jim_megargee

Do you use a wetting agent on your film after washing ? If so, how well

are you washing the reels afterwards ? You could be carrying some over

into the developer. Just a thought.

If you feel an uncontrolable urge to squeegee your film after photo-flo

(in distilled water) try using surgical (non-powdered) gloves. But what

has not been mentioned is to be sure to mix the photo-flo to the exact

dilution suggested by the manufacture. Problems often arise by mixing

to strong or weak a solution.

With the tests that I ran with pyro and several different film types, I

came up with almost the same results and opinion as John. If I had an

extreme contrast situation and was using large negative material I

might use the Pyro. But for a standard use developer Pyro would not be

my first choice because of the sharpness and grain issues already

mentioned. Photographers that I know that use Pyro on a regular basis

seem more entranced with their negatives (which can look beautiful)

then their prints.Let me also add another set of developers into the

fray ( if you can get your hands on any) - Tetanol's Neo-Fin Red and

Neo-fin Blue. Both show extremely high accutence without blocking up

highlights.

To simplify Pats post a bit - When printing, your exposure should be based on the minimum exposure necessary to record proper density (texture)in

your highlights. A good rule of thumb is that you expose for your highlights and develop for the blacks.. In fact - if you are printing on the

"correst" contrast ( the grade the negative is asking to be printed on) for the negative - your textured whites and your max blacks should be coming

in at the same time on your test strips. If you are getting a tex. white before a max black ,you are to low in contrast. A max black before a tex white

you are too high in contrast. Following this rule allows you to make corrections to your negatives to get them to the contrast grade you wish to be

using.

IMHO - I would go with HP5+ or Tri-X not TMY400. I might also consider

a developer other than the two you are thinking of using. Such as HC-

110. But as with all things related to this -testing is the only way to

go. But I would test out the different combinations with an eye towards

the final size of prints you intend to be making in the future. Often a

film /developer combo that works well (fine grain,etc.) at 8X10 print

size does not hold up well at 16/20 or 20/24. This is not an uncommon

result of "pushing "film in "fine grain" developers.

To answer the last post..... yes. repeated exposure to some X-Ray at

carry on will cause damage. The faster the speed of the film the easier

it is to damage. At our lab we work with a number of journalist that

travel extensively and have always recommend the method that Mason

states above. Have your film hand checked when possable. A camera bag

contains many items that may look odd to an inspector. Flash units,

Meters, Power packs, etc. that would and does cause them to hold the

bag within the X-ray machine for longer than average. We have seem

every thing from streaking to general base fog that could only be

attributed to repeated exposure to X-ray.

I dont know if this helps --but-- we often see the "problem" / "effect" when - 1- photographers are working quickly and the negs are being pealed off too soon. (Prior to the necessary 60 sec development / fixing time. 2- The temp. of the materials or the enviroment are below normal. eg. if you are working outside in 50 degree F weather ,665 requires longer development before pealing or warming of the material prior to shooting. One suggestion is that if you are trying to achieve this effect that you give the negative a bit more exposure than normal to achieve an easier printing negative.

Most of the suggestions that have been made I would agree with in one sense or another, but---- when first starting out in the medium it is important to shoot alot of film. This helps you get a feel for looking through the view finder and translating the world into black and white. A 2 1/4 camera is a terrific piece of equipment, as is a 4x5, but for someone just beginning the per image cost vs the learning potential of using a 35 mm camera can be prohibitive. You can always "up grade" in the future. Also to begin with you will not be printing larger than 8x10 or 11x14, and modern films can easily give you more than exceptable results at those sizes.

Something you should keep in mind when using any of the C-41 "B&W" films is that they are in reality color films. Their stability is no more or less than any color negative film. Its been my experience that between the two most often used ( Kodak CN & Ilford XP-1 ) that the Ilford film offers the nearest translation to print to B&W films.

Its always a good idea to be filtering the water you are using, but that is not likly to be causing your problems. Developer streaking usualy is created at the beginning of the development process. A pre soak in water may help solve the problem (it will also change your total dev. time) but chances are that the cause is your initial agitation, it might be too vigirous. And if you continue to agitate in the same manner for the remainder of your time you will only aqdd to the problem. Submerging the film quickly into a tank of developer can actualy increase turbulance around the sprocket holes and add to the build up with improper agitation.

Andy the general rule is that the more agitation the film recieves the higher the contrast of the negative. This would be more noticable if you were using a higher energy developer such as rodinal or HC 110. Or if you were to increase your method to the same number of rotations every 30 or 15 seconds.

If you are graduating from a photography program I'm a bit surprized you dont already have some type of portfolio together. If not......

 

<p>

 

Ask yourself what type of photography you really want to do to make a living. Because each field within the medium can require a very different type of life style. And some that sound rather attractive can be come very old very fast. There are more than likely photographers in your area that offer lectures or workshops related to protfolio building. This could be well worth your time and money.

Understand that building a portfolio is an on going and continuous process. It should always be changing and being upgraded as your work improves and changes. Best of luck.

Tim - It should be understood that over/under exposure refers to the highlight of a scene , not the shadow, as I'm sure you know. If you are using an averageing meter and an ISO of 200 with a 400 ISO film, then you are (on average) overexposing the film by one stop with each exposure, creating a highlight of greater density than necessary. Pulling back on development will assist in producing a more "normal" negative.

Exposing tri-x at 200 iso will not auotmaticly give you more shadow detail. As with any ISO that you use ,the amount of shadow detail you achieve will depend upon "where" you have taken the exposure reading from in the scene. An extreme example would be if you pointed your meter at a light scource in the scene and used that exposure, it would not matter if you were using 200 or 50 ISO. Chances are you would have little or weak shadow detail. IMHO its always best to use the given ISO of the film and expose correctly rather than depend on trying to convince the film that it has an ISO that it doesnt. Unless of course you are forced to work under extreme conditions.

But if you are using 200, you should underdevelop the film by an equal amount. Start with 20-30% of your normal time and then adjust to the type of neg you prefer.

Let me make another suggestin. !00 to 125 iso is a cifference of 1/4 stop. Does not sound like much, but its a full quarter of a stop and depending upon what type of image you are making ,it could be a great deal. I would suggest that you do open up that 1/4 top . But first ,as suggested , have the shutter speed checked at a repair shop.

A quick thought is that your comment of ..." every one or two minuites...." sounds rather loose. Set a specific agitation method, specificly during the first one or two mins. This period determines the overall eveness of the negative. Second-- The difference between PMK and ID-11 is like night and day. But then again PMK is not the "magic " developer many think it to be.

Streaks on the negative happen during the first min. or so of development and are caused by either to much or to little agitation. In most cases it is the former. Try using a more even and softer first and second agitation method on a few test rolls and see if that helps. Streaks are something that we all get, weither we see them or not. They are more noticed in clear areas (skys,etc.). But if you were to measure all your negs under a densitometer you would find that almost all your negs had some buildup on the edges. Its he nature of the beast.

It is believed that the more constant the agitation in any solution, the shorter the time necessary. Your concern should also be with the overall wet time. The longer the negative stays wet the more the emulsion swells. This can have an effect on the "sharpness" of the image. A good rule throughout the process of photography is minimum,minimum,minimum, From exposure through development to washing the negative.

The most important and most overlooked aspect of using one or the other of these methods is their relationship to each other. In other words, what are they really telling you when you use them. The reflective meter is giving you a reading that will render the area read a middle grey (18%) when printed. The incedent meter is giving you the same reading you would have recieved using a spot reading off a grey card in that area of the area photographed. So---if you use the incident meter in the shadow area, all areas of the photograph will fall in place in relationship to a properly exposed grey card in the shadows.