sterioma

When I took some shot of my newborn daughter, I exposed at 3200 ISO and used whatever time was recommended by Ilford (9min if I am not wrong). Important: I also used the agitation pattern Ilford recommended.

I liked the shots, but your mileage might vary (an example attached).

This is for 35mm, with Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF.<div></div>

Hi everybody,

I have made another test roll; everything else being the same, I have cut the development time to 12 minutes.

You can see one result in the attachment (spot-metered on the skin with +1/2 stop compensation). Far from being perfect, this look much better to me. The details in the shadows have been severely reduced, but the skin is more natural and that's the part I am more concerned of.<div></div>

Bradford, Jeff,

<p>Thank you for your contributions. As I mentioned, due to time constraints, I would like to explore Tri-X (and possibly Delta if I have time) before switching to other combinations.

<br>About the Sodium Metaborate, I have to confess that I dont' know what it is (and that I woulnd't even know where to look for it) :)

<b>Lex:</b>

Thank you for your accurate and detailed post!

<br>

<p>

<i>I routinely get excellent results using Microphen on both Tri-X and TMY at 1600 (and occasionally faster).</i>

<br>This is comforting, and pushes me to explore more what this film/developer combination can deliver.

<p>

<i>One possible error I see, based on the information you provided, is trying to apply any part of the Zone System to push processing[...] I'm not longer rating the film at 1600, regardless of what's on the ISO dial.</i>

<br>Actually what I do is just opening up one stop from the meter reading while metering on the skin, to have it a bit lighter than average gray. My understanding is that placing a value in one zone does not mean changing the rating of the film. Your suggestion seems to imply that putting the skin in Zone V (meter reading) should be ok while pushing, instead of opening up one stop.

<br> The fact that the meter considers average grey a bit lighter than I used to know (12% versus 18%), however, might explain why the skin is so high in value in my example.

<p><i>Your agitation method is pretty much the same as I use</i>

<br>I am curious about how long your developing lasts: is it close to 16 minutes as the Massive Dev Chart suggests? For my purposes, that time seems too long.

<p><i>One thing I don't recall seeing you mention, Stefano, is whether you're printing your own negatives, having a lab print them, or scanning the negatives</i>

<br>I don't do my own printing: I either scan the negatives (the attchment itself is a scan) and have them printed digitally, or bring my negatives to a lab for traditional prints.

<p>

<p>

<b>Allan:</b>

Indeed, I would like to explore what can be reached with Tri-X before switching to Delta3200. Your example, beside being a very fine picture, demonstrates that good results can be reached with that film also. I hope I will have the time (and other Microphen available, since my local shop is out of stock!) to give it a try before I need it.

Frederic, Nikos,

<p>thank you for your links to those shops (actually, I had am already a customer of Fotomatica, but they don't seem to have Diafine; neither has it <a href=http://www.fotoimpex.de>www.fotoimpex.de</a> which is another source where I buy my stuff).

<p>Still, I wouldn't like to start over again with my tests with another film/developer combo, unless I find out that I really cannot get (or get close to) what I am after with Tri-X and Microphen . Since I have read about people having good results with this combination, it would be great to hear from those people whether they could get anything better than the example that I have posted or not (and my guess is that they could).

<b>Alan</b>: As I mentioned in my post, I do not have access to any other developer than those two mentioned (Rodinal and Microphen). Moreover, Diafine is not listed in any of the BW stuff suppliers I know of in Europe: this would mean importing it from the USA and this would take a lot of time and unconvenient.

<br>The jacket is some kind of military green. Having spot-metered on the skin (with +1 compensation), I guess the problem is not strictly related to metering but to development.

<p>

<p>

<b>Allan</b>: Yes, that's me (hope this is not considered cross-posting ;)); this is a second roll where I have reduced agitation from 3 "normal" inversions every 2 minutes to 1 "gentle" agitation every 2 minutes. This didn't seem to make so much of a difference.

<br>I think my last attempt would be cutting the development time to maybe 12 minutes.

<p>How would Delta 3200 compare with Tri-X beside contrast? I am not that much interested in graininess (unless it's really "popcorn" like Lex has reported a few times...). Would it be suited for skin tones, which is the primary factor I am after in this situation?

Hi,

I am experimenting with low light indoor portraiture with Tri-X - both

with natural and tungsten light (I would like to shoot inside the

delivery room on the occasion of the birth of my first baby, who's due

to be born in the next few weeks). I had the chance to visit the

delivery room a couple of weeks ago and my guess is that I will need

to shoot at 1600.

Following the suggestions I have found in many places, I am using

Microphen. From the Massive Dev Chart, I am developing for 16 min

(30'' initial agitation follow by a gentle inversion every 2 min).

What I have found is that I have (or so it appears to me) a lot of

shadow detail, while the highlights on the skin are almost completely

blocked. You can see an example in the attachment.

I have spot metered putting the skin on Zone VI as I use to do when I

shoot at E.I. 400.

Any ideas? I am already considering switching to a faster film (such

as Delta 3200), but I would like to know if somebody has had any

success with Tri-X@1600+Microphen in this kind of application.

P.S. I have not access to any other developers than Rodinal and

Microphen (unless I order it from the web from the USA, but it might

be too late for the event :)).<div></div>

<i>"It may take a little bit of force the first time"</i>

<br>I'll second that, it usually does: the first time I did it I was afraid to brake the thing!

Ian,

thank you for the information, it's really helpful.

You mentioned you've been using a "double sized" Paterson tank. Do you know whether it comes with two reels or just one? If it's coming with just one, it seems that I need to buy a second one to avoid the problems you've faced.

I have a basic question about the equipment for the darkroom which I

am putting together. I am only intersted in 35mm as of now, and I plan

to shoot no more than one roll per week (more likely 2 rolls a month).

I am now asking the following thing: would you buy a tank with room

for two reels or for just one? For the time being I would avoid buying

both smaller and bigger....

<br>Basically, these are my basic doubts:

<ol>

<li>Would a single reel tank allow to make higher dilutions?

<li>How do I avoid waisting chemicals when using a bigger tank loaded

with just one reel (which will be the case most of the times)?

</ol>

Following are the details of the offers from the online shop (price is

pretty much the same):

<ul>

<li>Paterson 35mm Tank: 14xH12 cm (1 35mm reel )

<li>Paterson Universal Tank: 14xh17 cm (2 35mm reels or 1 120 reel).

</ul>

<p>Thanks in advance!

<br>Stefano

Everybody, thanks for your valuable answers!

Will, the Portra B&W is unfortunately not available here in Italy (at least, I could not find it in the shops neither online). My 50mm is f/2 and the 105mm is f/2.5, so they should be enough (I hope! :) ).

Kenneth, I also share your impression that Delta 100 is less forgiving. I have tried only one roll but I had more unsuccesful exposures than usual (both underexposure and overexposures). Have never tried TriX and HP5+; FP4+ and T400CN seem to be easier to expose.

Frank, here in Italy I have no troubles having a traditional BW film developed, and it costs exactly the same as a color negative (around 1.8 euro), therefore that cannot be for me a criteria to choose C-41 over traditional. On the other hand, my own experience agrees with your statement that C-41 is easier to scan than most BW films.

Csab', as I mentioned before, I cannot find Portra BW anywhere. I have never tried XP2, I might shoot a roll and see how it looks like.

Al, you add a good point to the discussion here, which I had not thought before: film longevity. This is the kind of photo that one might want to keep as safe and faithful to the original as much as possible!

Russ, my lab prints the C-41 on paper for BW, so there is not color cast (once they printed them on color paper by mistake, but they acknoledged the error and reprinted them all). I am no expert at all, but I agree that those prints do not look like as good as some other print I had with Kodak T-Max. About the lab you are suggesting, since I am not in the USA, I guess it would be a bit too expensive! ;) Thanks for the tip, anyway.

Hopefully next winter I will be father for the first time and I would

love to take some black and white shots of mom and baby at home.

Therefore I am planning to get acquainted with available light indoor

portraits.

<p>My gear consists a MF Nikon (FG-20), a tripod and four prime lenses

(28mm/50mm/105mm/200mm). I don't do my own BW development, and I also

don't usually ask for the prints, since I prefer to scan the negatives

and possibly print the best through some online ditigal printing service.

<p>My intention is to start experimenting with a film and stick to it

for a few rolls in order to test it and come to learn as best as I

can. The following are the questions which are coming to my mind right

now:

<ol>

<li>Do you think there's any advantage using a BW film (either

traditional or chromogenic) over desaturating a colour film for this

kind of work (considering that BW film might be more expensive)?

<li>Which particular film would you then suggest to stick to for this

kind of portrait?

</ol>

</li>

I have a limited experience with BW films, since I can find only a few

of those which I read mentioned in these forums. I have tried Kodak

TMAX 400, T400CN; Ilford FP4 plus 125, Delta 100. But most of the time

I do landscape or "fine-art" and there I have come to prefer the

T400CN and the FP4 better (but again, I have shot too few rolls to be

able to draw a clear-cut choice amonst them). I also have virtually no

experience with portraits (that's why I need to start so soon ;)). Of

course, all other factors being equal, the cheaper the film is the

better, since I will have to try quite a few rolls!

<p>Any help from your side will be highly appreciated!

Hi, in the last couple of days it the "Follow-up Comments" page which

I can link from my workspace does not seem to get updated properly: I

have a few cases of pictures which I have commented and which have

received further comments, but they do not appear in the list.

<p>As an example, this <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2533871">picture</a>

has received a reply to my comment by the author yesterday, but I

cannot see it in the follow-up page.

This has been explained various times in this forum.

<p>I don't know the exact details, but roughly it goes like this: your picture, once submitted for critique request, enters a queue in the "Critique Recent Photos". Once your picture has received 10 ratings, it goes back in the queue (other pictures with less ratings receive a higher priority), therefore there are fewer chances that you get a rating. Following ratings might come from the exposure in the Top Photos (if your image manage to climb up there) or from casual views from other members (for example somebody who has received a comment/rating from you, etc...)

<i>I hope he's not coming up with links to forum software that features signatures, lots of little icons (profile, private message, reply, ...), emoticons and a bunch of other stuff</i>.

<p>Same here! :)

<br>I wouldn't change this slim and functional interface at all!

Brian M. said "<i>people can do deals to exchange ratings through email</i>".

<br>Couldn't they just simply write down their vote on the comment? Something like:

<p>

            Wow, I love this! <b>7/7</b>

<p>From my own experience, mate-raters do leave such kind of comments to each other, they just need to add their vote.

No, upload speed hasn't got anything to do with the quality of the image you are posting. It just can make things slower or quicker. Same for download of posted images.

<p>You might consider also some alternatives to PhotoShop which are less expensive or free, such as <a href="http://www.gimp.org">Gimp</a>. You could save a few bucks to get a better scanner. Just my 2 cents ;)

<i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817441816/ref=ase_faser-20/102-1014679-6709750?v=glance&s=books">

Learning to See Creatively: Design, Color & Composition in Photography</a></i>, by Bryan Peterson (October 2003).

<p>I have bought and read (and re-read) the previous edition and found a lot of interesting insights.

Yes, Jacques, we got it! Thanks to Brian again, also from my side.

<br>It's already the single most clicked link in "My workspace"!

I'm sure this has been discussed already, somebody will be able to provide a detailed explanation.

<p>For the time being, you can start looking at this <a href="http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html">link</a>.