ACROS + Rodinal + Help Needed

[Ian Leake]

I found these sycamore leaves in Winchelsea on a dull and overcast day. They were a wonderful bright green colour, and I visualised them as appearing much as in the post-processed image shown on the right - bright against a dark background. But unfortunately my analogue technique let me down.

I used Fuji ACROS Quickload rated at EI 80. The negative was developed for 11.5 minutes at 20°C in Rodinal diluted to 1:50.

I think my exposure was about right because I've got the detail I wanted in the shadows, but the highlights are too dull (see left image) which suggests to me that it's under-developed. Of course I could be wrong 'cos I'm no expert in this.

In terms of density, I get the following readings from the negative (see middle image):

• Deepest Shadow = 0.07 (also equals the film base + fog)
• Middle Shadow = 0.35 (taken from the right hand fence post)
• Light Shadow = 0.59 (taken from a leaf in shade at the bottom)
• Highlight = 0.80 (taken from the brightest leaf)

My challenge is that I would like to get a negative suitable for Platinum/Palladium contact printing, which I understand will mean getting the densities of the highlights up to perhaps 1.6 or 1.7. I assume that this will mean something like N+2 development on one of my two spare undeveloped negatives. But I've no idea if this is achievable with ACROS/Rodinal or what time/temperature/dilution it would need.

So rather than use trial and error, I thought I should ask for suggestions from all the planet sized brains at APUG on how I should deal with this situation. So, can anyone help me?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Acros

Ian-you might like to think about using a filter/green(#15) to lighten the leaves first. That will definately make them stand out more. I'm awaiting some acros in sheets right now from Japan so only know about rollfilm. Skip the rodinal and go to one of the Pyro developers. This usually is a shortcut method to Platinum printing. If you search the archives you might find out how Acros builds density but I don't think alot of people are using it for Platinum-that doesn't mean it won't work but some of the more traditional materials like HP5 or Tri-x or the films from J+C will easily give the densities for Platinum. There's alot of information over on www.unblingingeye.com so go have look. Better yet take a workshop with a known Platinum person-it will save alot of TIME and MATERIALS as it is not cheap to do.
Regards, Peter

 

[Lee L]

In this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Eric Jones wrote:

I am real happy with Acros and develop it in Clayton F76+ Developer 1:19 for 8 minutes (64 ASA), Constant Agitation in BTZS Tubes @ 68F (20C). I can get from N-4 to N+4 with this dilution which makes the film/developer combo very versatile for me. Although, this is probably not very applicable to your MF situation.

So, if Rodinal can develop to completion at the dilutions you use, it looks like the film itself is capable of sufficient expansion.

Lee

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Ian - don't worry about switching to another film. You just need to develop longer, and perhaps with a more vigourous developer, perhaps use 1:25 or another developer.

I've done a bit of testing with Acros, and with Xtol 1+1 for 30 minutes at 20C, I can get an average gradient of 1.19.

The step tablet densities, measured with blue channel, are listed below in case you are interested. As you can see, it has a very low base+fog value, but can get to very high densities. Keep up with the Acros if you like, it is a very flexible film as far as N+/- goes - just try more development.

Step Tablet, film density
0.05, 3.59
0.19, 3.35
0.32, 3.17
0.46, 2.98
0.60, 2.84
0.75, 2.67
0.89, 2.49
1.02, 2.31
1.18, 2.11
1.33, 1.93
1.46, 1.79
1.58, 1.63
1.73, 1.44
1.88, 1.24
2.02, 1.04
2.16, 0.84
2.30, 0.60
2.43, 0.45
2.59, 0.30
2.73, 0.20
2.87, 0.16
b+f, 0.09

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

 

[photobackpacker]

I think there is a problem occuring upstream of your development. The deep shadow detail did not even break through the threshold response level of your film. If you metered these shadows with the intent of recording detail, your film speed is too high. You need a lower EI.

I agree a green filter will help elevate the highlights but this will further depress the detail in the shadows unless you compensate. You have three "main stream" choices here:

1. Shoot the entire scene higher on the scale. From your data, you would be able to open up 2 stops and still keep your densities within the range of normal printing paper.

2. You can shoot with a green filter while compensating with the filter factor. You will want to ensure you are placing the shadows high enough to capture detail.

3. The third choice is place the shadows higher and use expanded development. This will move your highlights into the range of Platinum printing densities.

Approaching this subject for conventional printing materials, I would probably shoot this as an N development subject with the deep shadows placed low in Zone III. Your Highlights would then fall on Zone VII.5 which would give you full texture in the leaves.

When shooting leaves, btw, watch out for "rogue specular highlights" coming from one or two of the leaves. These can be very hard to render with detail in the finished print and be extremely tedious to burn in. I have found it necessary to look at individual leaves and search for the ones that are reflecting the greatest amount of light.

If using a spot meter, remember to shade the lens. When you are pushing the density envelope and want to make full use of the tonal ranges available to you, you need to eliminate lens flare in your spotmeter.

 

[Willie Jan]

Did you measure the scene with a spotmeter or integral meter.

i did some test with my new spotmeter (for the zone system) and found out that the difference can be up to 3 stops between the two methods. I have to adjust my development to the spotmeter.

 

[Ian Leake]

Thanks

Thanks everyone for your interest and help. I've got lots to think about when I go out next time. Again, many thanks.

Ian.