Film Testing for Development Time in a Hybrid Process

[JWMster]

So I'm working on my Caffenol CHrs and my personal development time, and notice that when I camera scan with my DSLR and Negative Supply's handy hardware for this purpose, if the camera's set on AP (Nikon 750D), that the shutter adapts and basically much of the process is negated as the camera interpolates and recovers much more than I intended. Yes, this is nice and demonstrates quite a bit of forgiving lattitude if I blow the shot, but I'm after setting the variables for "best".

I'm thinking to rescan my test shot comprised of a scene with 3 objects: 1) gray card, 2) black, highly textured rag and 3) white, highly textured rag. This time I'm going to set the whole on manual on the basis of the gray card's neutral exposure and then repeat the "scans". Purpose is to see the under and over exposure WITHOUT adjustment to get a handle on personal effective ISO / Developing Time.

Caffenol doesn't have the commercially established parameters, so it seemed worthwhile to me to try to push into a bit of the zone-type of approach here, but frankly there's not a lot I've seen on hybrid work along this line (unless I've missed it). Does any of this make sense to folks, or am I simply spinning my wheels with "fun testing" that's really a waste of time? I would think the process applies generally to hybrid shooting even with commercial developers, but especially for home brew. But I don't have the formal training and decades of deep experience you folks have. Would appreciate any advice. Thanks!

 

[138S]

making negatives for Hybrid is quite more forgiving than making negatives for optic printing, as you can bend curves like you want in Photoshop/etc. With negative film, essentially you give enough exposure to record shadows with the detail quality you want and later you develop to not have too much high densities in the highlights.

Latitude in the shadows is usually 3.3 stops, this is the ISO criterion to say the ISO speed, but some manufacturers (Bergger, Foma) inflate speed by calibrating with an speed boosting developer or overdeveloping to a higher than regular contrast in the calibration, and of course different films may have more or less compression in the toe, so you should bracket to learn what happens at each underexposure level with your film/processing.

Regarding highlights, each film has a different latitude and shoulder nature. TMX/TMY are very linear tend to deliver very high densities in the highlights, but as we have that linearity we usually can recover full detail even in insanely overexposed areas. Also films like color Portra can be insanely overexposed (+4) and still conserving well detail. Other films can be blown easy with less overexposure...

So, just bracket exposure with your film, having spot metered well areas of interest, and judge how those areas are depicted at different levels of exposure. Regular scenes have no problem with negative film, just ensure your shadows are exposed enough for the detail level you want there. With high dynamic range scenes you may have to make decisions.

A problem of hybrid is that you are not aware if your resulting negatives can be easy to be optically printed, so if there is a chance that you may want to optically print your negatives in the future then you should optically print some of the negatives, at least, to ensure you do it well for that.

 

[JWMster]

Good comment, thanks. Pretty much what I was seeing using AP only on the first scans. Went back and reset the camera on full MANUAL, F8 @ 1/10th on the basis of the normal exposure on the gray card taken in the test shots. Used this for all the shots, and it was more helpful.
The effort was helpful. Not going to say it was critical. What I can say is that with the Ilford FP4+ and Caffenol-CMrs is that 50 and 64 ISO work fine, but there's not all that much to be gained in these shots at this. The over/under +/- 3 stops look better at ISO 80 and ISO 125 in terms of detail on white and black cloth. I liked the ISO 80 a bit more.

But you're absolutely right: Adjust that shutter on the DSLR scan and you can pretty much recover the +3 and -3 stop over/under exposed photos very nicely.

If nothing else - and I only rolled 10 shots into each 35mm film canister, it was a good exercise in getting more control over this developer and a sense for what I should be able to get out of the film combo, and this is the first time testing has actually yielded some useful info, and gives me more confidence that I have a good basis for proceeding forward with 120 and 4X5 where the cost per shot's a bit higher. Negatives were VERY good and robust. And I'm also beginning to have more confidence in my DSLR scanning set up where I'm shooting tethered. The Negative Supply hardware and Negative Solutions app in Lightroom make this pretty handy and much faster than my Nikon 8000 scanner which has seen better days. That said, I think I have to begin making some decisions and offload some of the underused equip lying around (or not).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So I'm working on my Caffenol CHrs and my personal development time, and notice that when I camera scan with my DSLR and Negative Supply's handy hardware for this purpose, if the camera's set on AP (Nikon 750D), that the shutter adapts and basically much of the process is negated as the camera interpolates and recovers much more than I intended. Yes, this is nice and demonstrates quite a bit of forgiving lattitude if I blow the shot, but I'm after setting the variables for "best".

I'm thinking to rescan my test shot comprised of a scene with 3 objects: 1) gray card, 2) black, highly textured rag and 3) white, highly textured rag. This time I'm going to set the whole on manual on the basis of the gray card's neutral exposure and then repeat the "scans". Purpose is to see the under and over exposure WITHOUT adjustment to get a handle on personal effective ISO / Developing Time.

Caffenol doesn't have the commercially established parameters, so it seemed worthwhile to me to try to push into a bit of the zone-type of approach here, but frankly there's not a lot I've seen on hybrid work along this line (unless I've missed it). Does any of this make sense to folks, or am I simply spinning my wheels with "fun testing" that's really a waste of time? I would think the process applies generally to hybrid shooting even with commercial developers, but especially for home brew. But I don't have the formal training and decades of deep experience you folks have. Would appreciate any advice. Thanks!

I always develop five rolls at 4,5.5,8,11, and 16 minutes.Then measure an important area for density. A curve through the five data points usually tells te 'idel' development time.

 

[JWMster]

Ralph: Thanks. Sounds like a good NEXT step. I've always respected and enjoyed the shots you've posted. Appreciate your comment here very much.

 

[MattKing]

If you are going to both test and then rely later on the results of your tests, it really, really, really helps to have a test subject that you can continue to re-use in the future.
Something like a card with a standard grey area (for reflection metering) plus areas ranging from a deep but textured black to a very light but textured white - pieces of towels work great.
Do your tests with an eye to achieving a really good negative. Then use scans and software to measure the density of the various parts. Record that info, store it with the test subject, and you have a reference to return to.

 

[JWMster]

Matt: THanks! Agree... of course I'm new to this... but I've been interested in it for years. With many many of the Zoney books in my library, I've just not found that there's enough written on the hybrid process. Actually, I think there's a big fat zero written on it. There are few articles on line, but really really not much on the full hybrid of moving from negative to scan to ink jet print. Not sure why... fact is, the process is not as simple as folks suggest. I'm kind of feeling my way forward to doing just that for my own photography, but without much practical guidance, I'm adapting what I can and trying to make senser of it. Not sure how much GENERAL utility there would be for others though... so it may simply be a one-off process for a newby like me.

 

[Kino]

If you are going to both test and then rely later on the results of your tests, it really, really, really helps to have a test subject that you can continue to re-use in the future.

I suggest finding a good condition "Kodak Professional Guide" and use the chip chart inside. They are available pretty cheap and are typically in little used condition...

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Kino, except I would add some near white and near black textured material as well.

 

[Kino]

I agree with Kino, except I would add some near white and near black textured material as well.

You can just tag it onto the surface or near it and be good to go.

 

[JWMster]

All very helpful. THanks! Used the rags in my initial testing set-up together with a gray card. And I have a color chip equivalent of the Kodak that I bought years ago from ? for color balancing digital. Will add that to the mix.
Can I assume that you folks calibrated your processes similarly - even if not recently?

 

[MattKing]

Can I assume that you folks calibrated your processes similarly - even if not recently?

Ironically, I've actually done more detailed work helping others calibrate their process than I have done for myself.

 

[JWMster]

So here's what I did and have done, and a review of my work. The shots were imported into LR using the Negative Lab Pro app and NOT adjusted by me. Yes, there's probably something that gets adjusted outside my ability to neutralize it, but FWIW, all the settings I'm aware of were neutral / default in both LR and Negative Lab Pro. I used Negative Lab Pro but am aware some use Colorperfect and that this can also manage the job.

This was the test image on the front steps of our home last weekend before posting here. Didn't spend a whole lot of time getting finicky about it.... ergo the step alignment could have been more precise. Not really the point. Point was to set the frame of reference off the gray card, and take a series of shots as laid out in a number of books. I don't have a step wedge, nor do I have a denistometer. One day? Yes, I'll spend the $40 for the step wedge. Took the reference shot at gray card values to establish the aperture and shutter speed, then 1 with the lens cap on. Then a series with -3 stops, -1 stop, NEUTRAL, +1 stop and + 3 stops. I was surprised how much detail there was in all of them. Film is FP4+ and this shot at neutral metered with a Sekonic Spot meter on the target. Initial had some trouble with clouds moving around, but dealt with it. Look closely and you'll see texture in both the white and black. Scanning initially with Aperture Priority didn't give much information as the shutter speed adjusted and all shots looked great. Reset the camera to Manual and the differences began to show. Developed in Caffenol-CMrs at 18C ....cause that's what my basement does, so it was not quick. FIxed in Photographer's Formulary TF-5 which I've liked for a long time. I was suprised by how well the shots came out at ISO 125, but I think ISO 80 had somewhat better tone. Felt more controlled. Yes, this is subjective as an eyeball test. ISO 64 and 50 were fine, but I think 80 was as good if not better and since I like a yellow filter I'm not sure I want to sacrifice a whole lot more speed.

I like the idea of adding the color test card and I'll have to dig that one out of the gear. Unfortunately, the plumbers are reworking the radiator pipes in the basement, so we're kind of discombobulated for the next few days.

So I'm looking at the ISO of 80 as my "got to" for this film and developer. If I'm following the process correctly, the next thing is to shoot to set the developer time at this speed with some variable times. Does that sound right?

 

[Horatio]

I’m following your experiments with interest, as I’m also working out a hybrid “system” for film exposure and processing. I’m using Rodinal at present, but will probably switch to homemade D23 after the pandemic madness has subsided. My interest is in finding the best combination of exposure and development for tonal smoothness. So far, Rodinal at 1:100 produces fine grain with 100 ISO 120 film. I’ve yet to make any prints, so things may not be as rosy as I perceive.

 

[JWMster]

Horatio: Have some of that stuff, too, from Photographer's Formulary, but also the ingredients to mix it up myself. May give it a go since COVID-19 has surprisingly made even Dollar Tree Instant Coffee rare. Caffenol CHrs for what it's worth.... rivals Rodinol and Pyro according to some. I'm not one of them because I've never used either. But there's a lot to be said for simple ingredient developers easy to make, environmentally friendly and doggone good.... that force you to learn how to use them. Bought one of Stouffer's Transmission Step Wedges the other day just for testing. Will keep you posted. What film are you using? Note: So far during the pandemic, I've had no problem with ordering stuff and receiving it... no matter where from. The issue might change as we move ahead, so far so good. I started this with FOMApan 200 as the cheap "use it to learn LF" film. Shot at 100 and 125, it seemed to want more and more development time - something like 25 minutes at 20C on my last run came out pretty good. But really didn't like it very much, as it's a hog on development time, and my main film is rapidly becoming FP4+ (used to be Delta 400 for MF). Seems Foma is "soft" to my eye and from what I read, most of what looks good about it comes from folks who will telly you their results came from a LOT of manipulation in POST whereas I think with FP4 you can start off with a better negative. (NOT TRYING TO START a FLAME WAR: Yes, others will love FOMA and NOT need this, but I'll admit to not having their skill ). Suppose you do get what you pay for. Note that I'm not mixing my own chems for the "thrill" or to "save money" (I don't think you do), but to learn, to have control, and to be able to adjust (maybe) , and have fun. Caffenol began in my case as ":what if" to try to keep it eco-friendly, but except for the coffee, I'm buying the ingredients from Formulary and this means that as a one-shot in a JOBO 2520 tank using inversion, it's a bit of an ingredient hog, and definitely not the cheapest stuff out there. But this does mean you can't see the grain in LF. You can see it in 35mm with this approach - but less so than using rotary processing on a Jobo. With LF.... grain is invisible so far.

 

[Horatio]

Skip, I've been using Ultrafine Xtreme 120 film. I've picked up some expired TMax100 sheet film to play with next. I've had no issues with orders either, except for ink cartridges from MIS I purchased two weeks ago. I think they've shut down. No one is answering the phones and the website just shows my order "in process." They sure took my money right away, though.

 

[JWMster]

Horatio: I've heard up and down on Ultrafine. Film prices are good. Service? But for every person who doesn't like a vendor, there's another with nothing but good experience. FWIW, I've had great service in recent days from: B&W, Chamonix, IROHAS (my ebay dealer in Japan that I've used many many times) over the years, and just about everyone else. I think I'd email folks before ordering these days ....'cause they're all small biz (mostly) and lockdowns are what they are. UPS and FEDEX are beginning to have some issues though so there's no telling what comes next. Good luck.