Ilford Film development problem

[peter38]

I went to Brian’s book and looked up his modification chart for ASA. For two stops over he suggests setting the ASA at 32 (rounded number). That would be one dot over the number setting of 25 on my ASA dial.

Jeez, that can’t be right… can it? That would be way, way over shooting, my negative would look like a roofing shingle.

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
Operating on the basis of the information that you have provided. (Film speed set at 125 on the camera and metering and exposing as we have discussed). If the film were exposing as advertised in your system, then 1/125 second at F11 should have given you a net density (after subtracting FB+fog) of .10. However the densitometer test indicate that this occurred in the exposure that you made at F 5.6 and 1/125 second. This indicates that the film is exposing in your camera and the meter that you are using two stops slower then advertised. This would mean that the film is in fact exposing at EI 32. My question is did you manually set the exposures on the camera with the film speed set at 125?
This seems to be an excessive compensation from the mfg advertised speed, in my experience with Ilford. If I were you I would check the meter reading on this camera against your other camera in the same lighting conditions. (Gray card, evenly lit...lens set at infinity and card filling the frame.) If your two camera meters agree, then I would shoot the film at 32. I suspect you have a meter problem, but check against another meter.
If in fact you find that the two meters agree in the same conditions and the film speed is determined to be 32 in your system then the next step is to expose under the same conditions (gray card, evenly lit, camera film speed set at 32, lens set at infinity and card filling the frame) manually set your lens and shutter speed to three stops open from what the meter indicates. This will be a zone VIII exposure. I would shoot the entire roll at this exposure, cut the roll into three even lengths and develop one at 20 % less then recommended, one at 15% less then recommended, and one at 10% less then the recommended development time. Have the density read on those strips . The one that will give you a density of 1.10 over FB+ fog will be very near your development time for printing on grade 3. The one which will give you 1.20 over film base plus fog will print fairly well on grade two.
To answer your earlier question as to my reasoning on printing roll film negatives on grade three paper, the longer that you develop film the more grain becomes apparent. This is most apparent on roll film (small negatives where degree of enlargement is greatest). By reducing development on roll film, we reduce contrast but we also reduce grain. We compensate for the lower negative contrast by printing on a higher contrast paper because grain is not an issue on paper.

 

[Eric Rose]

The way Barnbaum does it is to move the center part of the exposure up the curve. This way the lower zones don't get all muddled up on the toe.

As an example he uses Tri-X 320. He rates it at 160asa and then exposes shadows for zone 4. Effectively he is rating the film at 80asa with a zone 3 shadow placement. To develop he takes his HC-110 stock solution (mixed at 1:31) and then further cuts it 1:7. I don't have the developing times with me as I'm at work, but if anyone is interested I could give them to you.

He regularly gets way more than 10 zones of printable information on the negative if the scene yields it. Naturally he uses N + or - when needed.

His buddy Don Kirby uses TMAX 100. Rates it at 100asa and develops in Xtol. I also have the times for this as well if you want. Both of them get outstanding negs.

Both of them come from a scientific background and neither of them have any use for densitometers.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you know what a good negative looks like--like Barnbaum, Kirby, Michael Smith, etc.-- you don't need a densitometer. A densitometer, however, is an excellent tool for someone who is starting out or is trying to learn from a book or who doesn't have examples of good negatives to look at.

 

[Donald Miller]

The way Barnbaum does it is to move the center part of the exposure up the curve. This way the lower zones don't get all muddled up on the toe.

As an example he uses Tri-X 320. He rates it at 160asa and then exposes shadows for zone 4. Effectively he is rating the film at 80asa with a zone 3 shadow placement. To develop he takes his HC-110 stock solution (mixed at 1:31) and then further cuts it 1:7. I don't have the developing times with me as I'm at work, but if anyone is interested I could give them to you.

He regularly gets way more than 10 zones of printable information on the negative if the scene yields it. Naturally he uses N + or - when needed.

His buddy Don Kirby uses TMAX 100. Rates it at 100asa and develops in Xtol. I also have the times for this as well if you want. Both of them get outstanding negs.

Both of them come from a scientific background and neither of them have any use for densitometers.

Eric, I agree...but both have an idea of what a good negative looks like. I personally rate TriX at 160 as well. Why?, because that is where it exposes at. And to paraphrase John Sexton..."Nothing lives on Zone III".

 

[Eric Rose]

I agree in part, however it's hard to develop an intuitive approach to things when you rely on gadgets. Experience and the lessons taught thru failure are sometimes the best learning tools you can use. What ever works. In the end it really doesn't matter as long as you get there. I realize for some the toys are just as much fun as the end product.

 

[Donald Miller]

Thanks, dnmilikan.

That's one point not clear to me:

I do the exposure series and looking at the negative I obtain my personal EI.
Now, if I print the test strip and there is no difference in paper between -0.5, base, +0.5 frames it doesn't matter.

My viewpoint is that I should use as minimum density the one that gives first dark gray above black on a normal grade paper print - not in the negative.

i can't see what's wrong with this idea.


Jorge O

I disagree with the "first dark gray"...because Zone I density will print as black, with no sense of texture. The EI of the film is the speed at which the film exposes. Now one can argue that the film exposes throughout it's spectral sensitivity curve. But in the interest of arriving at meaningful exposures in negatives we need to be assured that we have exposure without having our lowest exposures placed too high on the film's characteristic curve. Why? Because film curves are not truly linear or "straight line". If we place our lowest exposures too high on the curve we will suffer by having our high value densities placed on the shoulder of the curve where the densities are not well differentiated. So what we may gain in enhanced shadow separation will be lost on the other end in the area of highlight separation.

The usually accepted measure of density indicating exposure is .10 above film base plus fog. This is 1/3 stop. I would not be able, nor do I believe that most people would be able to tell the difference of 1/3 stop exposure on exposed and processed enlarging paper in that area of the film and papers characteristic curve.

 

[peter38]

Ok, here’s what I found.

I put the gray card up in shade though it is 2pm rather than 6pm as it was yesterday.

Both my cameras were set manually.

The Nikkormat lens it a 50mm set at infinity and with an f stop of 2.8 the meter indicates a shutter speed of 60 seconds. ASA set at one dot over 100.

My Mamiya 120 camera with an 80mm lens set at infinity gives a meter reading of wanting a shutter speed between 60 and 30 seconds. ASA set at 125.

My Sekonic 508 light meter, set at aperture priority, and dialed to f 2.8, set at INCIDENT, gives an indicated f stop of f 2.89, shutter speed of 30 seconds.

Sekonic 508 using the reflective spot meter opened all the way up with a dialed in f stop of f 2.8 indicates an f stop of f 2.86 and a shutter speed of 30 seconds.

So it looks as if my Nikkormat meter will indicate one stop under but in my densitometer tests it appeared that my meter was indicating TWO stops UNDER!

I’m not sure I have that last paragraph right but still that leaves me with a huge compensation factor as I'd want to go with the densitometer test rather than the one I just did. I don’t know what to say.

 

[Eric Rose]

Are you using zinc batteries for your Nikkormat or the regular ones? If you aren't using zinc your meter could be off as much as 1 stop under exposure as the modern none zinc batteries put out to much voltage. I have the same problem with my Nikkormat.

 

[peter38]

I called the store where I bought my battery and they wanted to know the number but the little door isn't popping right open and I'm disinclined to put much more force on it. I'll work it some more and see.

 

[Eric Rose]

If you bought it at a regular store then it's one of the new batteries, and probably not a zinc. Basically there are two places you can get zinc batteries. From a camera store (expensive) or from Radio Shack (much cheaper). The RS batteries are for hearing aids but are zinc. The diameter is smaller but I put a couple of turns of masking tape around them and it's just fine. The Nikkormat was designed for 1.35V mercury batteries. The new ones put out 1.5V I believe. The zinc ones put out 1.35V so that is way you want to use them.

 

[peter38]

I’ve shot with this camera for a couple of years now. The meter on the whole is great. I shot the moon. I shot lots of pictures at night in the city and everything came out incredibly good. I shoot during high sun light. What has always delighted me about the camera is how well it did no matter the conditions.

But my negatives are thick. Some of that has to do with wrong film development data—I was developing too long—but if I were consistently shooting under by two stops, longer in the developer wouldn’t make that much difference would it?

When I move my ASA dial down to 32 my meter indicates 15 seconds at f 2.8 just as it should (considering the densitometer test). But that’s an incredible amount of compensation. What if I wanted to shoot film slower than 125?

I generally print with a 2-3 filter but I have to open my enlarger lens up all the way and then I still have printing times in the 25 to 50 second area.

I just want a more normal negative but I’m lost now. None of the tests or numbers seem to be instructive as to what I should do.

 

[peter38]

Yeah, the guy at the camera store suggested Radio Shack. But how do you open the little door? Do you just pry it up or is there a catch to release first?

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter, The discrepency of your meters is what I suspected. The meter if it were in agreement with your other meters would indicate that the true EI of this film is 64 (based upon the film density data that you provided). I would replace the battery and see if this brings the meter on the camera into agreement with your other meters. Remember to compare "apples with apples". Reflective and incident metering comparisons are not "apples with apples".

Once you have the camera meter issues resolved or decide to meter with your Sekonic and manually set your exposures on this camera, I would suggest that you do the development time tests at an EI of 64. Your concerns over negative density will be resolved when this is all in place.

 

[Eric Rose]

If your talking about a Nikkormat there is no door. At least on mine there is a screw in cap on the bottom plate. All you do is use a quarter and unscrew it.

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

dnmilikan
Ok, I see your point.
I will do some tests with 400TX and will report when done.

Thanks,

Jorge O

 

[peter38]

All right Dan, I’ll get a new battery tomorrow and see what kind of reading I get. I’ll shoot with the Sekonic if necessary and then have the film densitometered on Monday.

I would really like to get this resolved, so thanks everybody for your help.

Eric on my Nikkormat EL there is a little chamber and door under the mirror for the battery.

 

[Eric Rose]

Oh I see. My Nikkormat is a FTN. I also had an F2 for years and had always found the meter on the Nikkormat more accurate than the F2. Go figure.

 

[peter38]

I re-read all the posts and was pleased to see that I could follow them for the most part. That is I can follow what is being said but I don’t believe I am ready to draw new conclusions from data yet. I will try Davis’ book again and get Ansel Adam’s book from the library. I also have Ctein’s book, Post Exposure. I might be able to understand that a lot better now also. I read or attempted to read a lot of book about a year ago or so. It’s time I tried them all again.

I know Davis has instructions in the back of his book on making a densitometer, maybe I’ll try my hand at that.

I will shoot film Saturday and cut it into three pieces. I’ll also shoot one roll with VIII and from 0 to 10 Zones and plot those.

Eric I would love to have the data on Barnbaum and Kirby. A lady who just came back from one of Barnbaum’s workshops loaned me his book today and it looks good. I really liked his articles in Photography Techniques.

She said he does everything in his power to make sure that everyone gets their money's worth.

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
You can do as you wish. However you should be aware that the second roll of film that you intend to shoot with each of the zones exposed will serve no purpose insofar as depicting the curve characteristics of the film that you are using unless you develop it the same as the development time and temperature that you decide will give you the Zone VIII densities that you want.

The reason is that development time affects all densities to some degree but the lower densities are least affected and the higher densities are most affected. So unless you happen to develop it for the same length of time as the film strip with the proper Zone VIII density the information will be meaningless.

Since you are shooting roll film, contrast expansion and contraction through film exposure and development don't readily apply unless you shoot short rolls of film and want to go through the hassle of switching rolls. The better system is to develop to a grade three paper and use paper grade four for expansion and paper grades one and two for contraction.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just to expand on what Donald said regarding plotting the characteristic curve--there are two different approaches floating around in this discussion. Either one is valid, depending on what you want to find out.

His suggestion, following more closely to what you've outlined as your plan, is that you determine your development time for a normal Zone VIII density and then use that time to develop the roll that you will plot from 0-X. This will give you the characteristic curve of the film at "N" development.

My original suggestion was to shoot, say, four rolls with exposures from 0-X, develop them at four different development times, and plot each one of them on the same graph. This will show you how the curve changes with changes in development time.

Yet another option would be to procede as Donald has suggested, and then do a series of rolls with exposures from 0-X, adjusting the development time by N-40%, N-20%, N+20%, and N+40%, and plot those along with the N curve, and that should get you in the ballpark for finding N-2, N-1, N+1, and N+2 development times, and will also show how the curve changes with development time.

This all can sound like a lot of testing, but you do it once, and you'll really get more out of the film you use. Sometimes when I'm traveling, for instance, and I don't want to carry too much equipment, but I know that I'll be moving between various lighting situations, I'll carry a medium format camera with one moderately wide lens and three backs, rather than carrying three lenses and one back, because it's easier to crop in the darkroom to improve composition than it is to massage a bad negative to get the right tonality.

 

[Donald Miller]

If one has the option of changing backs, as in the case of some medium format cameras, I can understand the validity of doing what David suggests. I used to do that with my Bronica system (one back for N dev., one back for N minus dev., and one back for N plus dev.) However when one shoots 35 mm no such option exists. Besides I have found that, in my experience, to shoot roll film and to plus develop it (especially in 35 mm) makes the issue of grain a major issue. To work within the parameters of changing paper grades, when using 35 mm, to alter contrast produces better prints, in my experience.

 

[lee]

when I shot a lot of 35 mm, it seems to me that I never shot just one or two frames and left the film for another day. On rare occasions, the contrast of the day would change while I was shooting. Most of the time though, I would shoot a whole roll of film and it would only be N or N-. I suggest that Don is on the right track by using VC paper or graded paper to up the contrast or reduce the contrast.

lee\c

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fair enough. This is part of the reason I don't do much B&W in 35mm anymore.

On the other hand, old Nikkormats not being so costly, it's not unreasonable to have two or three bodies for N+ or N-. And if one is planning to shoot a whole roll under more or less the same light, one can decide at the beginning to make it a + or an N or a - roll.

 

[Eric Rose]

Peter, your friend that just came back from the Barnbaum course should have the sheet with the new development times. He was giving them out as an addendum to his book The Art of Photography.

If you can't get her copy I could PDF it and send it to you. I know Bruce wouldn't mind.

The sheet with the new times is for the new TX 320. You can use the old times in the book for HP5+. Who is your friend? If she was on the July course we were buddies!