Familiar Fremont bridge
Dil. 'H' seemed low contrast (no doubt my fault)
Drooled over some stand dev. shots & found a recipe for HC-110 at 1:150. Pleased w/ results so far.
Familiar bridge is still nice to see more of, nice photo again HiHo. I am not sure i like as much grain as you obtained here as macfred does. Seems some days i am into the grain and some i am not. Is it from the semi-stand development? I can't read contrast competently well yet on a qualitative level in a negative. Obviously there is some of the range that gets taken up in shadow, essential to this photo, and at night it might be right overall. It certainly looks pleasing. So judging the negative of a night shot might not be the best. Maybe if you took St. John's bridge again and developed the same way and compared. Was the contrast meant to be increased or tamed by the semi-stand? Break - i just went back to macfred's Industrial - I photo, taken on 35mm. the grain in the sky is makes it look like there is actually sky there, enhancing the bright backgound. I do like the way it came out. Still, i like what you have here, and think there was enough gradation in the clouds to make this a very moody picture.
The object for the semi-stand was a bit more contrast, acutance(sp) & tonality. Stand isn't known for contrast, usually, but it seems stronger in most negs. 'Posting another from the roll for a perspective on a a day shot. 'Completely unenhanced.
To Devorobin, can you rattle off a short descriptive how to choose when semi-stand is more appropriate in a development decision? i develop sheet film so i can make those decisions for each image. I have signed on to the new 4x4x5 developing tank recently posted about in apug, so i might now have some options.
Devorobin, Thank you. Being that this is my first go at semi-stand, I'm also interested in what methods are preferred for what effects. Probably the most wild claim I ran across is that it breaks the need to shoot all of a single roll at a single ISO. I suspect result vary, but that's still revolutionary. Most stuff is written about Rodinol (R09 one shot), so I specifically looked for stuff on HC-110. The thing that pushed me to try was a shot here by the honorable Greg Heath done in Rodinol. http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=73749&catid=member&imageuser=27337 The way the metal renders winds my crank in a big way.
HiHo, looks like the same tail number as we recently pm'd . If stand development did that, then WOW! If we get the other one back, a comparative view may be interesting - but the detail and clarity in both are exquisite.
If I understand correctly from Ken N. - it is the same plane. Note the dev. was in Rodinol 1:100 for an hour. He doesn't mention of there's any agitation - initial or otherwise. That dilution seems to be the norm. The one I used was 1:150 per instruction from another forum. 'Seems like metal - maybe other reflective surfaces ? - really respond to the method.
Background note: It is the same Collings Foundation B-17G-85-DL #44-83575, painted and marked as the namesake B-17G-30-BO #42-31909. The recreated nose art "Nine-O-Nine" references the final three digits of the original namesake tail number.
After our earlier off-line conversations I rechecked closely and now believe that Greg's photograph depicts the port side engine #1, while my photograph depicts the starboard side engines #3 and #4. I base this on a careful examination of the demarcation line between the upper and lower camouflage paint schemes. They do not precisely match on the cowlings of the engines in each image.
I am also not convinced that any varieties of the stand development technique are primarily responsible for the tonal qualities being admired. In my experience the greatest contributor to superb tonality is the original subject matter. In fact, my photograph showcased similar, albeit not nearly so spectacular, effects, and it was developed in home-brewed D-76d (1+1) with industry standard agitation.
Had I skipped the flattening effect of axis light fill flash while attempting to better record the engine cylinders, the tonality in my final result may have been further enhanced. The flash heavily reduced the modeling effect of the overhead natural light on an overcast afternoon.
Greg did not use fill flash. You can see his reflection on the nose cone. In my image you can only see the blinding flash from the flash bulb on the nose cone.
And Greg, if you happen upon this post, your photograph at the above link is one of my top ten all time favorites on APUG.
Ken, Thank You for clarifying the details of the B17. On the dev., I noticed a definite flattening of tones when I switched to HC-110 from D-76. Others don't seem to experience that, so I have to assume I have a method issue. 'Tried reduced agitation, then my regular (1 min initial, 2 inversions every 30s. w/ bubble taps). While the stand methods may not be the holy grail (doubt if it exists), It made for a fairly unambiguous change in contrast. So - maybe all I'm seeing is what HC-110 looks like when I don't screw it up. I really like what it did w/ the metalic surface subjects, which is what Greg's shot showed so incredibly well (with Rodinol & stand dev). The tones on that shot amaze me. Looking back at shots of polished metal from D-76, they are closer to this than my HC shots have been. I appreciate your taking the time to talk about your thoughts on other things that would bear on the tonality. I'd say more, but it would just amount to appreciating your kind help w/ your thoughts.