Ilford Film development problem

[peter38]

Oh, I see that you're right. I'll wait until I do the develpment time tests of course.

 

[peter38]

I shot my 35mm film and segmented it into three and as you suggested developed it at 10%, 15% and 20% less time. I also shot a roll of 120 film to do the first Zone 1 test.

Took them into the photo shop but when they were put on the light table you could see a faint line of slightly brighter tone from end to end on both films. I put the gray card up in what I was sure was a secure shadowed area but I guess there was reflection from my shirt or something. The photo shop guy said there wasn’t any use doing the test with the film in that condition and to shoot it again. So that’s what I’ll do.

I went to Radio Shack Saturday and didn’t find any batteries in the 1.3v area. Both the salesman and I looked and then he said he’d have the company email me. But then I went over to a camera repair shop (been in business for 35 years and I’m guessing he knows his business) and he said it didn’t matter that the battery was slightly above 1.35v the camera would just take what it needed.

He took the camera in the back and put a photo cell behind the shutter I think he said and tested my meter. He said that during the brightest part of the day that my meter would indicate one stop low but in the morning and evening it would be right on. He also said that when it was in aperture priority that it had compensation abilities that would keep it on the money at any time of the day.

I asked about adjusting the meter but he said that it was very difficult to get it exactly right and he’d recommend just leaving it as is and adjusting my ASA to .64 during the day.

 

[veriwide]

Are you developing your 35mm and 120 at the same times? Ilford has different development times for the same film at different sizes for some films. If the 35mm development time is shorter than the 120 then a simple 10% reduction may not be enough of a move to see much of a change.

Just a thought,

Parick

 

[peter38]

I'll check on that difference in devel time on the two films thanks. Everything is shot and developed I'll take my three segments of 35mm in to be evaluated tomorrow afternoon.

 

[peter38]

I re-shot my gray card at about 6:30 at night, plenty of light. I made sure that there were no reflections on the card.

I moved in close, lens set at infinity (50mm) and when I got a reading I opened up my f stops three which should bring me to Zone 8. Film is Ilford FP4. Camera 35mm.

I cut the film into three segments. I checked my temps with two thermometers, they agreed on 68 degrees.

My standard development time with D-76 at 1 to 1 is 8.5 minutes. I developed segment one at 10% less or 7 minutes 39 seconds, segment two (15%) at 7 minutes 13 seconds and the third (20%) at 6 minutes 48 seconds.

I took them in and the densitometer readings were as follows.

Film base 26

At 7m39sec Zone 6 was 184
At 7m13sec 172
At 6m48sec 167

The last time I did this test the film base was 34. Why would it be different this time? The difference between 184 and 172 is 12 and from 172 to a 67 is 5. It appears that the effect of less development time becomes less as I decrease the time????

Last time after film base was subtracted I got two separate readings for Zone 1, both were 43 which provided me with 0.1.

I am not sure if I should subtract 43 or 34 from the above numbers but even it I do it appears that I need to decrease the development time further still.

Can anyone advise me at this point? I will NOT give up until I have all this correct!

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,

Congratulations, now you are getting somewhere in your testing. To answer your questions, you need to subtract the .34 off your zone VIII density readings to arrive at a true Zone VIII density. Yes you are correct that further reductions in development time are in order. If you truly want to get this right (I encourage you to do so), then you need to shoot and develop another roll of film in the same way that you shot and developed this last roll.

I would suggest on this next roll that you again cut the roll into three segments developing the first at 5 minutes and 15 seconds, the second at 5 minutes and 45 seconds and the third segment at 6 minutes and 15 seconds. Have the densities read as you have to this point. Subtract the fb+fog from those densities and we'll see where you are when this is done.

This final test should give you densities that will allow a final development time to be determined.

While you are shooting this roll for Zone VIII development time determination, you might shoot another short roll with a Zone I through Zone XI exposure. Do not process this until your densities are read on the development time test roll.

Once the correct development time has been determined, then I would suggest that you process this short roll with the Zone I through Zone XI exposures at the development time which has been determined. Once this is done then I would suggest that you take the negatives (Zone I through Zone XI exposures and contact print this on a grade three paper (either graded or VC). This will then tell you how your densities will lie on the papers characteristic curve.

Let me know if you have questions about this procedure.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Yes, i was out with my camera and shot about one dozen times (don't remember exactly).
In my case, from a series of 6 I shot in rapid fire 3 were lost.
One (and only one) of the 4 batteries was diyng, checked with a meter.
The ones I've shot at a slow pace were OK.

Jorge O

 

[peter38]

I see that a number of replies have been posted that I wasn’t alerted to. I apologize for not responding.

Eric my friend from the Barnbaum workshop is Agnes or Aggie who has posted farther down here in this discussion. We will be meeting for lunch tomorrow but thank you for the offer of the development times.

David, I’ll try what you’re suggesting also perhaps. I’d like to see how some of this looks on graph paper. It would help me understand when I look at film and paper graphs. I understand the “toe” and “shoulder” as identifiers but not the significance of a slopped graph or a very abrupt vertical line from toe to shoulder.

As far as changing backs… I’ve been thinking about something else. I can feel when the film is almost completely wound up, leaving just a small leader or tongue exposed. I measured a roll of already exposed, developed film, and put some tape on a 12’ ruler which allowed be quite easily to segment my film into three equal portions.

I don’t see why I can’t turn any roll of 36 into three i.e. n, +n and –n, sacrificing six frames for my cuts. I could do this OR NOT with any roll of film and make my development changes on just the portion that I needed to.

I made my shots this evening i.e. one role at Zone 8 and one roll with two sequences of Zone 0 to 11. I’ll develop according to instructions and take it in for the densitometer tomorrow. Now that I am writing this it occurs to me that since I took my in camera meter readings at 6:30 at night that that perhaps I shouldn’t have left my ASA at .64. As I was told by the camera repair guy my meter will be correct in the morning and evening. But I will proceed, fingers crossed and all that.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Contrast increases with the slope of the straight line portion of the graph. A high contrast film for microfilm work, for instance, would have a slope that is nearly vertical, rendering all tones as either black or white, with very little in the middle. If you developed a conventional film for N-2, the curve would rise very slowly, reaching your normal Zone VIII density further out at Zone X.

If you can work out a system for cutting film into strips without risking frames and you don't mind leaving some blanks in there, that could work.

Another alternative is to swap rolls, rewinding and leaving the leader out between them. When I've done this, I would mark the last frame shot on the leader. The downside of this approach is increased risk of scratching and dust.

Using multiple 35mm bodies is another approach, but it means carrying around three bodies.

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
I understand what your camera repair person indicated to you about your meter not being linear (based upon time of day). I have never heard that before from anyone, anywhere. That would indicate that somehow the photocell would be affected by light color temperature or light intensity.

Light intensity, certainly. That is what meters must measure. But that would seem to indicate to me that your meter is not linear on shadow readings. But light intensity is light intensity irregardless of time of day. Now if he were speaking about reciprocity characteristics of a particular film that would make more sense. However, that is a characteristic of film and not of a camera.

If somehow the meter's photocell is not linear on color temperature that would indicate a faulty design by Nikon (I suppose that could happen)...if it were some other lesser known manufacturer I could more readily accept that premise. But Nikon???

I would wait and render judgement of the linear accuracy of the meter based upon your actual, in field, usage experience.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I also find what the guy in the shop said to be a little suspect. There are people who have 35 years of experience, and people who have a month's worth of experience 12 times a year for 35 years.

Meters often are non-linear, but it tends to be in the opposite direction from what the shop guy described. It should be accurate in full sun, but it might tend to underexpose in low light or when making stopped down readings.

Depending on the design of the meter, 0.15 volts may make a difference. Some cameras of that era had voltage regulated meters that would have no problem with a 1.5v battery, but many did not, and they would require an adapter, recalibration, or one of the Weincell Zinc-air batteries designed to replace the now illegal mercury batteries around which the camera was designed. It's worth trying a Weincell battery to see if you get better results, and then either stick with them (downside is that they don't last long) or consider having the meter recalibrated.

Also, meters of the age of the Nikkormat were indeed not linear for color temperature. That is why Nikon developed RGB metering and why Zone VI sold recalibrated Pentax Spot Meters to match the spectral sensitivity of Tri-X and similar films.

That said, I would agree with Donald, that you should base your meter settings on your own tests and field experience. That's part of the purpose of doing all the Zone system testing.

 

[peter38]

Well, OK! Just got my densitometer results back.

Film Base 31

Development Time

5 min 15 sec 131
5 min 45 sec 132
6 min 15 sec 150

So it appears that 5 min 45 sec will give me negatives that will print with a 3 filter. I was very happy to see that relationship come up. <grin> Many sincere thanks to Dan and all of you!!!!

It would be nice to know the #2 filter time too but I can live very nicely indeed with this result.

Of course I also have the other roll of film wherein I shot a sequence of Zone 0 to Zone 11 twice. My next step is to develop that roll at 5 min 45 sec and then have the densitometer give me a read on each zone and plot the results. But for the plot to have any real meaning I believe I need to plot at LEAST at +n and –n roll of film. Isn’t that true, that I need some further reference plots to give me perspective.

With the info I’ve collected at this point I believe I would guess at how much +n add –n actually are. But what are reasonable guesses on time at this point knowing what we (I mean YOU all) know?

Isn’t it true that if I really want to know something here that I would run tests and plot the curve of my paper also? How does one plot the curve of their paper?

David measuring and segmenting the film into three was surprisingly easy so that would be the route I would take. I would only loose six or so frames and at $3.10 a roll that’s not much.

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
Your results look great. You are correct in that the 5 min 45 second development time should work on grade three paper (you may need to bump it to 6 minutes...but I would leave it at 5min 45 seconds for now). The 6 min 15 second development time will work on grade two paper with a diffusion light source.

To answer your question about the curve on your paper, by developing the roll that you shot with the 0-XI exposures and developed at your determined time you will have created a step wedge calibrated to your system. Taking the grade three filtration (in the case of VC paper) or grade three on graded paper and contact printing your negatives with the zone exposures you will be able to determine the tonal correlation of those exposures and their printed scale on that grade of paper.

You should have Dmax black on Zones O through I and you should begin to see the first tonal variance (though slight) at the Zone II exposure. Zone III will be noticeably lighter. Zone V should correspond to an 18% gray card when you have the correct enlarger exposure. Moving up the scale you should have tonal variance at each step until you reach Zone IX which should be only slightly less white then Zone X (after drying down the paper.)Zone X and XI exporsures should be base paper white.

As I mentioned before, by targeting your negative density to grade three paper you will be able to work your plus and minus situations through paper grade changes. I will repeat that the reason for this is that as developing time increases so does grain. With 35 mm that is an issue.

If you want to try your short roll modified development plan (which I really don't recommend), you can use your shorter and longer development times as your plus and minus (based upon your current density measurements).

Good luck. Let us know how things work out with the next step in this process.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

 

[peter38]

Don, sorry I got your name wrong in a previous post.

Thursday I exposed a roll of FP4 to create a Zone 0 through XI. Friday I took it in and had a densitometer reading. My results were:

Base 35
Base between frames 37

Zone 0 37
I 44
II 56
III 70
IV 89
V 102
VI 126
VII 142
VIII 164
IX 178
X 192
XI 206

I wonder why the base is different between a clear frame and the clear portions between frames?

Now what I am to do, I believe, is contract print these on the paper that I use i.e. Forte, FB, Glossy. I am to see what I get and match them against an independent step scale. When they match then I will know that at that height and with that enlarger I will probably print a normal negative without much problem.

I would like to plot these values just for the experience. I went back into the Davis book but, sorry, I still find that very deep water. Is there an easier method to plot these values?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

First, subract the base + fog value from the readings, since you are only interested in image density, not the background density. Zone 0 will be 0.0, Zone I is .07, Zone II is .19, etc. if you are using .37 as your B+F value.

The reason that the space between frames might be different from a clear frame is probably due to normal sampling error, although it's possible that there really is greater density between the frames due to infectious development or some sort of adjacency effect. It's not a big deal.

Also, just so things make sense in terms of other things you might read, you should include the decimal point in your density readings. They are .37, .44, etc. through... 2.06. These are standard logarithmic units of density. A difference of .3 is equivalent to one stop. You'll notice that this is the same system that is sometimes used to describe neutral density filters--.3 is one stop or 2X, .9 is three stops or 8X, etc.

The easiest way to plot the values is to make a graph with the zones from 0 to XI along the X axis and the density values on the Y axis.

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
While you can compare a calibrated step tablet to your negatives contact printed on your photo paper, it really would serve no good purpose for your evaluation.

Instead it would prove beneficial to raise your enlarger head to the height and focused projection of an 8X10 enlargement and then contact printing your negative strips onto your chosen paper. When the proper exposure is achieved you will find that the Zone V value negative will correspond to the gray value of an 18% gray card. Don't concern yourself at this point with trying to match white values, print for maximum black, or any of the assorted and sundry methods that you have read or heard about. What we are trying to do at this point is to determine where the negative density values will match your paper grade. We will concern ourselves with determining proper print exposure after this is determined.

If you get your exposure of the 18% gray card and (Zone V) negative density contact to match then you will find that your low and high value densities will be accurately represented on the paper.

I can tell you now, that based on your exposure and your development time, this strip of exposures (as reported by your densities) will print most aptly on a grade two paper and a diffusion light source rather then the grade three that I would have hoped for.

That would indicate that you will have a printable negative, perhaps not quite optimum for 35 mm work, in my experience. The reason as I have previously stated is for grain considerations on the print, 35 mm will print a better image when the negative densities are such that they match a grade three paper.

When you have a contact of this strip of negatives on your paper, you should find black at zones I and II, marginally lighter on Zone III, progressively lighter until you reach Zone VIII and only marginally lighter (after drying the print) on Zone IX. The remainder of the upper zones should be base paper white.

If you find that your result differs then you need to adjust paper grade to create the final result, as described. Once you have completed this test you will find that in the future under similar and repeatable conditions that you will print a negative exposed the same way and developed the same way on the same grade of paper.

 

[lee]

I would suggest that Peter might consider adjusting the ei downward a bit. .07 is close but no cigar. Maybe one half a stop. That should give enough of an increase in density at zone I to satisfy the .10 requirement.

lee/c

 

[peter38]

Thanks Don. Now I know I’m going to show my ignorant butt. But allow me to see if I can rationalize what you said. The schools here by the way only have ‘condenser’ enlargers.

So you can see from the densitometer numbers that I will print best on grade 2 using a diffusion enlarger. If I understand correctly using a condenser enlarger I might indeed be able to print on grade 3?????

Originally it had appeared that calibrating my meter might mean that I’d turn my ASA all the way down to .32—it is of course presently turned to .68. So if I dialed in .50 (Does that sound right Lee?) on my ASA dial the film would be exposed slightly longer AND my development time would be shorter yet i.e. less than 5m45s.

This being the case then, roughly speaking, then my densitometer number would creep a little ways toward Zone IX or 1.43 from the present reading of 1.29 (using a base subtraction number of 35) and the same creep would occur in Zone V only a little less so because it is lower down on the scale.

But now I’m stuck. Why would increasing the density slightly of Zone VIII shift my printing to grade 3 i.e. if I’ve gotten it right to this point? What does the density have to do with the grade of paper? At grade 3 I have fewer steps of tone. I’m not sure how that correlates to a ‘density’.

I fully accept that you are right about grade 3 being the best place to print but I’m not sure I understand how I’d get there or why 1.1 indicates grade 3 if I am being at all clear.

Also, when I am contact printing my paper with these negatives do I use white light, lens stopped down two or do I put in a filter? It appears that I should use a #2 filter, right? Then I change times until I get a Zone V that matches the step chart?

Your conclusion about film, development and paper is exactly what I want to accomplish.

David, I will indeed plot my numbers. I will go ahead and try for some +n and –n times also after I finish the above experiments. I’ve only got two days left of school so I have to really use them.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Why does changing your zone VIII density change the grade of paper called for?--

The reason for measuring these densities in the first place is to enable you to match the contrast of the scene to the film and the film to the paper. A negative with a greater difference between Zone I and Zone VIII will have a longer scale and greater contrast, while a negative with a smaller difference will have a shorter scale and less contrast.

Donald's suggestion is, for 35mm, to make your negatives about one zone less contrasty than what might be considered "normal" (in other words, to use N-1 development as your normal development time) and to compensate by printing on a higher grade of paper--grade 3. The main advantage of doing this is finer grain, which is more important for 35mm than for larger formats.

 

[lee]

Peter said, "Originally it had appeared that calibrating my meter might mean that I’d turn my ASA all the way down to .32—it is of course presently turned to .68. So if I dialed in .50 (Does that sound right Lee?) on my ASA dial the film would be exposed slightly longer AND my development time would be shorter yet i.e. less than 5m45s."

Peter,
Yes, ei 50 should be about right. IF you are looking to print on Grade 3 paper then yes the development would be a little shorter. This is FP4 and I think this film is a little contraster than its faster sister HP5+. Go ahead and make a contact print sheet of the frames. Set the enlarger height to an 8x10 and leave it there for all the tests and subsequent printing. Use a grade 3 filter. Make a test strip in 2 second increments across the paper. Where the film is in contact with the paper and really look closely at the blacks in zone 0 and at the film edges. Find the first "real"or Maximum black and use that time for the contact print. Now you have a strip that should represent all the zones. If you are losing some frames to either too black or too white, look at the test strip and reevaluate your choice. If it is too black then adjust your time shorter and conversely for too white lengthen the exposure time. Remember that the zones above zone VIII will in all likelihood not show anything but white. This is to be expected and ok. There should be a difference in Zone III and zone II and a very slight difference in Zone II and zone I. Make the next print with a grade 2 paper after you run that Maximum black test again. This will show you how your camera and film and developer will react with the paper and the enlarger. good luck!

I think I might be tempted to shoot a roll of "real" images and develop them to your new time shot with the ei of 50. Use the enlarger height you were using and use the exposure time that you found for the contact prints. Let's see what happens now. Try it with the grade 3 time and grade 3 filter and then use the grade 2 filter and grade 2 time so be sure to note them and write them down. When making the real photos if a person is involved make that skin zone VI if that caucasian. To do that meter the skin and open up one stop. again good luck. You are now one your way to discovery of photography at a very different level than you were 2 weeks ago.

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

Peter,
To reply to your question of the effects of negative density on paper grades. Also to reply to your question of the combined effects of longer exposure and development time as it relates to eventually printing on grade three paper.

First of all, the higher your zone VIII (greater contrast of the negative)density the lower contrast the paper that it will be printed on. If you can picture this in your mind, proper degree of contrast that one realizes in a print is a combination of film contrast and paper contrast. Contrast is a "whole" and not two disparate parts. The film contrast and the paper contrast are irrevocably linked. Therefore if we develop a film to a Zone VIII density of approximately 1.40 we would need to decrease the paper contrast to offset the high contrast of the film negative. If we lower the film negative contrast to 1.10 then we would increase the paper contrast to bring about the desired result. I hope that this answers this question for you...please readdress the question if I have failed to explain it to your understanding.

If you were to lower your film speed to 50, you are correct in that the longer exposure would increase the low (Zone I) density. Yes it would correspondingly increase the Zone VIII density as well if your present developing time, temperature, and agitation remain the same. However what we need to do is decrease the development to decrease the higher (Zone VIII) density.

Therefore, if you decrease your film speed to 50 (increase film exposure) with Ilford FP4 and decrease your development time to 5 min 15 seconds (decrease negative contrast) you will probably find that your negatives will print on grade three paper (higher contrast paper to offset lower negative contrast).

Now the matter of evaluating the tonal range and paper grade match on your enlarging paper. This is where you are getting conflicting direction. It is possible to try several ways of evaluating this...I am not sure that they are equal in my experience. What I have found is that if I try to match maximum blacks at this stage then I am prone to making an error of as much as one zone. Why? because human eyes do not distinguish tonal variance in the darker tones as easily as they do in the higher tonal ranges. Compounding this inherent tendency is the fact that those tone lie on the papers shoulder region and are actually more closely coupled then the mid ranges. If we were to try to match the lighter tones at this point then we are dealing with a matter of better visual acuity, certainly, but the high tones are located on the papers toe...again not as well separated as the mid tones. So I stand with my earlier recommendation of getting your film negatives to match a zone V tonality to an 18% gray card. We know that Zone V should correspond to that tonality since our film is exposed for that and if the tone is too dark then we have exposed the paper too long and if too light we need to add more enlarger exposure. Once we have matched that tonality we will have a clear picture of how the other negative densities match the enlarging paper's grade selection.

If your were to match your Zone V tonality to an 18% gray card, and found that your blacks were not separated below Zone III and your whites not separated beyond Zone VII on a grade three paper then you would know that your negative contrast is too high. If you conversely found that your blacks showed noticeable tonal separation between Zone I and Zone II and that your whites showed marked tonal differentiation between Zone VIII and IX then you would know that your negative contrast is too low. These are indications that the negative development time needs to be adjusted for the paper grade selection. Another thing that I wish to stress is that one should not attempt to evaluate these tonal representations on wet paper. Paper dries down...in other words what may appear as base paper white on wet paper will dry down to a darker tone. This is more of a factor on the lighter tones then the darker tones. Please remember this exercise is not about getting a bunch of numbers down on a piece of paper or committed to memory. It is about getting a given scene luminance to a given tonal representation not on film but rather on paper.

As I previously stated, this is not about arriving at proper negative printing exposure at this time. It is about matching your negative contrast to a given grade of paper. Once this is done, then we can move on to proper printing exposure considerations for an actually photographed scene.

 

[peter38]

Thank you David and Lee. And Don, yes I was able to follow your post. Although I’ll have to admit that I’ll need to take your explanation with me tomorrow or I’m sure to go off track.

 

[peter38]

Well I went in today and printed some contacts. Good news and bad news. At 15 seconds, with a #3 filter I got what I thought was a good Zone V print—paper machine dried. But when I got home I saw that the photo company had started their read, one negative late—meaning they began to read on Zone I instead of Zone 0. That means that my Zone V densitometer reading was in fact 89 rather than 102.

So I was looking at the wrong frame (IV) when I decided 15 seconds was my burn time. But I think when I redo it tomorrow with increased times it will still come out pretty well. Burning one frame off i.e. burning for frame Zone IV instead of V I got nice incremental steps on my lower zones ( I, II & III). Though I wonder if I won’t loose at least Zone I with increased time. I got nice steps on Zone VI and VII and just a tiny hint on VIII.

I would guess that an increase of 3 to 4 seconds will give me the correct tone in the correct frame tomorrow and then I'll check my other frames and decide if I need to go to a #2 filter.

I’m sure I’ll get this tomorrow and I really want to thank all of you for your time and advice. Thank you very, very much.

 

[peter38]

Whew, well, just got home.

It appears that with a grade #3 filter that 18 seconds will give me…
1. Subtle steps between Zone V and II but that beyond that it goes to max black.
2. Subtle steps between Zone V and just a touch of tone on VIII but white after that.

Using a grade #2 filter…
1. Subtle steps between Zone V and Zone 0. Then it goes to max black.
2. Subtle steps between Zone V and Zone VIII (just a hint of tone at VIII you understand) with white after that.

So it would seem that I need to cut my development time by I think 30 seconds more to truly come into the #3 filter zone. It also seems to me that now that I have a “master” roll of negatives for a #2 filter I can go to any school and shortly after calibrate my film to that enlarger. The same would be true for paper if I were inclined to change (which I’m not but just theorizing).