Phew.......three evevnings spent into nights....but at last...
As I mentioned earlier in my thread dealing with HC-110 dill. H - I intended to conduct a ring-around test to establish the best rocessing chain containing:
Tri-X in HC-110 dill. H at 20 deg. C, Normal development time to be considered 13 min. (twice as the one good for dill. B), destined for scanning by Nikon LS-40 film scanner in Mono, Grayscale mode, NikonScan software, 12 bit output to my particular CRT Samsung SyncMaster 997M monitor (calibrated). Agitation - first 30 second, then twice each subsequent minute (two upside down-up turns).
I realize more solid testing approach should direct to wet printing, but this is out of my reach and I need to tune my process to my particular flow.
Shot a roll of Tri-X of reasonably high contrast scene with contrast swing of 6-6.5 stops, lens 'Cron 50mm/2 (current) on M6, constant shutter speed of 1000, the film speed variance (yielding EI for Tri-X) has been attained by aperture (11 +/- 1 stop).
Exposure variations are essentially Normal (incident metering), Underexposure by 1 stop, Overexposure by 1 stop (simulates EI = 400 (nominal), 200 and 800 respectively).
I was mostly interested in highlights, i.e. establish a proven exp.dev. approach to achieve reasonably expectable dynamic range while perserving highlights (as mostly controlled by development). Having said that, I intended to check how exp.development variations influence both shadows and highlights so that to be aimed for high contrast shooting without hasitation on proper exosure/development approach.
The results are summarized into Word file (a table Exp. vs. Development with images, highlight crops, etc..) (I suspect Word files cannot be attached to the message). In most cases there are differences in highlights, yet subtle to very subtle but yet discrenable under careful inspection. The images in the table are quite small, however highlighs crops sizes are enough for reasonable judgement.
On the other hand, I found ti very difficult to draw any conclusions on shadows based on small-resized crops of the original TIFF images - due to heavy resizing and small size the shadows in most cases look comletely dark on the monitor, while the original TIFF file may contain considerable details. Therefore there is no Word table to shadows comparison, but I judge them by the original TIFF files opened in PS.
I will be interested in third/forth, etc...opinion from experienced (as well as less or even novices like me) B&W shooters, their conclusions and notes, thus if you happen to be interested to see the summary, examine and respond ni the thread - please provide your email address- I'll forward you the summary Word file and shadows crops of the original test images for your judgement.
Right now, as per my judgement, the most restrained highlights (yet ighlights) are of underexposed, N-20% underdeveloped image, but the shadows of that image are nearly blocked which is not suprising. Correspondingly, the highlights of overexposed, N+20% overdeveloped image are most exposed, nearly blown, but still carry discernabel details, while its shadows are most open. This is also hardly suprizing...
Trying to fing the best trade-off, I'm contemplating between Nominally Exposed (400)/Normally developed (13 min) and Overexposed (200)/Underdeveloped (-20%). These two cases appear to offer the best "price/performance" among all the cases. There are very slight differences in shadows and also in highlights, however they appear to be reasonably small to be concerned about. It appears both approaches are nearly equal...(to my eye)...
Please let me know if you're interested to examine the results and voice your opinion or, if there is the way to attached Word file to teh thread - lease let me know...
As I mentioned earlier in my thread dealing with HC-110 dill. H - I intended to conduct a ring-around test to establish the best rocessing chain containing:
Tri-X in HC-110 dill. H at 20 deg. C, Normal development time to be considered 13 min. (twice as the one good for dill. B), destined for scanning by Nikon LS-40 film scanner in Mono, Grayscale mode, NikonScan software, 12 bit output to my particular CRT Samsung SyncMaster 997M monitor (calibrated). Agitation - first 30 second, then twice each subsequent minute (two upside down-up turns).
I realize more solid testing approach should direct to wet printing, but this is out of my reach and I need to tune my process to my particular flow.
Shot a roll of Tri-X of reasonably high contrast scene with contrast swing of 6-6.5 stops, lens 'Cron 50mm/2 (current) on M6, constant shutter speed of 1000, the film speed variance (yielding EI for Tri-X) has been attained by aperture (11 +/- 1 stop).
Exposure variations are essentially Normal (incident metering), Underexposure by 1 stop, Overexposure by 1 stop (simulates EI = 400 (nominal), 200 and 800 respectively).
I was mostly interested in highlights, i.e. establish a proven exp.dev. approach to achieve reasonably expectable dynamic range while perserving highlights (as mostly controlled by development). Having said that, I intended to check how exp.development variations influence both shadows and highlights so that to be aimed for high contrast shooting without hasitation on proper exosure/development approach.
The results are summarized into Word file (a table Exp. vs. Development with images, highlight crops, etc..) (I suspect Word files cannot be attached to the message). In most cases there are differences in highlights, yet subtle to very subtle but yet discrenable under careful inspection. The images in the table are quite small, however highlighs crops sizes are enough for reasonable judgement.
On the other hand, I found ti very difficult to draw any conclusions on shadows based on small-resized crops of the original TIFF images - due to heavy resizing and small size the shadows in most cases look comletely dark on the monitor, while the original TIFF file may contain considerable details. Therefore there is no Word table to shadows comparison, but I judge them by the original TIFF files opened in PS.
I will be interested in third/forth, etc...opinion from experienced (as well as less or even novices like me) B&W shooters, their conclusions and notes, thus if you happen to be interested to see the summary, examine and respond ni the thread - please provide your email address- I'll forward you the summary Word file and shadows crops of the original test images for your judgement.
Right now, as per my judgement, the most restrained highlights (yet ighlights) are of underexposed, N-20% underdeveloped image, but the shadows of that image are nearly blocked which is not suprising. Correspondingly, the highlights of overexposed, N+20% overdeveloped image are most exposed, nearly blown, but still carry discernabel details, while its shadows are most open. This is also hardly suprizing...
Trying to fing the best trade-off, I'm contemplating between Nominally Exposed (400)/Normally developed (13 min) and Overexposed (200)/Underdeveloped (-20%). These two cases appear to offer the best "price/performance" among all the cases. There are very slight differences in shadows and also in highlights, however they appear to be reasonably small to be concerned about. It appears both approaches are nearly equal...(to my eye)...
Please let me know if you're interested to examine the results and voice your opinion or, if there is the way to attached Word file to teh thread - lease let me know...
