Can't get good B&W development results - 16mm Double-X in CineStill D96

about to extinct

D
about to extinct

  • 2
  • 0
  • 98
Fantasyland!

D
Fantasyland!

  • 9
  • 2
  • 132
perfect cirkel

D
perfect cirkel

  • 2
  • 1
  • 130

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,753
Messages
2,780,385
Members
99,697
Latest member
Fedia
Recent bookmarks
9

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I think you guys are talking past each other. Applying different contrast curves while scanning is not too different from picking different contrast papers or filters for VC papers. Perhaps you just happen to have different preferences for the final look, and you're butting heads over the choice of words to describe the same thing.

That's my impression too. I'm all in for any amount of editing if it suits your fancy and helps you achieve your desired end goal. I was specifically arguing against the idea that:

You must aggressively edit them to make them look good.

I disagree that 'you must', and I disagree that the editing needs to be 'aggressive' for an image to look 'good'. It's entirely a matter of personal choice.
 
Last edited:

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,416
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
@cannotShootStraight Your results are absolutely fine. But you need to boost your scanning technique. Crop the black borders off. Then open the levels tool and "chop off" the unused portions of the histogram to adjust white & black points. Then drag the gamma slider in the middle to taste, and I'm sure you'll be quite pleased.
 

250swb

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,527
Location
Peak District
Format
Multi Format
I think the key concept being discussed is that one should 'aggressively' edit their raw scans.

I think the word 'aggressive' is in context of how much you have to move the low contrast scanned image that contains all the tones possible to become a 'normal' image. It isn't always just a tweak to the contrast but a major change, but that difference is where you can either choose high contrast or whatever your idea of normal contrast it. If you can't decide for yourself you can always press the 'Auto Contrast' button in Photoshop and that will sort out a ready made preference for you. Either way the principle of producing a very flat scan and then changing it to become a finished photograph in Photoshop or Lightroom is a much sounder idea than trying to produce a fully finished scan in the dumb and unsophisticated scanner software.
 

rcphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 20, 2022
Messages
321
Location
Kentucky
Format
Medium Format
I think the key concept being discussed is that one should 'aggressively' edit their raw scans.

'Aggressive' adjustment a must? Not at all. Only if it suits your taste. There are ways to extract signal from a scanner via digitisation which will require (based on some people's taste) only minimal levels of adjustments.

Again, a matter of taste. Not up to anyone to define what's 'critical' or 'record keeping' or 'art'.

We are all talking about tools, use them to your liking to get your results. I wasn't trying to state fact but maybe just a different perspective.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Either way the principle of producing a very flat scan and then changing it to become a finished photograph in Photoshop or Lightroom is a much sounder idea than trying to produce a fully finished scan in the dumb and unsophisticated scanner software.

My point was that, between the

'trying to produce a fully finished scan in the [...] scanner software'

and the

'must aggressively adjust the raw scan to achieve a finished product'

lies an ocean of creative possibilities. Everyone can sit somewhere on this gradient. It's fine to decide to place your 'finished' product somewhere between the two extremes.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I am struggling for a few days now to get the first decent results from my Kiev Vega 2.
I've loaded the camera multiple times with 16mm Kodak Double-X B&W-film.

I use the CineStill D96 powder developer which I set up with 1L of tap water, same with ADOFIX P II, approximately 2 weeks ago.

My process looks like this:
- Filling ~22°C water into my paterson tank and agitate a little bit
- Emptying the tank and filling 300ml of D96 (20°C)
- Develop for 4min with agitations every minute
- Pour the developer back and rinse with 22°C (I couldn't get it closer to 20°C) water multiple times
- Fixing for 11min (20°C, agitations every minute)
- Rinse with up to 30 agitations 4 times
- Put some dish soap into the paterson tank
- Hang to dry

I have attached an image of a piece of film I converted with Negative Lab Pro (no contrast added).
I've been noticing black spotted areas on multiple pictures. At first I thought they might be the result of accidental finger prints while I loaded the film.
But I've become more careful and the spotted areas persisted. Could this be deposits from tap water? The fluid arrangement on the film in particular makes me think of that as the spotted areas flow across multiple images. What's strange is that from a certain image onwards the spotted areas disappear.

I am also kinda disappointed with the contrast. The results are low contrast even though I developed some films at around 6 and up to 8 minutes and the results didn't get much better.
I attached one image without added contrast and then after I added a bunch of contrast, reduced brightness and reduced the shadows.
Is this just the way this film behaves? Am I using the wrong developer? I controlled the exposure using a light meter app on my phone.

PE, a retired Kodak research engineer who provided expertise here for years, strongly advised against using soap as a surfactant on film and to only use products such as PhotoFlo to avoid a long list of potential problems. So some searches on Photrio to see what PE posted on this matter.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,936
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
What counts here is what advice we give the OP as to what he does to improve initially his negatives, assuming these are the problem or assuming the negatives are OK then how to alter his scans to avoid the low contrast

We appear to have strayed from that objective and frankly if it were me I'd be wondering if I have done the right thing in even asking the question here

For what it is worth it seems as if the altered scan indicates that the negative of the car has detail OK but the best "print" so far still looks about grade 00 and needs a lot of adjustment

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,877
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Moderator hat on:
1) I've tweaked the thread title, because the film size (16mm), film type (Double-X movie film) and Developer (Cinestill D96 movie film developer) are relevant to the issue;
2) you need to keep it civil - the OP is asking about a relatively different problem - movie film in a movie film developer, digitized with a camera, rather than scanned in a movie film scanner. He/she is relatively new to Photrio, and doesn't necessarily have knowledge about the contrast or scanning "discussions" here that we are all too familiar with; and
3) we really need to see a digital photo of backlit negatives before we can opine on the negatives themselves.
Moderator hat off.
The problem could be due to issues with initial exposure. The problem could be with development issues. The problem could be due to issues with the light source (e.g. too much flare) or the lens and camera while digitizing . The problem could be due to the approach to post processing the image coming from the digital camera.
To help with any of these, we need to see those backlit negatives.
 

Mick Fagan

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
4,421
Location
Melbourne Au
Format
Multi Format
Cannot Shoot Straight, I would suggest your development is probably reasonably close, but according to the Kodak sheet; which I'm sure you have studied as you've done the fixing and washing to the Kodak sheet times, Kodak gives a processing time of 7'00" at 21ºC, which suggests to me that your processing time may be a little short. Even taking into consideration the slight temperature difference that you have.

I would suggest somewhere around 7'00'' processing time may give you a negative with slightly more detail.

Then there is contrast, or it appears to be lack of contrast. Firstly it appears to be a dull possibly cloudy day, which will usually require a more contrasty negative than what you appear to have.

To obtain more contrast, you generally require more agitation. Motion picture film is usually processed in various machines of different shapes and configurations, but they mostly have one constant, these machines usually supply constant agitation. This constant agitation is usually supplied via pumps pumping the developer solution non-stop, or using compressed nitrogen bursts if the film is being dipped into deep processing tanks. All deep processing tanks using compressed nitrogen that I have worked with, have the nitrogen bursts every 10 seconds. Effectively, constant agitation.

To that end when I process my films by hand I work out an agitation regime that just gives me constant agitation; it works like this. Immediately after pouring in the developer, my Jobo 35mm processing tank is rotated 180º once every 5 seconds for the first 40 seconds, I then tap the tank to remove any air bubbles possibly stuck to the film.

Approximately 20 seconds after the last inversion, developer solution movement in the tank is at a standstill. At 60 seconds I do three inversions in 10 seconds, then place the tank down, 20 seconds later (at 90 seconds) I do another three inversions in 10 seconds, and so on, until the end of development.

The result for me, is that regardless of whether or not I have fully developed the negatives, I will have good contrast, which means I usually can obtain very nice prints or negative scans.

With regard to the wetting agent at the end of the final wash, please don't do this in the Patterson tank, presumably with the film still on the reel. I heartily suggest you obtain any film wetting agent from any supplier. It is inexpensive and will literally last you for decades.

For the wetting agent bath, I fill a 1 litre plastic kitchen cooking jug with 500ml of wetting agent. After the final wash sequence, I take the reel out of the tank, then holding the film above the 500ml of wetting agent, I pull the film reel apart and drop the coiled film directly into the wetting agent. I then hold the jug by the handle and move it in small circles to agitate the film and wetting agent very mildly for approximately 30 seconds. I then reach in and pull the film out by one end, attach hooks and weights then hang it up to dry.

Wetting agent will attach itself to your tank and reels, even with reasonably thorough washing it still sticks. This is problematic as over time when developing film it mixes with the developer and in extreme cases you pour the developer out and notice what looks like soap bubbles. I have actually seen this occur, unfortunately for one fellow photographer with a developing problem.

I hope some of this helps.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,718
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
16mm Plus-X is also not a current film. Your film may suffer age fog and some loss of speed, both of which would reduce contrast through normal exposure and development.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Oct 28, 2023
Messages
59
Location
Germany
Format
Sub 35mm
Ok wow I am not sure about my sanity anymore 🥲
I think I rolled up the film the wrong way around all this time.
Please see attached a quick sketch of my Kiev Vega 2 opened up. That's how the film is supposed to sit inside the camera - right?
If so - I indeed messed up the previous times. But I am surprised the images turned out "okay" at all.

I attached the most recent film I developed (with the film being inserted the right way - I hope):
Presoaking (21.5°C)
D96 (20°C, 7min30s)
Stop with Water (21.5°C)
Fixing (20°C, 7min)
Rinsing
Dish Soap (ok it is the last time I use it)
Drying

Then I scanned it with my Digital Camera again (I also attached the original negative image and the converted one using NLP).

I don't like the grain at all. It is too much. Could the grain be reduced with a different developer?
Also the camera seems to have some problems with film forwarding (small area is exposed twice).

16mm Plus-X is also not a current film. Your film may suffer age fog and some loss of speed, both of which would reduce contrast through normal exposure and development.
The film roll of Double-X is new. It is still manufactured by Kodak.

For the wetting agent bath, I fill a 1 litre plastic kitchen cooking jug with 500ml of wetting agent. After the final wash sequence, I take the reel out of the tank, then holding the film above the 500ml of wetting agent,
Do you use distilled water or tap water?
 

Attachments

  • kievvega2.jpg
    kievvega2.jpg
    243.1 KB · Views: 77
  • kiev15.jpg
    kiev15.jpg
    209.7 KB · Views: 77
  • kiev15_02.jpg
    kiev15_02.jpg
    89.8 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:

Dustin McAmera

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
601
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
I thnk your picture shows the wrong way. The shiny side of film is the plastic backing material. You should present the other side, the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

As for grain, I think you are doomed to getting some grain when you use 16mm film. But there are fine-grain developers. The chart at digitaltruth has entries for your film with lots of developers.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,717
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I also attached the original negative image

Thank you, this is most useful indeed. The negative strip you showed exhibits significant overexposure. The development looks OK and is likely sufficient. Due to massive overexposure, much of the image ends up on the shoulder of the film curve, and this compresses contrast as well as emphasize grain. Keep in mind that a 200-speed film with small 16mm frames will be fairly grainy to begin with.

The cause for overexposure may be found in the camera (e.g. slow shutter speeds, aperture doesn't close properly), but I'd eliminate problems with the smartphone light meter first (see my first caution in this thread).

That's how the film is supposed to sit inside the camera - right?

The rough side (emulsion side) goes towards the lens. If it faces away from the lens the way you're loading it, it'll be the wrong way round. Part of the contrast problem may be due to flare and halation due to exposing the film through its base layer.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Oct 28, 2023
Messages
59
Location
Germany
Format
Sub 35mm
the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?
I am surprised that it doesn't seem to make a difference except that the image is flipped horizontally (which I now noticed with the latest film).

But there are fine-grain developers. The chart at digitaltruth has entries for your film with lots of developers.

Do you have a recommendation for a fine-grain developer? Maybe suitable for beginners (I don't know what that's supposed to mean).

You should present the other side, the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

Are you sure? I've been doing it wrong all my life.

Part of the contrast problem may be due to flare and halation due to exposing the film through its base layer.

My first post was with the rough side towards the lens, the most recent post with the shiny side.
 

lamerko

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
758
Location
Bulgaria
Format
Multi Format
What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?
I am surprised that it doesn't seem to make a difference except that the image is flipped horizontally (which I now noticed with the latest film).
Usually the shiny side is the back, and the emulsion is the matte, rougher side;
Do you have a recommendation for a fine-grain developer? Maybe suitable for beginners (I don't know what that's supposed to mean).
I can suggest Adox Atomal 49. A little known but very interesting developer.
 

titrisol

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
2,071
Location
UIO/ RDU / RTM/ POZ / GRU
Format
Multi Format
Since you are in Germany and you want pre-made developers you can probably get
- Adox FX39 or Atomal which are fine grain developers
- Ilford Perceptol, MIcrophen or even Ilfosol (Simplicity) can also give you good results
Ilford Simplicity comes in small pouches which allow you to buy small quantities; but it is a one-shot developer.
- Kodak Xtol

I have no experience with other brands
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,717
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
What? I always thought the shiny side is the emulsion?

Nope.

To illustrate:
1700492347592.png

Shiny side. This is the backside of the film facing away from the lens.

1700492375628.png

Emulsion side, which is less shiny/more matte. This is the side that faces towards the lens.

This is Fomapan 100, but it's the same for all film.

My first post was with the rough side towards the lens, the most recent post with the shiny side.

OK. In that case, the lack of contrast is mostly/only due to overexposure.
 

lamerko

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
758
Location
Bulgaria
Format
Multi Format
The Kiev Vega was a copy of the first version of the Minolta 16. The Minolta in question had a rather primitive lens with a fixed focal plane. It was set to have a focus somewhere out to 10 meters. For infinity focus, a special filter (#0) had to be placed.
I don't know how the second version of Vega was implemented, but I'm guessing it's on the same model. Don't expect great optical quality, and combined with the fixed focus and small frame size, achieving good results is a bit difficult.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Oct 28, 2023
Messages
59
Location
Germany
Format
Sub 35mm
Don't expect great optical quality, and combined with the fixed focus and small frame size, achieving good results is a bit difficult.

It doesn't have a fixed focus lens. This is basically the same camera (as far as I know):

To illustrate:

Thank you!
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,877
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I can't resist, and I apologize up front.

Would you like us to change your screen name from "cannotShootStraight" to "ShootFrontToBack"??

Now I'll just go and Report myself.

Anyways, glad we can help.
 

SilverShutter

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
134
Location
Cork. Ireland
Format
35mm
From what I can see in the negative, they are too dense, likely due to overexposure, although I am not sure how would loading it backwards would affect the density of the final image, I am only familiar with such a thing in colour negative film for redscale.

When you edit the frames, you must adjust a black point and white point to each, otherwise your image will be very flat since the tones are compressed and mushy. Try playing with the levels and the curve of the images and see if you can get a result that matches what you intended. If I had to find a culprit here it would be the Kiev. Especially seeing as it overlaps frames, I wouldnt be surprised if the times are incorrect too.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Oct 28, 2023
Messages
59
Location
Germany
Format
Sub 35mm
Emulsion side, which is less shiny/more matte. This is the side that faces towards the lens.

Wait. But why are the numbers on the film then on the glossy side?

I have taken a series of test shots on my 2nd 16mm camera - the Mamiya 16 automatic.
The film was facing the lens with the rough side. After developing I took a foto of the film on my light table, the rough surface was facing at my digital camera.

As you can see by the numbers - the image is flipped horizontally.
What is wrong here? I don't get it.
 

Attachments

  • mamiya16_01.jpg
    mamiya16_01.jpg
    214.8 KB · Views: 42

SilverShutter

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
134
Location
Cork. Ireland
Format
35mm
You take the image at the rough side, but you scan it through the shiny side to get the correct orientation. The lens projects an image that is flipped horizontally and vertically, which is why you need to view the negative "through the backside upside down" in order to see it the way it actually was. Anyway, you can also scan emulsion side up, but you just have to flip the image to get it correct, thats all.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,717
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Wait. But why are the numbers on the film then on the glossy side?

They aren't. They're part of the silver image, which is in the gelatin emulsion on the matte side.
The edge print is intended to read correctly if the image reads correctly as well. So if you have any images with text or numbers in them, the edge print should read in the same direction. If the edge print reads correctly but text in the image itself is mirrored, somethings amiss.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom