Pretty sure it's the developing requirements are different for 135 and 120/220/4x5. Anchell's Film Developing Cookbook states that 120 film typically likes to be developed 20-30% longer than 135 in the same emulsion. Try 8.5 - 9.5 minutes for your 135 if you liked 12 min. for 120 and see how that turns out.
Ilford lists same dev times for 120 and 35mm, so that's not your problem. If I understood correctly, all film was developed in the same tank, so anything to do with processing is out as being the cause.
My guess is the aperture on the lens. It may be slow, and is not closing down properly during the exposure. I don't think it's a shutter problem, as you've had this one two different bodies. You don't say however if there were different lenses involved, or only one, so I'm guessing one lens.
If this is happening with different lenses, you need to do some tests to figure out what part of your equation is amiss. I'd shoot a roll of 120, and 2 rolls of 35mm, same scene, same controlled lighting, etc., then develop the 120 and one roll of 35mm together in your xtol. Develop the other 35mm in HC-110 as you have in the past. Now you can compare the 35mm/xtol to the 120/xtol and to the 35/HC-110. My guess, is that the 120/xtol will be fine, but both of your 35's will be over.
The biggest reason is that there is no industry standard for how much development a B&W emulsion needs and there is no industry standard for how much activity a developer will produce at a given time, temperature, and agitation. So every film and developer combination will need slightly different times, temperatures, and agitation because there's no industry standard for how the film and developer will interact. Since almost all of us process by hand with water from our tap, it gets even more complicated. If we're both using the same tank, there's probably a difference in the way you and I turn the tank over to agitate. Maybe you turn a little faster than I do or maybe I add a little swirl. These differences in agitation do affect how the developer works on the film. Then your water and my water might be slightly different. Maybe your water has something in it that speeds up development slightly. Maybe my water has something in it that makes the developer exhaust faster. The end result is that there's a HUGE variation in possible results in black and white developing.'m just wondering why development times can be so different for every emulsion and why it's so different for every person on earth?
Regardless of what Ilford says, I'm processing HP5+ in XTOL 1:1 with rotary agitation and there's more than a 20% spread of times to produce the same contrast index in the developed film between 135, 120, and 4x5. I'd have to dig out notes to figure out how much of the EI difference between formats is development vs compensating for a slow shutter on one camera but, IIRC, it's about a 2/3rds stop difference in real speed rating for a Z1 speed point. 0.2 more CI plus 2/3rds of a stop of extra sensitivity would look a whole lot like the results the OP showed here.Ilford lists same dev times for 120 and 35mm, so that's not your problem.
Regardless of what Ilford says, I'm processing HP5+ in XTOL 1:1 with rotary agitation and there's more than a 20% spread of times to produce the same contrast index in the developed film between 135, 120, and 4x5. I'd have to dig out notes to figure out how much of the EI difference between formats is development vs compensating for a slow shutter on one camera but, IIRC, it's about a 2/3rds stop difference in real speed rating for a Z1 speed point. 0.2 more CI plus 2/3rds of a stop of extra sensitivity would look a whole lot like the results the OP showed here.
There is a very real possibility that the more dense 135 negatives will print better than negatives that are adjusted to match the density of the 120 negatives.
The highlights on the 135 negative that printed well in the past (the cushion in the back) look to me to be of similar density as the highlights in the newer 135 negative (the face). And the different film stock does matter - it is critical.
Those "dense" negatives look totally printable to me. Just increase exposure time.
I certainly wouldn't rely on scanning to compare the results between two formats. The scanning pre-sets will be totally different.
since you know/think your shuter speed is calibrated for your MF camera
take the back off , put the 35mm in question next to it opened up,
and compare the shutter speeds to see how far off ( if at all ) the 35mm is.
also, with the back off stop the 35mm down all the way and look through the back to see
if the lens closes down when you fire it. your problem most likely has nothing to do with film
or processing. its worth spending the money to assure you have a camera
that works when you use it. xtol is not active enough even minute over processing and a stop off,
to make that much density.
in the darkroom where you processed your film, can you make a contact sheet of the negatives
and instead of using your skanners for film skanns, us them for PRINT scans. matt is right
dense film makes great prints.
This tells me that the scanners and software you are using are set to a profile so significantly different from the conditions that the film and developer were designed for (optical printing on standard photographic paper) that if you insist on using that profile you will need to develop a special workflow for that combination - film, developer and scanner/software.The thing is.. The dense negatives are almost unscannable.. Even though they would print well, scanning would be a problem. I own two scanners, it works, I can get the detail out but the black and white doesn't look as good.
XTOL does give a speed increase (usually) compared to HC110.
The most significant thing I see in the two negatives... It looks like they both have thin shadow regions.
This tells me they are both properly exposed for the shadows. You could check it with a scanner by positioning the negative in the holder to show a little of the strip between frames. If that strip measures the same or close to your shadows in the picture... Then you have a shot that is properly placed as far as exposure goes.
So assuming the exposure is right, I would say two different scenarios could cause your subject's skin tones to differ in the developed negative:
1) The lighting ratio. Your first shot seems to have been taken in open shade. Your second shot shows the subject in main light. Do you have a greater lighting ratio in the second?
2) Developer activity. You might actually need to develop 120 and 35mm for different times to reach the same contrast. If you think that's the case, there are many ways to test. A step wedge would help, because then you could estimate density with a scanner (if you had something with known densities that you could compare against).
This tells me that the scanners and software you are using are set to a profile so significantly different from the conditions that the film and developer were designed for (optical printing on standard photographic paper) that if you insist on using that profile you will need to develop a special workflow for that combination - film, developer and scanner/software.
This is similar to what you have to do when you use unusually high contrast photographic paper in an optical printing workflow.
Alternatively, you could change the base profile for your scanning software so that it works appropriately for that common combination. That subject is, of course, off-topic for APUG.
This just tells me that your problem isn't mainly with exposure, it is with contrast. You are developing too long in the XTol for the contrast you want. Adjust the developing time accordingly.XTOL was denser, so wider aperture and longer time. Had to go to grade 1 to keep my shadow detail because the highlight parts were still too bright. Probably should have go down to grade 0 and even longer time. To maintain shadow detail and good highlight tones.
HC110 was thinner, more stopped down and shorter time. Printed great at grade 2. Could use even a bit more of a shorter time which would probably need grade 2.5-3 after the change.
XTOL was denser...
HC110 was thinner...
... Tonal range looks better from negs with HC110.
I feel like the mids in the XTOL negs are up the curve towards the highlights.
...
The XTOL negs with the Rolleiflex (which were nice) have the same feel / look as the HC110 negs. So I guess overdeveloping pushes the mids to highlights? Creating a big separation - and a look I do not like. So XTOL is probably fine, but anyways I seem to like the HC110 character more.
If you need to print with the grade 1 or 0 filter, then you've overdeveloped your negatives. Reduce developing time.
Check your exposure by comparing shadow densities on the negatives themselves. You can't trust the scans here. If detail in the darkest areas seem the same, but your 135 negs have denser highlights, then adjust developing time to get the highlight density you want.
If the details in the shadows are significantly different from one set to the other, then there is an exposure difference. Adjust your metering and check your equipment to ensure it is exposing properly and consistently.
And, don't make such a big deal out of this; it's fairly straightforward. Not enough shadow detail = increase exposure (and vice-versa). Not enough contrast = increase development (and vice-versa). After a couple of adjustments to get negs that print well in the grade 2-3 range, you'll be fine.
If you plan on wet printing your negatives, don't let your scanner talk you into making too-thin negatives.
Best,
Doremus
Everyone expects their pictures so I have to scan them
It's not my priority, I want to make good printable negs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?