Can you shed some light

on what you think I might have done wrong here..... I've been shooting MF/LF now for 6 months, and printing for a whopping 3 weeks

Anyway, I've been wanting to shoot some gear in a machine shop, with my Graphic View to create prints from. So I go in there yesterday, and only shoot one item, because I was going to only us natural lighting from the ceiling lights.

My film was Arista 100 EDU. My developer is Arista, which should be fresh, because I made up some new over the past weekend, and only developed maybe 2 sheets of film with it.

I did my usual development time of 7 minutes @ 68f with a small pre-wash, and do two inversions every 30 seconds as usual.

My exposure time was 8 seconds at f16sh. When I pulled the film from the tank I got almost a clear piece of film, except for what you see below, and was kind of foggy looking in the middle like it hadn't been developed yet, for the lack of a better term. I'm lost on this one.

Since I was shooting 8 seconds, should I have adjusted my development time? I did a 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, timing in my head. I normally don't shoot that long. 1 to 2 seconds tops for me. Using supplemental lighting isn't a problem per se, I just didn't bring any with me. I did use a reflector down on the floor to help fill in the darker areas. I figure, and just guessing, that if it was an exposure problem, the dial upper left wouldn't have shown up so well.

Any thoughts would greatly be appreciated.

This looks to me to be that your processing chemicals didn't adequately reach the center of the frame. If you somehow managed to too loosely fit the film on the reel or otherwise make the film nearly touch in one area, this might result. You might be able to re-fix and re-wash the film and remove most of this fog. Your agitation scheme seems adequate for developing, did you give the same agitation while fixing or did it sit longer with less agitation?

Peter Gomena

Hi Peter, thanks. I develope all my 4x5's via Taco Method in a Patterson tank.

Now that I think about it, I don't think I agitated much during the FIX portion... I was pouring chemicals back into their containers, since I only had one piece of film during the FIX.

This might be "less" fixed in the center of the neg, as pgomena said you might be able to re-fix. But your first guess also, that reciprocity failure gave the film less exposure than you wish it had. You should try again and give much more time, thirty seconds, two minutes...

1. reciprocity failure
2. some sort of chemical issue

I've got a reciprocity iPad app, that calls for 20 seconds for an 8 second exposure, using Ilford... Maybe I'll try that, as well as bring some supplemental lighting. I'll also make up some new developer as well.

Pfiltz said:

I've got a reciprocity iPad app, that calls for 20 seconds for an 8 second exposure, using Ilford... Maybe I'll try that, as well as bring some supplemental lighting. I'll also make up some new developer as well.

Click to expand...

I thought you were shooting Arista 100? it may be close but why not use the data for the correct film?
google the reciprocity for that.

wildbill said:

I thought you were shooting Arista 100? it may be close but why not use the data for the correct film?
google the reciprocity for that.

Click to expand...

I am shooting Arista, I just haven't found one for it... I figure I might get close, to proper exposure even if it's not for Arista per se. Beats what I did yesterday...

Just found this..

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...178-Reciprocity-correction-for-Arista-edu-100

and

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/AristaEDU_Reciprocity.pdf

The way I read the Freestyle info, is that I should adjust using aperture -vs- time?

I've had similar when um, I well, um, had not cleaned a lens properly and left a fairly large oily spot that came from what I thought was a clean cloth.

If the negative is real thin as you describe underexposure it still could be an issue.

The first thing that I'd try after checking the lens for cleanliness is simply shooting another sheet. Once does not define a trend. If the problem persists then get serious about trouble shooting.

Pfiltz said:

I am shooting Arista, I just haven't found one for it... I figure I might get close, to proper exposure even if it's not for Arista per se. Beats what I did yesterday...

Just found this..

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...178-Reciprocity-correction-for-Arista-edu-100

and

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/AristaEDU_Reciprocity.pdf

The way I read the Freestyle info, is that I should adjust using aperture -vs- time?

Click to expand...

Although we tend to think in terms of longer shutter speeds when we consider reciprocity failure, the actual cause for that type of reciprocity failure is that the light that actually reaches the film is at a very low intensity. If you can increase the intensity of the light reaching the film, by using either more light on the scene or a larger aperture, the reciprocity may not fail.

MattKing said:

Although we tend to think in terms of longer shutter speeds when we consider reciprocity failure, the actual cause for that type of reciprocity failure is that the light that actually reaches the film is at a very low intensity. If you can increase the intensity of the light reaching the film, by using either more light on the scene or a larger aperture, the reciprocity may not fail.

Click to expand...

Exactly Matt, I believe..

This was in a factory, with probably 40' ceilings or higher. Very dark in there relative to shooting near an open door, which I didn't have access too.

Good learning experience for me. I've heard of Reciprocity Failure, but never could get my head around it.

Is there an exposure problem? It's possible I'm mis-interpreting what you were going for, but your exposure looks right on to me. The question is the foggy portion. If reciprocity failure were the issue you wouldn't have a picture at all, at least not in the dark portions.
Not sure about the fog.

Horace, that's what has me scratching my head. According the folks at FreeStyle I should be considering RF at 8 seconds, but then again, you can read the numbers on the dial. Maybe I screwed the pooch in development.

It's all new to me, as far as long exposures go, if you want to consider 8 sec. long. It was for me.

Your mention of "kind of foggy looking in the middle" and the location of that area suggests to me inadequate fixing, perhaps largely due to ineffective agitation. If there is truly any milky appearance in that area of the negative, I would re-fix with good agitation and re-wash as a first step. I ran into that situation with a foray into 4x5 film in pinhole work a few years back. In my case it was a T-grain film that seemed to need more than the usual time in the fixer.

Yes, that foggy looking area looks like it may be inadequate fixing to me as well. Does it have a white-ish, milky look to it, especially when it was wet? If so, it's a fixing problem, either your fix is spent, contaminated, or you just didn't give it enough time. Another round of fixing should take care of it.
Note that if that area were due to an exposure issue, it would likey be less dense, but but since it looks light in a positive, it has more density.

Other than that, since there is so much shadow area, it will be a thin looking negative no matter what The area away from the cloudy part looks ok, given the conditions you've described.

Update: It was the fix. I dipped it back in the fix for 2 minutes, and washed it, and the fog is gone...

Didn't know you could re-fix a neg. Nice to know though.

Thanks all

You can not over agitate fix. I always use excessive agitation. Film is by strict pattern, time, & temp.

Flare due a reflection off an item that wasn't noticed?

Neal Wydra

iwouldextendmeasured 8s to 16 actual seconds of exposure due to reciprocity or go from f16 to f11and avoid much of the reciprocity issue. also counting time is highly inaccurate. get a stop watch or a special timer for long exposures.

I find when counting one-ansel-adams, two-ansel adams, etc, that the accuracy of my timing is well within acceptable limits...actually I tend to count slow, if anything, so that helps to take care of some of the RFailure.

Of course what one considers acceptable limits will vary a bit.

Vaughn said:

I find when counting one-ansel-adams, two-ansel adams, etc, that the accuracy of my timing is well within acceptable limits...actually I tend to count slow, if anything, so that helps to take care of some of the RFailure.

Of course what one considers acceptable limits will vary a bit.

Click to expand...

Or if you prefer, "one-mortenson, two-mortenson, three-mortenson, four-mortenson, et al"