Wow, you two actually agree: you both make great cases for looking around at different developers, then once you find what you like, settling down on it.
It always amazes me how people keep making the argument that if so and so used a particular film and developer so successfully, why look
elsewhere. I gave up on 76 for HP5 a long time ago. Call me lazy, but I don't like doing things the hard way, and for some strange reason,
just don't like throwing out more test prints than I need to, or having to constantly attach a sheet film mask to bring the shadows and highlights
within reasonable reach. I know how to do all these things. You betcha. But once I started using pyro developers, it all became sooooo much
easier.
And I gave up on pyro developers because I very much dislike the print quality I could muster. To me the developers didn't offer anything that improved my photographs. They did not speak louder to the observer, were more difficult to print, and the tonality was something I was not happy with.
It's far easier for me to obtain a good print with D76 or Xtol than PMK or Pyrocat. Go figure, you betcha.
Wow, you two actually agree: you both make great cases for looking around at different developers, then once you find what you like, settling down on it.
Exactly. Find something that works. And make good art.
So I purchased two rolls of Delta 3200 in 120 format to try with D76. I have not exposed any film yet, but am going to process it in D76 stock. I'll start by shooting it at 1600, sacrifice one roll to testing, and then do a proper roll at 1600.
If I like the results I may try to shoot another couple of rolls at 3200, but I like the film at 1600 so much and it's more than enough speed.
Thomas, in your original thread you mention standardising the use of D76 at 1:1. Is there a reason you now wish to use stock?
So I purchased two rolls of Delta 3200 in 120 format to try with D76. I have not exposed any film yet, but am going to process it in D76 stock. I'll start by shooting it at 1600, sacrifice one roll to testing, and then do a proper roll at 1600.
If I like the results I may try to shoot another couple of rolls at 3200, but I like the film at 1600 so much and it's more than enough speed.
Thomas, forgive me if I'm missing part of this because I haven't read the whole thread, or rather I may have read it in the ass but I don't recall, but how come if HP5+ is your standard film, that you just don't shoot that at 1600? Believe it or not it pushes beautifully of two 3200 with no issues at all in DD-X so I would think it would easily be pushed to 1600 in D-76 with no issues.
Stone,
I don't like pushing film, that's all. It's a compromise at best, and I like having a full range negative to work with. Once you get to printing in a darkroom you will understand, I think.
When I print I can easily get more contrast than I need with a normal negative, and then that also gives me the opportunity to print with normal contrast. You can add contrast at the time of printing, and thus increase highlight intensity and decrease shadow detail = more contrast.
But you can't take a pushed negative with shadow details that the photo paper can't see and magically add it back. That's the problem with pushing in general; it's a compromise.
HP5+ gives me good prints exposed normally at about EI 500 and processed in D76 1+1 for 12 minutes, agitating 5s every 30s. In higher contrast I shoot at EI 250 and develop for 9 minutes, and in low contrast I shoot it at EI 800 and process for 14 minutes. That gives me a fairly normal negative for each scenario. No need to push. I certainly don't need the extra speed.
I hope that helps explaining my choices.
Delta 3200 is just an experiment in trying to prove that you don't need DD-X or some other developer like TMax or Xtol to get good results. It is, in my opinion, a trap to get stuck thinking a developer is going to add something magical to the work flow, when changes in technique gives a thousand times more variability than the choice of developer.
Thanks for the comment.
Understood, I wonder, I would love to send you one of my scanned negatives and see if you can tell me if it's hard to produce the same result with optical printing, one I like a lot that was HP5+ @3200 is this image.
View attachment 83645
It's not fancy or sellable, but when taking it, it came out EXACTLY as I had envisioned.
This was of course a VERY high contrast scene, so, I'm sure that's not YOUR style, just wonder how horrible this kind of neg would be to print and how it might come out vs my scan.
Here's a quick and dirty neg scan from the first roll of Delta 3200 in 120, processed in D76 stock for 11 minutes at 68*F, agitating 5s every 30s. Judging by the negatives I need to give more developing time, so I'll add 15% next roll. Exposed at 1600.
Nice Thomas,
You show a photograph from a 3200 speed film shot at 1600 and there is no question the exposure is sufficient to give you full range detail.
The scenarios you describe in post No. 94 ago make a lot of sense to me.
Stone,
You've probably seen film family of curves. There is no escaping those lines. Any spot in your original scene will fall upon the characteristic curve line (the line associated to the development time you gave that roll). Even if you don't test for the curve, it's there. The curve hits 0.10 density at the speed point. Where the toe hits 0.10 moves left (faster) with more development and right (slower) with less development. While you could easily underdevelop a 400 speed film so badly that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 100 or less... You cannot develop it so long that the 0.10 speed point corresponds to a speed rating of 3200. The real speed from pushing is more like 640
You get away with a 3200 meter setting because of how you meter.
If you were to push your film and take my word for it, set your meter to 640. Spotmeter to establish shadows. You might spot the closet door slats in the shadow to the left of the lamp, or the right side of the vase. Somewhere you want to see a little detail. "Place" that reading as a shadow.
Now compare that exposure calculation with what you shot your original scene at... If my guess is right, you got the same f/stop and shutter speed combination using 640 and metering appropriately - versus setting the averaging meter to 3200 and shooting away.
(All this depends on your metering technique - are you using averaging in-camera meters?)
Basic zone system is actually very simple. Even if you don't use the whole system, being somewhat conversant with it gives you a common language. When you decided a given area is to be rendered as "medium gray" and meter that area and set the exposure based on the meter reading at your exposure index, you have "placed it on zone V." Zone V = medium gray. Each zone lower is one stop - one stop darker is Zone IV, another stop darker is Zone III etc. and one stop more is Zone VI, one stop more than that is Zone VII etc.
I apologize though as I was the one who started talking in Zone-ese. Bill is talking about the definition of film speed being pegged to a densitometer reading of the negative of 0.1 over film base + fog. You can approximate this close enough without a densitometer easily enough too (if you optically print) by calibrated contact printing using the least exposure for maximum black through unexposed film base, then finding the film exposure that just starts to render a lighter black with that contact exposure.
But anyway, you're kind of doing what I said above. Extra development will certainly raise the film speed at medium gray, more so than in the shadows anyway. Your shadows will go darker or black/empty, and your highlights may blow out, but none of that may matter in typical indoor contrasty light where film is often pushed so it "works" well enough much of the time.
Thanks, Zone V I'll try and remember, so all spot meters give you a spot reading for what would get that spot to Zone V ?
But incident metering often is different from spot, and so I extrapolate the readings differently, so I'm not sure which is Zone V?
BTW your explanation made a lot more sense than what Bill said, I know that's my own limited knowledge but still, it's helpful to note I'm thankful for the additional explanation.
Reflected light meters SHOULD in theory be calibrated for Zone V. They often aren't, unless carefully recalibrated, but that's the theory.
And a reflected light reading of a standard gray card should always give the same reading as an incident reading with the meter placed and lit the same as the gray card. Again, sometimes gray cards aren't perfect either. You'll hear them called 18% gray but that's not right - they are 100% gray, all over.What people mean by that is 18% reflectance - a card that reflects 18% of the light striking it.
See Ansel Adams The Negative.
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?