Efke/Adox 50 and rodinal 1+200 (ish) + semi-stand, results

timeUnit · Apr 17, 2006

Stand development has not yet worked so great for me...

Here's an example of Efke R50 (or Adox CHS50) at EI 50, developed in Rodinal 1+200 (actually 3 ml Rodinal + 500 ml water) 20°C.

Agitation: Pour developer in, agitate about 10 sec, leave to stand. At 35 minutes, three inversions. At 70 minutes, three inversions. At 90 minutes, pour developer out, wash, fix, HCA, wash per my usual method.

I get strange marks on the left edge on the negs, but I think this is due to two things. First, my A12 doesn't put enough pressure on the film, so it's not flat against the mask. Second, the semi-stand development increases shadow detail, and therefore small light leaks, ie fogging, is exaggerated.

On the last frames, the effect is really extreme, and there is some yellowish stain (not visible in scan), maybe dichroic fog? I think this is due to the Paterson reels and the minimal agitation. I think I agitated so little that new developer did not reach the inner parts of the film.

Please feel free to suggest otherwise.

Negs aside, I'm quite satisfied with the pictures. I'm very new to using studio strobes eventhough I leared some of it in high school, and this is a mix of strobe and daylight.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 17, 2006

Pretty sure your last frames are rolled onto the reel last, and the Efke/Adox films are horrible as far as light leaks go. They need to be loaded/unloaded in total darkness in my experience. That's the only reason I'm using Ilford and Kodak film instead.

- Thom

JBrunner · Apr 17, 2006

Looks like light leaks to me, not a developing problem. That, from what I can see in the scan.

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

huggyviking said:
Pretty sure your last frames are rolled onto the reel last, and the Efke/Adox films are horrible as far as light leaks go. They need to be loaded/unloaded in total darkness in my experience. That's the only reason I'm using Ilford and Kodak film instead.

- Thom

The last frames on the film are top right in the attachment. As I transfer the film directly from the takeup-spool to the Paterson-reel, how can the last frames be rolled on last?

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

JBrunner said:
Looks like light leaks to me, not a developing problem. That, from what I can see in the scan.

Yes I think they are too, but they are exaggerated by the semi-stand development. At least that's my theory, as I've never had such extreme light marks with Adox/Efke or Adox/Ilford before.

Amund · Apr 18, 2006

I`d like to add that you should do a one minute agaiation at the beginning. Only ten seconds can lead to uneven dvelopment..

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

Amund said:
I`d like to add that you should do a one minute agaiation at the beginning. Only ten seconds can lead to uneven dvelopment..

Yes it can. But I was trying to see if I could get some nice edge effects, agitating that much would lessen these effects. At least that's what I read.

In conclusion, I can say that the pictures have OK shadow detail, and a certain lustre. I don't know if this is due to the efke film or my development of both. I can't say anyting about edge effects yet, though, as my scanner lacks the resolution. When I print them, I'll know.

df cardwell · Apr 18, 2006

Years and years ago when I began playing with standing development,
particularly with Rodinal and steel reels, simple experimentation proved that initial agitation was irrelevant, and that the process worked exceedingly well.

I experimented with Paterson and Jobo; the outcome was to order a dozen Hewes steel reels.

I have no idea how many ways one needs to accomodate the use of plastic reels to do standing development. But if you get good results with plastic reels, share your technique.

Most importantly, while scanning is a marvelous technique it is deaf to much of the nature of the negative. You will struggle to illustrate the effects of standing development. They do, however, print VERY easily with an enlarger.

d

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

df cardwell said:
Years and years ago when I began playing with standing development,
particularly with Rodinal and steel reels, simple experimentation proved that initial agitation was irrelevant, and that the process worked exceedingly well.

I experimented with Paterson and Jobo; the outcome was to order a dozen Hewes steel reels.

I have no idea how many ways one needs to accomodate the use of plastic reels to do standing development. But if you get good results with plastic reels, share your technique.

Most importantly, while scanning is a marvelous technique it is deaf to much of the nature of the negative. You will struggle to illustrate the effects of standing development. They do, however, print VERY easily with an enlarger.

d

Thanks for the info! I will definitely print the pictures as soon as...

BTW, is this your way of saying: I think the weird marks on your film, especially the last frames, are due to the inferiority of the Paterson reels.

I gave up on Paterson reels for 35 mm, as they sucked big time. Using Hewes reels now with few problems. Maybe I should switch for 120-format too.

df cardwell · Apr 18, 2006

timeUnit said:
...is this your way of saying: I think the weird marks on your film, especially the last frames, are due to the inferiority of the Paterson reels.

.....

No, not at all.

Paterson reels are certainly excellent.

I just had some problems with the edges doing this technique with Paterson reels. I didn't stick with the the experiments to see if I could determine the source of the problem, and find a solution. It was a just problem that never appeared for me with steel reels.

Hewes reels are the best reels I've ever used, beating out Kinderman and the old Nikkors. We should all go out and buy a couple Hewes reels tomorrow !

Don

stormbytes · Apr 18, 2006

Your lighting is too harsh - see the reflections "hot spots" in the girl''s face. You should either shoot with umbrellas (either through or reflected) or better yet, get yourself a pair of softboxes. Also, consider altering the lighting ratio. The portraits you posted are flat. Lighting ratio will give it more depth.

My $0.02

Ronald Moravec · Apr 18, 2006

Do you notice all the vertical streaks in the background?

titrisol · Apr 18, 2006

one thing that bothers me a little is that you mention "yellow stains" in the last frames.
Are you sure your fixer is fresh and active?
did you wash enough ?
I've seen greenish-blue stains when I didin;t wash enough, some sulfite in the first water wash helped get rid of that.

With this efke films I've found that presoaking is excellent since it takes most of those ugly dyes away and prevents a few of thes eproblems

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

iserious said:
Your lighting is too harsh - see the reflections "hot spots" in the girl''s face. You should either shoot with umbrellas (either through or reflected) or better yet, get yourself a pair of softboxes. Also, consider altering the lighting ratio. The portraits you posted are flat. Lighting ratio will give it more depth.

My $0.02

Now you pissed me off.

1) do you know how I envisioned the portraits?

2) do you know that the girl is "wearing" a deep cleansing face mask that goes all shiny and makes the face all stiff? It looks pretty cool and I wanted to show that. There's your "hotspots".

3) the scan is a rough flatbed one. The contrast is not representative of a "real" contact sheet, nor was that my intention. My intention was to highlight the problems of the semi-stand development. I think that comes across in the OP.

4) I used different lighting equipment: "see-through" umbrellas and silvery ones. On her left side is window light. I wanted to see the effect of that type of lighting. And I have a softbox, thank you very much.

5) I did not ask for critique of the subject matter, which I think is apparent in the OP and peoples replies.

6) while I'm always open to suggestions, I'd like them to be written in a friendly and suggestive manner. Please spare me your ranting.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 18, 2006

Hey now, I meant in the camera, so that when you unload the film from the camera those frames would be closest to the 'edge' of the spool, and therefore more susceptible to light leaks, especially if your camera does not roll the spool tightly.
In the developing tank, of course it would be opposite. All I'm saying is that you need to load the film in and out of your CAMERA in total darkness to be absolutely sure you don't get light leaks.

timeUnit said:
The last frames on the film are top right in the attachment. As I transfer the film directly from the takeup-spool to the Paterson-reel, how can the last frames be rolled on last?

timeUnit · Apr 18, 2006

huggyviking said:
Hey now, I meant in the camera, so that when you unload the film from the camera those frames would be closest to the 'edge' of the spool, and therefore more susceptible to light leaks, especially if your camera does not roll the spool tightly.
In the developing tank, of course it would be opposite. All I'm saying is that you need to load the film in and out of your CAMERA in total darkness to be absolutely sure you don't get light leaks.

Hey, now I understand.

I agree that there are some light leaks. But what we're seeing on the last frames is also some kind of yellow stain (white in scan), that could be fog, or improper fixing. If it's badly fixed, I think it's due to the film getting stuck surface-to-surface on the reel, because the fixer is OK. I just did a roll in it, and it looks good.

Admittedly, I have some issues with this back/magazine, and I'm sending it to service soon. It's one of those backs with mismatched serials... I got it cheap though!

Cheerio,
henning

hortense · Apr 18, 2006

TimeUnit, As noted below this was only a 19-min development. I did straight prints to evaluate the results. I am very pleased: just enought "edge" effect and excellent accutance. Scene used for the final test prints had 6-zones and printed at grade 2 1/2.

Acutol/FP4+
ASA 200
Stand Development:
Soak/agitate water: 5-min.
Dev: 2.96% Acutol
19-min @ 68°F
First 6o-sec. agitation
NONE thereafter.
Achell & Troop claim better results would have been achieved if I had used HP5+ - and, the ASA jumps to 800?

skahde · Apr 19, 2006

JBrunner said:
Looks like light leaks to me, not a developing problem. That, from what I can see in the scan.

There is certainly more than one problem in this example but when fixing one after the other I would certainly start with the light seals of the magazine.

best

Stefan

Efke/Adox 50 and rodinal 1+200 (ish) + semi-stand, results

timeUnit

Attachments

Thomas Bertilsson

JBrunner

Moderator

timeUnit

timeUnit

Amund

timeUnit

df cardwell

timeUnit

df cardwell

stormbytes

Ronald Moravec

titrisol

timeUnit

Thomas Bertilsson

timeUnit

hortense

skahde

Efke/Adox 50 and rodinal 1+200 (ish) + semi-stand, results

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency