todd_b1

<p>I am happy to say reticulation all the way. Interesting it can happen only on some places within a roll. I split a roll today and am doing some tests, for fun. I am going to be very very careful with temperature, take some open sky photos across a broad range of EV, and then develop in both Diafine and Tmax. Will post a follow-up if anything interesting!</p>

<p>I think my next task is to shoot more film and experiment! And pay much closer attention to temperature. Now that I think about it the fixer had been freshly mixed and would not have been at the same temperature as the developer -- I usually take this for granted because they have been sitting on the same shelf. I did not know about reticulation. Many many thanks! I like the look so one mission will be to reproduce this on demand.</p>

<p>Many thanks all. JDM, I don't think temperature is an issue, the Diafine sheet says 70-85 degrees (huge window!) and I am right at 75, and I would think this would impact the entire roll, not just a few frames. Here is another image for an extreme example. Cloudless sky as Alan notes. I like the look but would like to be able to control it. Diafine doesn't give me the ability to prolong (or not) development, it kind of does what it does so perhaps I should try switching to another developer. But I'm not really sure what steps I would take for a beach scene like this if I wanted emphasize the plane. I use a yellow filter for what it's worth. Lex, I will try for sure to bracket shots across EI to see what this gives me (if interested to anyone I can post it). 1600 vs 1200 is less than a full stop, forgive me if I sound completely ignorant (I am), but can I just eyeball this, say one third of the way between two apertures? Just to be sure I looked at the negative with a loupe to confirm the scan is reproducing (more or less) the grain correctly.<br>

Thanks all, help is really appreciated, basic stuff but new for me.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/7451780696_6633ac97d2_z_d.jpg" alt="image3" /></p>

<p>Many thanks Bruce, you could not have made this clearer. A whole new world of things for me to think about. I need another lifetime to master :). I like the look of the beach photo, but this is just the way it "turned out", no control exercised on my part. In this situation, if I were going for a more realistic look I should have underexposed (less density) and then compensated during development? I don't Diafine gives me any control there. Is there a rough feel for the number of stops I should have underexposed? And then using a one-part developer I could compensate?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

<br />I'm trying to get a good understanding of the influence exposure to grain, here are two images from the same roll of film. This is Tri-X and Diafine. The Diafine data sheet says it pushes Tri-X to 1600 (!). The first was in full sun at a beach, I am sure f/16 and probably 1/500 or faster. The second was also in full sun but reflected from the water in the baby pool.<br>

<br />Can you help me understand what accounts for the difference in grain and look?<br>

Thanks,<br>

<br />Todd</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7136/7451781974_e91125b07f_c_d.jpg" alt="image 1" /></p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7113/7451784078_56762174bb_c_d.jpg" alt="image 2" /></p>

Sorry if this is really silly, I've searched and no one seems to dig into this. Why did Kodak come out with Tmax as a new BW film?

 

We can compare Tmax and Tri-X forever, but does anyone have any insight into why Kodak felt they needed a second BW film? It seems

like a zero sum game for them, sales of Tmax at the expense of Tri-x, and product confusion for non- diehards. The product manager (my

day job) in me doesn't understand this one, it seems to go against conventional wisdom. It's not a new market, doesn't expand existing

market, presumably cannibalizes existing product sales, creates confusion, doesn't improve margin, increases production, inventory,

promotion etc costs. It doesn't seem to be about higher value proposition or any key differentiator.

 

Why did they decide they needed this? Inject new blood into BW business? Competitive threat? Huge demand for a new BW Kodak film?

 

Sorry if this is really silly.

 

Todd

<p>Thanks all for your replies. I developed my first roll of film today. It was ridiculously easy, results really great. HUGE savings compared to what I have been paying for development. I scanned the negatives using an inexpensive scanner from Staples (office store), the results are much better than the professional scans. It's really amazing. This has been very liberating and will change my whole approach, this is much more accessible now without the extra expense and time. Many thanks.<br>

-- Todd</p>

Paulie,

 

Nope! As a matter of fact I have no idea how to tell overexposure from overdevelopment. :(.

 

Charles,

 

My shadow details are starting higher up the scale and my highlight detail is ending too soon. :(. But you've told me how I

can deal with this, perfect. And which reverses what I had just posted, that I consistently overexpose. Sorry if this is

ridiculously basic, this thread has been super helpful.

 

The first images I posted that started my question were the reverse, clipped shadow and clipped highlights and very little

detail in between. I haven't changed the way I meter and all film from another lab has been OK, so I feel on fairly good

ground that my original issue was with development. But a question. How would I expose/develop to get results like that?

High contrast with clipped highlight and shadow details?

 

Todd

<p>Many thanks Charles (and all)! I think I actually understand the various factors at play now. And have a good idea what to look for. I looked at a lot of images today and I am consistent -- I consistently overexpose. I am going to do some experimentation (which will probably lead to more questions). I like the idea of processing the film myself, but then I need a way to scan. Another thing to buy!</p>

<p>thank you thank you<br>

(sorry if i wasn't clear, images are from same type of film but processed at different labs).<br>

once i use up my BW film i'll switch to C41 BW to take the processing variable out of the question. i would process at home but i don't have the fundamentals (exposure etc) down enough that processing is an issue. that's the plan! (and hopefully find a decent light meter, i'll search the site for suggestions).<br>

Great information Charles. Do you mind if I follow-up with you to make sure I'm interpreting the histogram correctly?<br>

Thanks again to all.</p>

<p>Many many thanks all for such great information. I now understand the question I was trying to ask: is the contrasty and grainy look being caused by something I am doing with exposure. And from the above I think the answer is no, this is not about my exposure. The scans are indicative (for this purpose) of the difference in the negatives, so it's not the scan. Here are two more examples from different rolls:</p>

<p>"contrasty"<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/7007329499_b544bb06b4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>"not contrasty" (yes, this is a manhole cover)<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7188/7006726979_3545604d78.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>This is the same film, different labs. Contrast, grain -- these are not things I can control with exposure, it is something else (that is what I am taking away).<br>

Advice about doing my own developing taken. I will 100% know who to blame! Will need to investigate how. More importantly it sounds like it will give me the control to produce a grainy, contrasty image if that is what I am going for. Right now I do my best to judge exposure and that is that.<br>

Thanks!</p>

Leigh many thanks!

 

This is Arista 400 Premium (same as Tri-X?) that I send out to be processed and scanned, so I am not controlling the developer (would

love to get to that point!). I checked and interestingly these are two different labs.

 

Todd

<p>I'm having a real problem with the exposure and contrast of my photographs, they are all highlights and shadows, every now and then one will appear more "normal". I use a light meter app in my iPhone to judge exposure. But wouldn't it be overall too light or dark if over/underexposure was the issue? Compare the top two images to the bottom image.<br>

<br /> Many many thanks for your help!<br>

<br /> Some contrasty examples:<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5321/7066411847_f397b0f868.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5316/6920341834_0d5849a80c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here is a less contrasty one</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7241/7006727685_cef2f658e9.jpg" alt="" /></p>