Dense negatives - same film, same developer tank, same exposure .. different camera

[Jessestr]

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.

pretty sure this is the solution. ilford states both 12 minutes but I don't think it's right.

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.

Development is wrong. I use different lenses and body's got the same problem. Just developed with my trusty HC-110.. same negs and bam... looks wonderful. XTOL time for 135 HP5+ should be less then 12 minutes for me. I'll do some testing when I have a densitometer.

 

[williaty]

'm just wondering why development times can be so different for every emulsion and why it's so different for every person on earth?

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

it is sometimes a great idea to bracket exposures.
if you already knew iso 400 was too dense, would have underexposed a stop
to see what the negatives looked like. its very strange that a little bit of over exposure or over development
and xtol has made your film so dense..
i used it for years it made the thinnest negatives i have ever exposed, even when i over exposed
film by 1 stop or 2 and over developed it by 50%, lack of density and contrast are why i gave up on it.

times for developers posted on the internet, in books, magazines
and by manufacturers should not be taken as the gospel, they are a starting point.
everyone's gear is different, processing methods, even water mixed with chemistry ..
if you want to nail down the best exposure and processing combination for
your film, and particular camera, you might consider bracketing your exposures +1 stop, as the meter reads, - 1 stop
then process the time recommended.
do the same thing 30% more development, and 30% less development and see what film looks the best and prints the best
then shoot a roll at that iso and that development time ...
shooting box speed, and using published developing times is great, but as you have seen ( 2x? ) sometimes it doesn't work out.

if you don't have a phone that can support this
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/233990-shutter-speed-tester-for-your-iphone
there might be something available for your platform if you poke around,
or for your computer, so you can see if it is your shutter that is lagging and over exposing everything.

good luck !

 

[kreeger]

Never seen

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.

I second that emotion. I have never been able to mix the same film brand and speed such as Tri-X 35mm and Tri-X 120 B&W film in the same tank and get it to come out right.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD!

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Jessestr]

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.

Thanks. 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.
I'm currently thinking to actually determine my personal EI and development time as I shoot 99% black and white.

I really thought black and white would be easier to shoot. Okay you can just shoot and get it developed. BUT
I took the same shots on my Sony A7 (rarely gets used). Both same settings at ISO 400.
Result: The sony got it spot on (ofcourse since I could adjust it live) - and took the shot with my HP5+ and I got at least 1 stop extra at iso 400 metering... How is that even possible? I'm pretty sure my camera shutters are accurate and the lenses are too. I use different body's and lenses.

As for calibration, do I have to test every single camera/lens combo or just 135 and 120 formats?

 

[removed account4]

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.

 

[Jessestr]

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.

I will test that. However it's weird that I developed one roll both with XTOL and HC110 ( I cut a piece of the film ). The XTOL is WAY denser. In scanner it's unscannable, but the HC110 negs are fine, and print wel on grade 3-4.

 

[removed account4]

weird-stuff. maybe it has to do with last week's planetary alignment (mercury, venus mars jupiter and saturn ) ?

ive never used hc110 so i can't
comment on the differences between
the 2 developers, or what might be going on there.
earlier in the thread you were wondering if processing
2 different format films matters, FWIW i've mixed 120 and 35mm film in the same tank for years
and never had one get more developed and more contrast than it was supposed to.
from all reports ( from people who worked at the places that made film )
its all the same film, no matter the format.

good luck with the tests!

 

[williaty]

XTOL does give a speed increase (usually) compared to HC110.

 

[Bill Burk]

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).

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.

 

[Jessestr]

XTOL does give a speed increase (usually) compared to HC110.

That was also the main reason to get XTOL for me.

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).

Thanks!

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.

Thanks again. I just printed two shots from the same shoot (shots are two days apart though, different camera and different settings but the light was about the same). The first was was XTOL, second one was HC110.
The XTOL shot was a bit more overexposed than the HC110 shot. I could clearly see more shadow detail (Could be the extra speed that XTOL gives).

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.

Were just testprints on RC paper to see the difference in printing. I prefer the HC110 negs maybe because I'm used to how they react. (Did an exhibiton on almost all Tri-x devved in HC110). Tonal range looks better from negs with HC110.

I feel like the mids in the XTOL negs are up the curve towards the highlights. Creating a very contrasty negative having darker shadows, then almost no mids... and a lot of highlights. At least that is how the negative feels and looks after studying it for a while. What do you think of that?

The HC110 negs are thinner but have a better tonality in the mids, it's more even. I might switch back to HC110 and then decide to stay with HP5 or get back to my Tri-X. I will calibrate my EI and development time. I never thought this was necessary unless you do landscape stuff...but seems that calibrating a workflow IS necessary.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.

The HC-110 gives slightly lower speed, but you can match contrast if you adjust accordingly.

There is no particular reason to expect your 135 equipment to give you results with the same contrast as your 120 equipment. For one thing, both the taking and enlarging lenses are different. The enlarging light source may also be different.

When printing, for most negatives it is best to adjust your print exposure time to achieve highlight detail. Then adjust your contrast setting to obtain the best rendition of mid-tones. Then dodge and burn (possibly with different contrast settings) to achieve the best shadow rendition.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

I think the differences in your two examples are greater than the character differences between the developers.

I think there is a difference between the two developers but not the difference you see here.

This is what I mean:

I've graphed some curves from other people's test data and have seen slightly "upswept" curves in HC-110... If the data I was given was truly characteristic (and not a testing anomaly), an upswept curve means there may be a slight difference between developers which would give the nod to HC-110 if you are looking for increased separation of tones in the midtone-to-highlight region (as you would for portraiture).

 

[Jessestr]

Think I finally understand what is happening. Now it's on to get correct exposures for shadow detail (and not overexposing it) If I rate HP5+ at 400 I get a stop more exposure than I need. I will make a separate topic for this matter.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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

 

[Jessestr]

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

Thank you. If I didn't work with people (thus not having to show the pictures). I would never scan. Contact sheet and some prints which I like.. but yeah. Everyone expects their pictures so I have to scan them
It's not my priority, I want to make good printable negs.

 

[Bill Burk]

Everyone expects their pictures so I have to scan them
It's not my priority, I want to make good printable negs.

You have your priorities straight! Soon as I read that you printed on RC to check them, I breathed a sigh of relief and knew where you were headed. Doremus Scudder is right, don't let the scanner talk you into making too-thin negatives. If you continue to force the scanner to fit your workflow instead of the other way around... Think of "proof-quality" scans and "high-quality" darkroom prints... then you are on the right track to build an archive of quality negatives.