it literally drove me crazy until I started changing the way I did things. Keep careful notes as you make changes and shoot lots of even toned subjects so you can easily evaluate your results.

From my experience negative popping is caused by heat build up at the negative stage usually occurring in a condenser setup. But you are using a cold light which I would expect would eliminate that particular problem. If you have a grain focuser you can easily determine if, in fact, the negative is being thrown out of focus because of "popping". From a cold start ( head has been idle for at least 10 minutes) quickly focus the negative and continue to watch the grain structure through your focuser for double your longest exposure time for your largest print. If the negative pops you will actually see the grain structure go from sharp to mush in an instant. If the negative stays in focus other gremlins are at work. If you actually see the negative pop I can offer only two suggestions: use a glass carrier or focus after the pop and then expose your paper. I would be curious to know if you actually observe the negative going out of focus as cold lights are often advertised as eliminating this issue ( I use a condenser head in my D2V).

Luke - how about giving us some detailed information on exactly how you manipulate your tank when agitating. I was always concerned about the lack of developer movement around the film if I filled the tank to the top. Again, exactly how do you agitate to get the even development mentioned in your post?

For "critical sharpness" the heaviest tripod you can deal with is a must. If mirror lockup is available on your FM use it. If you haven't tested your lenses to determine their optimum aperture stick to f8-f11. Keep your glass clean.

I believe the primary reason for adjusting a films speed should be to obtain the shadow detail (separation) you want. Once you set that speed you pick a development time which gives you the highlight density (separation) you want. In your T shirt example you know from testing or experience what that T shirt will look like if you take a direct meter reading, increase the indicated exposure by 2 stops (or 1 stop or 3 stops) and develop for X minutes. The question is what do you want the T shirt to look like in the final print. While VC papers (or scans) make these decisions not quite so critical I believe it is important for you to know your system well enough to predict results ahead of time.

Hitam - you are safe - Phil Davis has left the building.

Another factor is scene contrast. A low contrast scene can be very forgiving with respect to over development. On the other hand, the highlights in a high contrast scene can become very difficult to print especially when development times are not shortened. The chart times you referred to likely apply to normal contrast scenes. A 20% increase in the development time for a low contrast scene could make it unnecessary to print on higher grades of paper but with a high contrast scene that same time might make highlights unprintable even on low contrast paper. This is where experience is the best teacher.

If you get confused as to the effective film speed as you bracket around your initial Z1 placement you can simply change the film speed on your meter in 1/3rd stop increments, meter your target, set your exposure and then reduce that setting by 4 stops. Everyone involved with photography for an extended period devises some way to determine an appropriate E.I. along with development times for their preferred film and developer combination. What always bothered me about testing for Z1 was that I never ever meter and place a reading in Z1. I much prefer to meter and place for Z3 then examine the negatives and prints carefully to determine if I got the shadow detail I was looking for. If not I adjust my E.I. or metering technique. If your approach gives you the results you want in the final output I believe you are one step ahead of those that shoot at box speed and develop per manufacturers suggestions for no other reason than "but that's what Kodak says". So I say testing is good. Just be guided first by real world photo results.

When I first began loading 120 reels I found it very difficult to get the film properly secured with the center clip and accurately aligned with the spirals. The film was always crimping. By not clipping the film my crimping problems disappeared. As you are winding the film a periodic short (maybe 1/8") push on the film back into the reel will instantly tell you if the film has crimped. If the film resists being pushed back it is probably crimped. Unwind and start over. If you can feel the film slide ever so slightly backwards it is winding properly (another reason I don't clip the film end to the center of the reel. Unfortunately, I'm a much better doer than explainer. Bottom line - don't get discouraged. Thousands with a lot less dexterity than you have figured out what works. You will too!

You are your own best critic. If you like your results take the criticism of others with a grain of salt. But are you getting the results you want or the results you get? Results you want begin with careful exposure then development to achieve the contrast wanted followed by a proper proof as a record and a guide in evaluating exposure and development. If you have a negative with detail in the important shadows and highlights all kinds of options are open when you print. In my view, controlling contrast in the print is the key. If you get that control with split filtering, great! But do it for a reason and not because someone suggested it as the best way. So the big question - are you getting the results you want?

Avoid being ensnared in the equipment trap. Buy only what will improve your print quality and consider that the very best is hugely more expensive than what is perfectly serviceable. Consider bypassing 35mm and go directly to 120 in the form of a basic twin lens reflex. Your friends will probably roll their eyes but when they see the print quality all the snickering will cease and desist. Tri X and D76 1:1 period. Learn what is meant by "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" and let that guide you for the rest of your photographic life.

Charles took the words out of my mouth with regard to terminology but I would add that other things also effect the EI you choose beyond the type of developer you use. If your shutter speeds are a little fast or slow your EI may have to be adjusted. If you print with an enlarger, the type (condenser/diffusion)will be another factor in setting an EI. For example, a condenser enlarger will require a softer negative (less contrast) and the resulting shorter developing times often call for more exposure. In other words, development time in a given developer can have a significant effect on film speed. Unfortunately, extended times have little effect on boosting shadow detail but as soon as you start reducing times shadow detail can drop off very quickly. This is precisely why we test before settling on a speed or range of speeds. ISO is a fixed number because it is determined by the manufacturer using a fixed protocol difficult for the home processor to duplicate.

I can't give you any specific advice because I don't use Jobo but thought a couple of comments might be of help. Consistency is more important than precisely what steps you finally settle on. While temperature control of the developer is important my experience shows that you can take a much more relaxed attitude about the stop, fix and wash (say +/- 10 degrees). Use common sense and examine your results carefully. For example, look for evenness of development especially in sky areas. Don't change your process without a reason and when you make a change, change only one thing at a time or separating cause and effect will be very difficult. While it is great to try and get things right from the get go when push comes to shove "just do it". THEN when you hit a bump photo.net to the rescue!

Found 1 more: July/Aug 2006 (Vol.27, NO. 4) "There's Only One Right Way to Shake the Can".

Luke - there were 2 Photo Techniques articles by Dick and Sylvia that discussed extended developing times: March/April 2006 (Vol 27, No. 2) "Long Developing Times: Bane or Gain?" and May/June 2006 (Vol 27, No. 3) continuing their Photography Myths theme - "Developer Dilution Produces Finer Grain". Back issues are available through the Photo Techniques website http://www.phototechmag.com/

Luke - Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki are retired Kodak product specialists who have been writing some very interesting articles for Photo Techniques. Recently they put forth some pretty persuasive arguments relating to the benefits of extending development times. Rather than wanting to save money I was curious to see if some of the benefits they described could be translated to my work. Because D76 has been a developer I have used for years that seemed like a sensible place to start.