How Does My Development Look?

[sruddy]

I set up a shot to test my development. This is a raw digital capture with no post processing so you can see the true value of the negative. I know it looks a little flat but that's what I want, right? I figure I can always crush tones, when printing.

 

[MattKing]

Can we see a backlit photo of the negative please, rather than an inverted scan.

 

[sruddy]

Can we see a backlit photo of the negative please, rather than an inverted scan.

 

[MattKing]

Certainly looks good.
What is the very dense area at the top right?

 

[koraks]

Doesn't look that good to me, to be honest. There's a thick (light in the positive) trail in the center running from the top into the image and thinner "clouds" on the right side. Some further troubleshooting needs to take place.

 

[Huub]

Contrast wise and exposure wise this looks pretty much ok to me. It could do with a bit of extra development, depending on how you are going to print this. On my condensor enlarger a negative like this would be an easy print. At the other hand: the light looks pretty flat and a more contrasty scene might cause issues.

But also: i fully agree with Koraks that the development technique needs improvement. The trail in the centre with the tear on the top of the negative and the irregular paterns to the right need addressing. How did you develop the sheet? Trays, some sort of tank or any other technique?

 

[Agulliver]

Possibly a little under exposed, rather than under developed as that odd white portion top right of the negative (black on the positive) looks very light (dark). But in terms of general exposure and development there's enough detail in the image to get a decent print or scan. What is the strange line down the centre? Is that something on your backdrop or is it uneven development? If the latter, then your chemicals and timing are not bad but something in your technique wasn't quite right.

 

[sruddy]

Certainly looks good.
What is the very dense area at the top right?

I used a level to hold the top corner flat. I have been using a 6x9 carrier to digitize my negatives but need to pull out a 4 x 5 next time. These are my first 4 x 5 images ever so I don't have a scan procedure worked out. I use my DSLR.

Doesn't look that good to me, to be honest. There's a thick (light in the positive) trail in the center running from the top into the image and thinner "clouds" on the right side. Some further troubleshooting needs to take place.

The development irregularities on in the middle and edges are due to the design of the 20th Century holder I used. The next day I switched to a mod 54 and that cured the issue. I should have mentioned that in the initial post.

Contrast wise and exposure wise this looks pretty much ok to me. It could do with a bit of extra development, depending on how you are going to print this. On my condensor enlarger a negative like this would be an easy print. At the other hand: the light looks pretty flat and a more contrasty scene might cause issues. HMM
But also: i fully agree with Koraks that the development technique needs improvement. The trail in the centre with the tear on the top of the negative and the irregular paterns to the right need addressing. How did you develop the sheet? Trays, some sort of tank or any other technique?

See answer above about the holder I used. I did use a softbox which is low contrast. I didn't even consider that, I should probably do this again with bare bulb or just a reflector. I have diffusion enlargers, do they require a different type of negative?

Possibly a little under exposed, rather than under developed as that odd white portion top right of the negative (black on the positive) looks very light (dark). But in terms of general exposure and development there's enough detail in the image to get a decent print or scan. What is the strange line down the centre? Is that something on your backdrop or is it uneven development? If the latter, then your chemicals and timing are not bad but something in your technique wasn't quite right.

Thanks , I should have mentioned the bad holder. I used a meter for my exposures and noted if the reading wasn't dead on my f stop setting. For this one it said F16 which was the setting. If it's off then I shouldn't be shooting at box speed. I'm not that advanced. I'm reading the Negative now and It mentions tests to determine the films speed but I haven't done that. I was hoping I could avoid that extra continuous extra work if it's not that significant. However Ansel states that variations can be considerable.

 

[BradS]

I think Ansel Adams said something about the print being the thing of importance. Proper exposure and development only have meaning in the context of a print. That is, getting exposure and development "right" makes printmaking easier (or, possible). So, make a print and judge for yourself by how easy or not it is to get the result that you envisioned.

 

[MattKing]

I used a level to hold the top corner flat. I have been using a 6x9 carrier to digitize my negatives but need to pull out a 4 x 5 next time. These are my first 4 x 5 images ever so I don't have a scan procedure worked out. I use my DSLR.

Is the second image just an inversion of the first? If so, it isn't what I was asking for.
I was asking for a photo of the negative, not what is in essence a scan.

 

[sruddy]

Is the second image just an inversion of the first? If so, it isn't what I was asking for.
I was asking for a photo of the negative, not what is in essence a scan.

Sorry matt I don't get what your mean. I scan with my Canon 5d Mark IV DSLR camera, hence the image is a photo. Scanning with my flat bed scanner is significantly inferior so I don't use it. I could hold the negative up to a window and take a shot with my iPhone, like I see other folks doing, but then you have a jpeg capture with distracting backlight. What I posted is a raw capture of what you would see on a light table.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry matt I don't get what your mean. I scan with my Canon 5d Mark IV DSLR camera, hence the image is a photo. Scanning with my flat bed scanner is significantly inferior so I don't use it. I could hold the negative up to a window and take a shot with my iPhone, like I see other folks doing, but then you have a jpeg capture with distracting backlight. What I posted is a raw capture of what you would see on a light table.

I would like to see something closer to the iPhone shot, because I would like to see the negative in the context of something lit from the front as well.
That dark area at the top right appears as if it is an inverted image of something bright. If I am correct, would like to see it bright, so I can compare it visually with how the negative looks "in the real world".

 

[sruddy]

I would like to see something closer to the iPhone shot, because I would like to see the negative in the context of something lit from the front as well.
That dark area at the top right appears as if it is an inverted image of something bright. If I am correct, would like to see it bright, so I can compare it visually with how the negative looks "in the real world".

Here Matt, is this what your looking for?

 

[sruddy]

I think Ansel Adams said something about the print being the thing of importance. Proper exposure and development only have meaning in the context of a print. That is, getting exposure and development "right" makes printmaking easier (or, possible). So, make a print and judge for yourself by how easy or not it is to get the result that you envisioned.

Great, I will practice and post my print results here, that way if I have any issues my negative will be here for reference.

 

[MattKing]

Here Matt, is this what your looking for?

View attachment 243660

Yes - your fingers give a very useful visual reference!

 

[removed account4]

Yes - your fingers give a very useful visual reference!

totally looking for the "like" button !

sruddy
looks nice! how are you going to print this ?
contact print on "store bought" photo paper ? something on silver chloride paper ( like azo / lodima )
or a cyanotype &c ? for good old store bought paper looks nice exposure and development wise
if you're going to go back to the 1800s you'd want a little more meat on the bone ...

John

ps. you are hard core with the color do dads and reflective stuff you've dug deep into the archives and study materials ! much better than me

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

 

[sruddy]

Ok thanks, I am going to test it on MGV and FB #3 papers using a Durst Pictograph. I’ll post the results. I also have some old Brovira With about a 10% fog and was curious what it would look like on the old paper. Since this is the first time I have shot 4x5 I have nothing to compare it too sharpens wise, but I’m impress looking at the negative. It will be interesting to see how large it can go. They closed the state park down the road from me so I’ll have to think of something else to shoot in the meantime.