nick_west3

ABW never uses just one ink (Black) nor do you ever want that with anything but maybe text.

Thanks for the quick response. Is this because it can't hit a neutral black without the use of colour inks? So does the 'black' setting only use the black carts then?

I'm only printing solid black line art and it's costing a fortune replacing the colour inks all the time.

Hi All,

 

Quick question, I've been using 'Advanced B&W Photo' mode with my R2400 when printing B&W but I've noticed it still appears to be using a lot of colour ink. Does anyone know if changing this mode to 'Black' ensures that only black ink is used?

 

Thanks for your help

Thanks for the quick response Larry. Any thoughts on how to rectify this?

The scan was made using Epson software on a V550 with all features disabled (sharpening, digital ice etc.)

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

Back again! <br>

I just processed another roll of Tri-X and found it to be, while not as bad, similar to my first problem roll when scanned.<br>

Take a look here and see what you guys think, correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the dead space between frames be completely black and void of any texture?<br>

This is a straight scan, no sharpening or other adjustments, 100% crop:<br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg</a></p>

<p>Hi Rodeo Joe, <br>

The film definitely appears fogged as there is very little contrast between the frames and empty areas, but you're right, I didn't even think of that.. maybe this was the results of a combination of X-Rays and extreme temp changes.</p>

<p>Hi everyone, just a quick update:<br /> I'm pretty sure the issue was due to the film being X-Rayed. I have just processed a new roll of Tri-X with the exact same chemicals, temperatures and process and my results are much closer to what I originally expected. <br /><br />I could even see straight away that the negatives were already dramatically different, as you can see here: <br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/IMG_1547.JPG">New roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'm sure you'll agree this is a huge improvement from the previous roll: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Problem roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'll let you know how the scans turn out.<br /> Thanks again for all your help!</p>

<p>Randy,<br>

I have looked through a loupe and the entire film seems to have a fine texture to it which I'm guessing is where there is 'detail' in the blank areas?<br>

Apologies for the bad image, I have over sharpened it to exaggerate the problem, but you can see the texture <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestC.jpg">here</a></p>

<p>Kodak seem to suggest that heavy grain and complete fogging could be visible from multiple x-ray scans. I guess this explains it.<br>

I'll buy a new roll of Tri-X tomorrow and repeat my process and report back.<br>

I am incredibly sorry if it does turn out to be the cause of the baggage scans I have wasted anyones time in trying to solve an impossible problem.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex,<br>

So if this was in my checked luggage, as I'm leaning towards thinking it was, both rolls were unexposed in both directions. I flew UK - ATL - BNA and a couple of weeks later BNA - ATL - UK<br>

So I can only presume it was exposed to heavy X-rays at least twice. Should this look more like as you described if that was the case?</p>

<p>Hi Lex,<br>

Certainly not while I've had it, it was only purchased recently and the highest temperatures will have only been those involved in the processing.<br>

However.. now you've said that, I've just realised that both of these films may have accidentally been in my checked luggage when I recently travelled to the US and back.<br>

Now I feel stupid.</p>

<p>Hi Randy,<br>

Check page 2, and also what do you make of my last post on page 4?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Yeah, even your 'ugly' scan looks good to me Lex, even at that size my shadow areas are just huge white noise monsters.</p>

<p>Ok, here's another update.<br /> I remembered I had some lab processed HP5+ negs and I have just given one of those frames a quick scan. It's absolutely perfect, so we can now completely rule out the scanning issue.<br /> I'm not sure if this is just the difference in film but I notice a huge contrast between the frames and blank outer areas of the HP5+ compared to my Tri-X, where it all kind of looks one tone. I've shown them side by side here: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Lab developed HP5+ vs Idiot developed Tri-X</a></p>

<p>Thanks Lex, well.. I wish they did look like those.<br>

I also tried scanning the same negatives with Silverfast just to rule out the issue being with the Epson software, same result.<br>

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the area outside of the frame be pretty much black? Wouldnt this indicate a processing issue? (<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestB.jpg">example here</a>)</p>

<p>Thanks Lex, that's exactly what I was expecting to see from my first scan.<br /><br />Trust me Didier, it's not a lens issue.</p>

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

So I (very carefully) processed a new roll of Tri-X 400.<br>

I've just made some scans and unfortunately it appears my results are the same.<br>

I have uploaded a high-res jpeg for you <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Test.jpg">here</a> (2400dpi).<br />As you can see the problem is the same, if not worse. This was taken in bright mid-day sun and I metered from the shadows.<br>

My exact process was as follows:<br>

D76 mixed from powder with 50°C purified water. Sat for 24 hours.<br>

Kodak D76 - 1:0 - 20°C - 6:45 minutes<br />Kodak Indicator Stop Bath - 1:64 (purified water) - 1:00 minute<br />Kodak T-Max Fixer - 1:4 (purified water) - 20°C - 5:00 minutes<br />Final tap water wash - 20°C - 11:00 minutes<br />Kodak Photo-Flo - a couple of drops + purified water - 1:00 minute<br /><br />This was processed in a Paterson Super System 4 Tank, I closely monitored the temp and had exactly 300ml of each liquid (excluding the tap water which was constantly running).<br>

I also searched for the quality of our tap water and <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/WaterQuality.jpg">here</a> is the result.<br>

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Mark: I'm not sure what else I can try in terms of scanning, the entire roll scans this way, I've tried with every 'feature' of the Epson software enabled and disabled, auto exposure and manual levels adjustments.. they all turn out the same. Plus my 120 scans are absolutely fine. I guess the real test will be to see how the next roll turns out.<br>

Lex: You may be on to something here, our water is incredibly hard, however my D76 powder was originally mixed with purified water. I have just processed a second roll, I did the final photo-flo bath in purified water this time so I'll see if that has made any difference.<br>

Didier: 'Esa' actually said underexposed and everyone else said overdeveloped. But now you have stated underdeveloped.. that is why I asked.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Didier,<br>

I thought the general consensus was that it was overdeveloped.. <br>

Did you mean underexposed?</p>

<p>Thanks Craig,<br>

I did exactly that today and took notes for each frame. Now I'm just double checking my chemistry before I give it another go.<br>

Someone correct me if I'm wrong with any of the following:<br>

<br />- 135 Tri-X 400<br />- D76 @ 1:0 - 20 Deg C for 6.45 minutes<br />- Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (I mixed 16ml with 984ml water) for 1 minute<br />- Kodak T-Max Fixer @ 1:4 - 20 Deg C for 5 minutes<br />- Cold Water Wash for 10 minutes<br />- Photo-Flo for 1 minute</p>

<p>The D76 had been mixed and sat for over 24 hours. It was clear as crystal.<br>

I used my cameras meter (which I believe is centre weighted) from the shadows and also checked the reading against my 'light meter' app (not perfect I know but at least it gave me the same reading as my camera). Thanks for the URL Randy, I'll check that out.<br>

I shot the roll at box speed (400), would it be worth setting my ASA to 200 and processing for 400, especially in challenging conditions like this?<br>

Craig - 65 degrees here (UK) is pretty much room temperature.<br>

Also, side question, the next roll of Tri-X 400 I've shot at 800. Shouldn't I increase my dev time for this? Kodak seem to suggest the time covers 400-800.. I don't quite understand how it could be the same!?<br>

Thanks again for all the responses!</p>

<p>Thank you for all the responses since my last post, I have read them carefully.<br>

I have just tried another scan of the same frame, both at 2400 and 4800 dpi as suggested, with absolutely all corrections disabled. No improvement unfortunately.<br>

Based on this, and the fact that my 120 seems to scan fine, would you guys agree the problem must lie within the processing?<br>

I have uploaded some additional images of this frame for you if that helps, and also a 120 scan for reference:<br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/img100.jpg">Full Resolution JPEG</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/_D807928.jpg">Negative in Epson carrier</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/_D807923.jpg">Negative through a loupe</a> (apologies for the poor image, however the centre of this frame is how it actually looks to my eye in reality)<br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/img067.jpg">100% Crop from a Holga 120 scan</a> (same scanner/settings, same chemical process although 1:0 rather than 1:1)</p>

I do apologise. I purchased a roll of T-MAX today and I've obviously had that stuck in my head. You were right the first

time Mike, sorry!

 

So yes, this was definitely Tri-X 400. And according to the massive dev chart it should have been 11:27 dev time, so I was

only 27 secs out.

 

I have another roll of Tri-X to process but now I'm a little hesitant to do so. Do you guys think this problem was caused at

the dev stage or could it be a software issue?

<p>Thanks Mike<br>

I think that URL goes to Tri-X but I switched it to TMAX and it's looking like 400-800 ISO @ 1:1 is around 10.5 mins. I'm sure I was at 11 mins, could half a minute really have caused this?</p>

<p>The 120 scans look great, and they were shot on a toy camera!</p>

<p>Hi Larry,<br>

I had everything disabled in the Epson scan software (ICE, Grain Reduction etc. all off!)<br>

I did have unsharp mask set to low but I manually adjusted the levels before hitting scan. This is the file as you see it there is what was produced.</p>