Challenge, don't know if it's the camera or the film/developer combo

Uncle Bill · Feb 22, 2009

I have been using Xtol and Tri-x at box speed a lot with no issues. Said rolls of Tri-x were run through my Nikon FM, no challenges in terms of exposures.

Now here is my problem, the last two rolls of Plus-x 125 I ran through the same Nikon FM came out over exposed save for a few frames. I rated the film at box speed and processed in Xtol 1+1 at 8.25 min.

I have used Fomapan 200 rated at 125 ISO and processed in Rodinal with no problems with the same said FM and I have made some great prints from that roll.

So is it a combo of Plus X and Xtol 1+1 not playing well together, should I just go with D-76 or HC110?

david b · Feb 22, 2009

Please confirm your last sentence.

MattKing · Feb 22, 2009

Was it Plus-X, or Tri-X? Your initial post is confusing.

At which "box" speed did you rate it?

Matt

Uncle Bill · Feb 22, 2009

It's Plus X that's giving me grief and I shot it at 125 ISO.

Sorry being a little convoluted, combination of round three of the never ending cold and fatigue has caused me to be a little scattered.

trexx · Feb 22, 2009

If a few frames are over exposed and the rest are normal and consistent then the developer is OK. Developers do not selectively over expose a frame or two, cameras do.

Uncle Bill · Feb 22, 2009

I am thinking the FM might be the culprit. Thing is I am only getting this with plus X, I don't have the same problem with Tri-x and Fomapan 200.

Anscojohn · Feb 22, 2009

Are you setting your exposure manually? Upon reflection, if you are sure the exposure settings are correct, and it is just the last two rolls with this problem--and they just happened to be Plus-X-- then it probably is not film related. I would suspect an intermittent shutter or aperture problem.

drazak · Feb 22, 2009

Maybe your cameras iso dial is a little "sticky" around 125, although you said you shot some foma 200 at 125 and that was fine, that seems a little strange.

Ben

Chuck_P · Feb 22, 2009

I'm kinda thinking like Anscojohn, can you safely eliminate yourself from this problem? Kodak Pub F-4018 recommends a development time of 6 1/4 minutes with X-tol 1:1 for Plus-X. According to that, you have overdeveloped by 2 min.

edtbjon · Feb 22, 2009

As others have noted, the developer doesn't cause the film to be overexposed. So if your negatives are good in contrast but just a little dense, they are indeed overexposed. But on the other hand, if they are high in contrast you have developed the film for too long.

Now, is the film speed affected by developing time? Yes, but very little. There are lots of people on this forum who have made careful calibrations involving their whole chain of equipment/film/developer etc. A made up example would be something like:
Normal time (for normal contrast): 8 minutes and EI 100.
Shorter time (for high contrast scenes): 6½ min and EI 80.
Longer time (for low contrast scenes): 11 min and EI 125.
Which gives that increasing the development to almost double the time increases the film speed by only 2/3 of a stop.

//Björn

Anscojohn · Feb 22, 2009

Let's review the bidding. What you are actually saying is that in your last two rolls of film there were some frames that over exposed. Correct?

Uncle Bill · Feb 22, 2009

CPorter said:
I'm kinda thinking like Anscojohn, can you safely eliminate yourself from this problem? Kodak Pub F-4018 recommends a development time of 6 1/4 minutes with X-tol 1:1 for Plus-X. According to that, you have overdeveloped by 2 min.

I had a look at Pub F-4018 and in in the small tank chart at 20c it says 8 min 15 secs for Xtol 1:1.

I doubt my cameras have an exposure shutter challenge as I have shot Adox 100 in the FM with no issues with the negs.

What I might do is run another roll of Plus X through my FM but process in D76 and see what I get.

Anscojohn · Feb 22, 2009

Uncle Bill said:
I had a look at Pub F-4018 and in in the small tank chart at 20c it says 8 min 15 secs for Xtol 1:1.

I doubt my cameras have an exposure shutter challenge as I have shot Adox 100 in the FM with no issues with the negs.

What I might do is run another roll of Plus X through my FM but process in D76 and see what I get.

*******
First of all, Unca Bill, tell me if I have it right. The LAST two rolls of film you shot--which just HAPPENED to be Plux-X--had frames that were over exposed.

archphoto · Feb 22, 2009

Am I thinking the way you are, Anscojohn ?
Uncle Bill: did you change your metersetting from Tri-X 400 ASA to Plus X 125 ASA ???????

Peter

Chuck_P · Feb 22, 2009

Uncle Bill said:
I had a look at Pub F-4018 and in in the small tank chart at 20c it says 8 min 15 secs for Xtol 1:1.

The small tank 135, 120, and 220 chart says 6.25 min for Xtol 1:1, perhaps we have different F-4018 pubs, mine may be outdated, it's Feb 2002. The D-76 1:1 (20c) time states 8.25 min.

MattKing · Feb 22, 2009

CPorter said:
The small tank 135, 120, and 220 chart says 6.25 min for Xtol 1:1, perhaps we have different F-4018 pubs, mine may be outdated, it's Feb 2002. The D-76 1:1 (20c) time states 8.25 min.

The May 2007 F-4018 says 8.25 minutes @ 68F for Xtol 1:1

How is the shadow detail - i.e. is it over-exposed, over-developed, or a bit of both?

Matt

gainer · Feb 22, 2009

If other slow films were to show similar behavior I would say the slow shutter speeds are too slow.

Chuck_P · Feb 22, 2009

MattKing said:
The May 2007 F-4018 says 8.25 minutes @ 68F for Xtol 1:1

How is the shadow detail - i.e. is it over-exposed, over-developed, or a bit of both?

Matt

Thank you Matt. I had a feeling that was the problem.

Anscojohn · Feb 22, 2009

gainer said:
If other slow films were to show similar behavior I would say the slow shutter speeds are too slow.

*******
If Unca Bill would just tell us WHEN these two rolls of Plux-X had the exposure problem it would be an help. If it be ONLY the last two rolls, the type of film, the development, etc. etc. may be irrelevant.

Uncle Bill · Feb 23, 2009

With the FM, I had one good roll of Plus X back in January, the two dud rolls were taken this month, different times of the day,in clear conditions, overcast sky and at the beginnings of a snow storm (basically Canadian winter). I am metering for the shadows when I am shooting.

I ran both a roll of Fomapan 200(rated at 125 and processed in Rodinal 1+50) and Adox 100 (box speed and processed in Rodinal 1+50) through the FM in similar conditions to what was mentioned above with no problems at all. I am stumped.

fschifano · Feb 23, 2009

If you have an incident light meter, use that instead of the in-camera meter. Incident metering is far more accurate than any sort of reflective metering. Doing so will confirm or eliminate any doubts about the camera's shutter. It will also show the differences between what your in-camera meter is telling you and what the true lighting conditions are.

Nicholas Lindan · Feb 23, 2009

Second the recomendation to check the camera's metering Vs a different meter. Meter a blank wall or the sky - otherwise the metering patterns of the two meters may be at slight odds.

The ISO setting in most cameras is a variable carbon film resistor - like the volume control in a transistor radio it gets noisy over time. I don't know about the FM, and you take responsibility for the unindented consequences, but you can sometimes get access to the variable resistor with minor camera disassembly and apply a drop of contact cleaner with a toothpick.

Anscojohn · Feb 23, 2009

Uncle Bill said:
With the FM, I had one good roll of Plus X back in January, the two dud rolls were taken this month, different times of the day,in clear conditions, overcast sky and at the beginnings of a snow storm (basically Canadian winter). I am metering for the shadows when I am shooting.

I ran both a roll of Fomapan 200(rated at 125 and processed in Rodinal 1+50) and Adox 100 (box speed and processed in Rodinal 1+50) through the FM in similar conditions to what was mentioned above with no problems at all. I am stumped.

*******
I am trying to establish chronology, first of all in an attempt to help. Rather than continue to try to pull teeth getting what I consider needed information, I will just join the others who have insufficient information from you and tell you what I think it is. I think it is an intermittent shutter problem (running slow sometimes) or an aperture that is not stopping down properly. Cold weather can affect this; usage can affect this.

Uncle Bill · Feb 23, 2009

John,

I have been using the Nikon FM pretty much the bulk of this winter in temperatures as cold as +5 f in a variety of lighting conditions (clear skies to in the middle of a snow fall) with the following film with no problems what so ever: Tri-x, Fomapan 200 and Adox CHS 100. The only time I'm getting grief, is with the two rolls of Plus X I shot recently.

What I am going to do is pack a Gossen Profisix meter with me next weekend.

wogster · Feb 23, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
Second the recomendation to check the camera's metering Vs a different meter. Meter a blank wall or the sky - otherwise the metering patterns of the two meters may be at slight odds.

The ISO setting in most cameras is a variable carbon film resistor - like the volume control in a transistor radio it gets noisy over time. I don't know about the FM, and you take responsibility for the unindented consequences, but you can sometimes get access to the variable resistor with minor camera disassembly and apply a drop of contact cleaner with a toothpick.

If the camera is old enough that the ISO setting resistor is noisy, then the camera probably could use a CLA.....

Challenge, don't know if it's the camera or the film/developer combo

Uncle Bill

david b

MattKing

Moderator

Uncle Bill

trexx

Uncle Bill

Anscojohn

drazak

Chuck_P

edtbjon

Anscojohn

Uncle Bill

Anscojohn

archphoto

Chuck_P

MattKing

Moderator

gainer

Chuck_P

Anscojohn

Uncle Bill

fschifano

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Anscojohn

Uncle Bill

wogster

Challenge, don't know if it's the camera or the film/developer combo

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency