Ilford Films Are Too Contrasty > New Film(s) Needed
-
A
- Thread starter DF
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
Forum statistics
Nah, he's just a Q Anon troll
Here is no need for contrast film. Film is not final image. Contrast is something which is easily added on final image.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
ney
you should be processing your film in xtol or lighten up in your agitation. that should take care of your contrast.
you should be processing your film in xtol or lighten up in your agitation. that should take care of your contrast.
Well according to his profile page we haven't seen him since Nov 10 so 27 days and counting so I am not sure how he has got useful information?
If that was his intention then as Lachlan says, the way he framed his question was at the very least unfortunate. However as long as all we respondents have enjoyed having largely the same "bar conversation" that we have had since time began then at least we may have gotten something out of it.
In these socially isolated times conversing with others even on a forum via posts provides social contact of a useful kind.
Do you suppose that the OP is an expert "ice-breaker" who has the skill to pitch a question about a subject in such a way that we are animated enough to interact without destroying our existing relationships?
He is perhaps an enabler and learned his trade as a marriage guidance counsellor whose success is judged by the two parties leaving the counsellor with a plan for the future and cementing their relationship by a mutual feeling of being convinced that they solved their own problem and didn't need the counsellor at all?
Or have I just got that vaguely euphoric "all,is right with the world now it's Friday afternoon "
pentaxuser, singing in the rain
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 585
Yes, of course my exposure times out in the field and development time/agitation rapidity are called into question, and it is up to me, as anyone else, to find my own recipe that will produce desired results, as apart from the standard " 11 minutes 1 : 1 D-76 for FP4....etc...."
Kentmere 100 has a nice mid-tone range - just wish it wasn't so grainy.
Kentmere 100 has a nice mid-tone range - just wish it wasn't so grainy.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,950
- Format
- 8x10 Format
All felines eat humans. All mushrooms are poisonous. All Ilford films are high contrast. All nonsense.
Yes it could be many factor of which you have cited one and asked for the OP to provide more information but the OP to whom your address your questions seems to not be there( see #30) so the questions are being ignored. In the meantime the thread is succeeding in getting us annoyed with each other to no good effect
pentaxuser
He answered #31. He posted the question Wednesday and today is Friday...
We all have been there. As you grow in practice you will realize there is no perfect answer and your tastes may change over time. But every decision about each step comes into play for the final result. That is why many of us switch to larger formats so we can control one sheet at a time vs a wide range of tones/contrast on a roll. You also have not mentioned how you print/scan. For Scanning you may want a flatter negative than you would for enlarging. If wet printing on variable contrast paper you can usually control contrast with filters.
Roll film is harder to make changes and notice them unless you do controlled test shots by keeping a setup in your backyard that you light and expose the same way for every new roll you shoot, take 3-5 images then shoot the rest of the roll as you wish. Then you can alter your development process and see what it does for those control images.
My apologies for my mistake on dates which fatso has kindly pointed out to me. All I can say is that I had used the shortcut of looking at your profile page and usually there is a "last seen" date given. However in your case what I had ;picked up on was your membership date in very faint letters which was 10 Nov 2012 and without looking has assume this was 10 Nov 2020
Sometimes there seems to be a last seen date on the profile and at other times there is nothing for reasons I do not understand. I hope this explains my mistake for which I apologise.
Fatso referred me to your post #31 which appears more like a statement than a question so can I ask: Are you interested in continuing to use Ilford films such as Kentmere which has "nice mid tones but is grainy I note you mention Ilford times for FP4+ with D76 but it was not clear to me if this was to reinforce your point on llford needing lower contrast films.
It may simply be that your thread was to express a point of view about Ilford films contrast and ask for our views which have been given
pentaxuser
Then perhaps cut back development a bit if contrast is too high to your liking? Or, if you don't like the rendition of Ilford films (although they're all quite different and there's no uniform "Ilford look" in my view), simply move on to another brand. Have you given tmax 100 and 400 a try yet? It doesn't get more linear than those.
I've shot mostly on Ilford film and it's never been contrasty - except on one occasion when I developed a roll of FP4 plus in HC110 at dilution B. It was my first go at HC-110 and all I can think of is that the temp was inadvertently higher than 20C over the short developing time. It's not displeasing, either: not to me, anyway. It was at the height of summer and I found that the foliage took on an 'infra-red' look. I need to try the same film / developer again but keeping a better check on temp to see if it happens again.
Pentax MX, Pentax SMC-M 50mm f1.7 lens.
--
Regds,
R.
Attachments
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I've never exposed or developed Ilford film...or any manufacturer's film... according to their data. I always expose HP5 at EI 250, and use my own development time. I bet if you take any film out there and expose at box speed, and develop with their times, they'd be contrasty.
MattKing
Moderator
I'd be willing to bet the various posters on this thread have different perceptions of "contrasty".
Only those who photograph step wedges and measure the results with densitometers are likely to reach a consensus, and what would be the fun in that?
Box speed is designed to give pleasing prints from commercially processed film printer in automatic printers. It tends to slightly favour mid-tone and highlight rendition over shadow rendition, because that is what most print observers respond mostly to.
That weighting may result in slightly darker shadows, which may be what the OP is confusing with contrast.
Only those who photograph step wedges and measure the results with densitometers are likely to reach a consensus, and what would be the fun in that?
Box speed is designed to give pleasing prints from commercially processed film printer in automatic printers. It tends to slightly favour mid-tone and highlight rendition over shadow rendition, because that is what most print observers respond mostly to.
That weighting may result in slightly darker shadows, which may be what the OP is confusing with contrast.
It might be that it would be easier for the OP to either darkroom print with a grade 1 or 0 filter or use the miracle of scanning which at the press of a few buttons seems able to do almost anything within reason to a scan of the negative
pentaxuser
"within reason" seems to be the key phrase-- I typically scan with as wide a histogram as possible which results in a slightly "flatter" image, but if all Ilford films are too "contrasty", it sounds like there's a problem in the process somewhere, either metering, exposure, or developing-- or all of the above.
Some sample images of what he considered "too contrasty" might be nice, along with perhaps some examples of what he considered "good midtones".
But like Drew, blanket statements tend to put my hackles up. Blanket statements without evidence tend to be dismissed.
Some sample images of what he considered "too contrasty" might be nice, along with perhaps some examples of what he considered "good midtones".
But like Drew, blanket statements tend to put my hackles up. Blanket statements without evidence tend to be dismissed.
Absolutely! In the days before modern communications I didn't understand why my negs were difficult to print. I had faith in the manufacturers' advice, and no access to enlightened users all over the world. Now, more exposure, less development and all is good.
Incidentally, don't we see regular posts complaining that HP5+ is not contrasty enough?
Both HP5+ and FP4+ are way too low in contrast at box speed and Ilford's recommended normal development...with HP5+ being too low to correct easily in many circumstances. But that's just because of my specific needs. I hope I never have to try to make a print through an enlarger with one of my negatives exposed and developed for carbon printing (DR around 2.8 to 3).
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |