Flat Tri-x

I tested a tri-x at
400, 320, 250, 200
Iso.
It was very overcast, a dull dull day.
Am I correct that a film works at a higher iso speed on dull days?
So instead of 250 - 320 or even 400 should be fine?
Basically the Kodak sheet for tri-x seems way off, as they are suggesting 3.5 min for dilution B - hc-110.
I tried 11.45 min, but the negs seem a bit flat.
Now - would you recommend me to shoot at 400, 320 or develop for more like 14 min ( i developed at 11.45 min).
I added 2.5 ml Rodinal to the Dilution H got the recipe on one of the forums at rangefinder.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104979973@N04/sets/72157652047393015/
here you can see the the images - both positive and negative.
I only inverted in color perfect - although you can choose grades in there. but just clicked normal grade and ok. no tweaking.

Auroraua said:

I tested a tri-x at
400, 320, 250, 200
Iso.
It was very overcast, a dull dull day.
Am I correct that a film works at a higher iso speed on dull days?
So instead of 250 - 320 or even 400 should be fine?
Basically the Kodak sheet for tri-x seems way off, as they are suggesting 3.5 min for dilution B - hc-110.
I tried 11.45 min, but the negs seem a bit flat.
Now - would you recommend me to shoot at 400, 320 or develop for more like 14 min ( i developed at 11.45 min).
I added 2.5 ml Rodinal to the Dilution H got the recipe on one of the forums at rangefinder.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104979973@N04/sets/72157652047393015/
here you can see the the images - both positive and negative.
I only inverted in color perfect - although you can choose grades in there. but just clicked normal grade and ok. no tweaking.

Click to expand...

The sensitivity of the film doesn't change, so no the ISO doesn't change.

Negatives from a grey days will typically look flatter than negatives from clear days.

The real test is printing them.

If you want more snap than you got the fix is more film development (or harder paper grade) not a change in camera exposure.

What is this thing about EI and people saying films are not its true ISO?
Not meaning to sound rude, just trying to get a grasp.

It's all about personal preference, what you like best. It's a combination of personal ISO and developing routine, based on the zone system.

art vs science

Photography, in my humbug opinion, is more of an art than a science. I think your eyes tell you the stuff about the floating ASA is bullfeathers. What you need to believe is what you see rather than mumbo jumbo based on what somebody "said." Test, test, test and then go ahead with what is real, not what Joe told Tom told Alex told Ann. Of course everything you read on the Internet is Gospel. Amen, brother.

Auroraua said:

I tested a tri-x at
400, 320, 250, 200
Iso.
It was very overcast, a dull dull day.
Am I correct that a film works at a higher iso speed on dull days?
So instead of 250 - 320 or even 400 should be fine?
Basically the Kodak sheet for tri-x seems way off, as they are suggesting 3.5 min for dilution B - hc-110.
I tried 11.45 min, but the negs seem a bit flat.
Now - would you recommend me to shoot at 400, 320 or develop for more like 14 min ( i developed at 11.45 min).
I added 2.5 ml Rodinal to the Dilution H got the recipe on one of the forums at rangefinder.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104979973@N04/sets/72157652047393015/
here you can see the the images - both positive and negative.
I only inverted in color perfect - although you can choose grades in there. but just clicked normal grade and ok. no tweaking.

Click to expand...

I would suggest you shoot at box speed and adjust your development time/temperature for the type of negative you wish to print.

These to me have looked a little bit flat, it lacks a kind of punch. Which is why I´m asking of suggestions in order to get it not so muddy. I was wondering if it´s because it´s over exposed or if it has to do with development.

Also - when it´s fully sunny you might need to open up a little bit to get the shadow.
But on overcast days not.

Yes, it´s all about experimenting yourself, but it´s not always easy to figure out how to get there.

EI is simply a number that an individual uses as a reference point for their own work.

Some people talk about their own EI like is should apply to everyone, it doesn't work that way.

EI numbers factor in all the variables in an individuals situation which may include inaccurate shutters, filters they always use, specific agitation schemes, inaccuracy of their light meter, fungus or haze in their lens, personal preferences in how they meter, how they hold a gray card, the antiquity of their film, their proprietary mixture of some special developer, and ... and ... and ...

My baseline EI is the film's ISO in every case. Works perfectly for me, as it will for most people.

With experience you can find the limits of your EI in given situations. The limits are where detail starts to degrade, not overall flatness.

If you think your negatives lack punch, or need more contrast, then you need to develop longer, not give more exposure. You need to read about the zone system to try to get a grip on the theory.

Auroraua said:

These to me have looked a little bit flat, it lacks a kind of punch. Which is why I´m asking of suggestions in order to get it not so muddy. I was wondering if it´s because it´s over exposed or if it has to do with development.

Also - when it´s fully sunny you might need to open up a little bit to get the shadow.
But on overcast days not.

Yes, it´s all about experimenting yourself, but it´s not always easy to figure out how to get there.

Click to expand...

It does involve hard work to fully grasp and understand the film based photography system. You can only learn so much from others.

But you can learn general principles.

You are actually in complete control of the contrast of your negatives. If your negs are too high contrast, develop less. If they are too low in contrast, develop more. It really is that simple.

But, you may need to adjust your exposure based on what the lighting is like. It depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to faithfully reproduce what is in front of the lens, you should always expose your film at box speed and using a gray card to meter the scene. If you are interested in creating pictorial effects, you are free to do whatever you want your negatives to print like.

For example, if it's really high contrast outside, I might over-expose my negatives. It depends on how much shadow detail I want.
If it's a dull low contrast day I may want that to show so I shoot at EI 250 as usual (Tri-X). Or I shoot at 500 or 800 if I want more dramatic tones in the negatives.

I tend to think of negative tonality as a rubber band. Normal lighting means normal tension on the rubber band, and if the lighting is dull with low contrast, you have to stretch out what you recorded to get normal contrast in your negative. If you have high contrast you are recording something that would result in 'high tension' and if you want normal contrast in your negative you have to release some tension and develop for less time.

I'm trying to illustrate that by exposing film differently you change things around by moving tonality up and down the tonal scale, and by developing film for different lengths of time, you stretch that tonality to be more contracted or more expanded. It is entirely subjective whether this is something you want to do or not.

The advice to shoot at box speed and change dev time to suit your needs is probably the simplest best solution to get what you need.

Flat light is flat light at any ISO.

Shoot one film at box speed, use one film developer, one paper and one paper developer until you really know what they can do before one starts paying around with the ISO and development. The manufacturer is always going to know more then one will ever know. After six decades I still shoot box speed unless there are really unusual lighting conditions that cannot be dealt with in other ways.

Thanks Thomas for this. Very concrete.
So for this "flat portrait" i took, if I didn´t want the flatness in the portrait, it would have been perhaps better (subjective) to expose at 500-800 and develop longer.
I like landscapes sometimes on a dull day, but you still want something alive in your pictures. Not like dead items.
I love dull weather for photographs.

Two points
a) an incident meter dome is more convenient than a grey card kept if you are doing colour.

b) if the brightness range is too large for the film you going to burn highlights or clip
shadows or use a soft developer but you won't gain a lot.

When wet printing you need negatives that are close to grade 2 to make for easy life.

The fine art printers pick a grade of paper for sparkly mid tones and burnt in highlights and held back shadows.
This is closer to how our perception perceives a scene.

Sort of like photishipping it.

Xmas said:

Two points
a) an incident meter dome is more convenient than a grey card kept if you are doing colour.

b) if the brightness range is too large for the film you going to burn highlights or clip
shadows or use a soft developer but you won't gain a lot.

When wet printing you need negatives that are close to grade 2 to make for easy life.

Click to expand...

Xmas said:

The fine art printers pick a grade of paper for sparkly mid tones and burnt in highlights and held back shadows.
This is closer to how our perception perceives a scene.

Sort of like photishipping it.

Click to expand...

IMO an Incident Meter is more convenient than a gray card period.

The brightness range is rarely (almost never) too large for negative film. The question is almost always "how do I get the scene to fit on the paper's curve?", not "will it fit on the negative's curve?"

And you actually address that in your second post.

Regarding tonality, I tend to agree with Thomas' "rubber band" analogy.

Testing was an eye-opened for me. After fighting to hold shadow detail on HP5+, I found I'm much happier with it at 250-320, even as slow as 200. Then hold back development a bit if the highlights are strong.

Do this stuff for a while and you'll start to get a feel for a scene. if you're not shooting and printing daily or weekly, it can be very rewarding to settle on one or two films until you can be a little second nature about exposure and development. For me, that's been HP5+, and beginning to get a deeper handle on Delta 3200 when I need more speed.

Auroraua said:

I tested a tri-x at
400, 320, 250, 200

here you can see the the images - both positive and negative..

Click to expand...

Those negatives look pretty well developed, perhaps over developed. What grade paper are you printing? Condenser or diffusion or contact?

These are scans.
I have not been able to print them yet.
Need to get a booked time, but I am going away, so I wanted to test the film before.
But that will be in sunshine, not misty moody cold north.

Michael R 1974 said:

It is mostly people not knowing what they are talking about...

Click to expand...

On the Internet?? I'm shocked, I say, shocked!

In my experience the scanner software currently out there for doing negatives varies from Mfgr and also to the ability of the scanner, especially the light transmission source above the negative to properly light it.

What you are capturing on film will behave differently in the enlarger. The scanner tends to average out negative contrasts when it is converted.

People have come up with lots of methods to get good negative scans when digital is the desired result.

Film development times for negatives destined for silver enlargements are the bulk of what you will find posted and printed by the manufacturers.

my best way

I develop pretty much all of my film with stand or semi-stand development. 1:100 Rodinal, 1 hour development time. It works pretty well.

Greg

kreeger said:

What you are capturing on film will behave differently in the enlarger. The scanner tends to average out negative contrasts when it is converted. People have come up with lots of methods to get good negative scans when digital is the desired result.

Click to expand...

That's because a scanner records tonality from your negative in linear fashion. A photo paper does not; it has a curve exactly like film, but in mirrored to match the tonality of film. The very best thing to do is to make contact sheets, on the same paper used to make enlargements, as proofs. That tells a lot about exposure and development, and how we are doing roll to roll.

Rick A said:

If you think your negatives lack punch, or need more contrast, then you need to develop longer, not give more exposure. You need to read about the zone system to try to get a grip on the theory.

Click to expand...

Well, a bit of a caveat here...

TO A POINT, more exposure gives MORE contrast before yet more exposure begins to flatten out the tonality by forcing everything into the 'shoulder' of the characteristic curve. How? The lower densities achieve a higher point on that curve, thus affording the ability for more tonal differentiation. That would be the rule to follow for film shot within varying lighting conditions where limited development must be employed in order to save the more contrasty subjects from attaining impenetrable highlights.

However, if you do have the luxury of exposing the whole roll in flat lighting, you can then afford to give slightly less exposure and 'make up for that exposure deficiency' by giving about 20% more development. With FRESH TRI-X I would rate it in flat lighting at about EI 500 to 800, but do not forget to realize that what that meter is pointed at must average to a medium grey, or your metering will be false and misdirected. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

Well, a bit of a caveat here...

TO A POINT, more exposure gives MORE contrast before yet more exposure begins to flatten out the tonality by forcing everything into the 'shoulder' of the characteristic curve. How? The lower densities achieve a higher point on that curve, thus affording the ability for more tonal differentiation. That would be the rule to follow for film shot within varying lighting conditions where limited development must be employed in order to save the more contrasty subjects from attaining impenetrable highlights.

However, if you do have the luxury of exposing the whole roll in flat lighting, you can then afford to give slightly less exposure and 'make up for that exposure deficiency' by giving about 20% more development. With FRESH TRI-X I would rate it in flat lighting at about EI 500 to 800, but do not forget to realize that what that meter is pointed at must average to a medium grey, or your metering will be false and misdirected. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

The curve (which defines the contrast rate of the film) can only be changed by development differences.

Once one gets an exposure that gets all their important subject matter somewhere between toe and shoulder of the film, the exact placement doesn't change contrast at all.

If one gets an improvement in contrast because of a change in exposure it is because one was exposing poorly in the first place.

markbarendt said:

The curve (which defines the contrast rate of the film) can only be changed by development differences.

Once one gets an exposure that gets all their important subject matter somewhere between toe and shoulder of the film, the exact placement doesn't change contrast at all.

If one gets an improvement in contrast because of a change in exposure it is because one was exposing poorly in the first place.

Click to expand...

Actually, the specified ISO exposure puts the shadows on the toe. With modern t-grain film you frequently have the option of moving the scene values up the curve (additional exposure). This has the effect of increasing the overall contrast on the negative as DL posted, because the values you intend to print all now fall on the straight portion which has more 'rise' than 'run' compared to the toe.