I'm a Teen Looking to Learn to Develop B&W Film

Thanks Ektagraphic! Yes, I should probably get more film then—six rolls definitely isn't going to cut it for me!

I did look into film vs. airport security, and I'll certainly try and get my film hand inspected as carry-on, and if otherwise then from what I read a couple runs through the X-ray aren't the end of the world.

*duh* My chemicals were shipped to me UPS Ground because they wouldn't 2-Day Air them for obvious reasons—well that settles it. Thanks srs5694.

Nice photos, shows real talent. Maybe you could get chemicals at your destination, maybe not. Take a tank with you JIC.

Thanks for your kind words fotch

alphanikonrex said:

Thanks Ektagraphic! Yes, I should probably get more film then—six rolls definitely isn't going to cut it for me!

I did look into film vs. airport security, and I'll certainly try and get my film hand inspected as carry-on, and if otherwise then from what I read a couple runs through the X-ray aren't the end of the world.

*duh* My chemicals were shipped to me UPS Ground because they wouldn't 2-Day Air them for obvious reasons—well that settles it. Thanks srs5694.

Click to expand...

I've sent 100 speed film through carry-on scanners up to 8 times (mostly out of curiosity) before with no evidence of fogging. Film under ISO1600 should be fine in a carry-on scanner, at least the ones in the US airports.

Yes, I should be fine at the airport, worst comes to worst.

I'm really enjoying using my F2, but I feel like I'm missing something. I'm thinking about getting a used 105mm ƒ/2.5 from Adorama along with my film order, just as a second lens to have, as I really miss that tele.

I also have a question about push-processing, because I may want to push my film a stop or two while on vacation if the lighting calls for it. What exactly do you do? What part of the developing do you do different, and what are the results like? Is it something that I'd be ready to play with when I get back, or something I should wait on...thanks everyone

To push process set your ISO on camera for the desired speed, then find what development times are recommended for that speed. Then go forth and process!

The results are generally more grainy and contrasty, the more you push the more grain and contrast.

For example, this is HP5 at 1600 in broad daylight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirtyolechris/3708916851/

Push processing is different than rerating your film.

Rerating your film only affects exposure across the board, by putting incorrect information into your exposure calculation (making for a built-in exposure compensation).

Pushing is simply developing your film to increase its contrast.

The two need not go hand in hand, as is often stated. I often push process when I can get perfectly fine exposures, because I want to increase contrast while refraining from underexposing my film. Other times, I push when I needed to underexpose to get a shot in order to take it sharply. It has many uses, and need not be tied to exposure index in any way.

Thanks Chris, beautiful image BTW!

@2F/2F: Yes, you're right that rerating film and processing are separate things and are not directly connected—one can be done without the other. I thought I understood last time, but I realize that I'm still grasping exactly what kind of negatives I will get by controlling these variable.

MattKing said:

4) If you give the film too much development, the parts of the negative relating to the dark parts of the scene won't be strongly affected, but the parts of the negative relating to the light parts of the scene will be more "thick" than they should be, resulting in high contrast negatives and prints with loss of details in the highlights.

Click to expand...

So by push-processing, which I believe is described in the quote, I'm effectively bringing the highlights from their underexposed thinness up to a more "appropriate" correctly exposed thickness, while the shadows are basically left alone (which is the loss in shadow detail). Correct?

And I'm assuming this is the chart I'll use for the push-processing times (found in the Tri-X Technical Data sheet):


BTW, something occurred to me while reading the blurb on push-processing. It says "Because of these films’ exposure latitude, you can underexpose by one stop and use normal processing times." Is my F2 Photomic's meter really off by a stop? Or when I set it to ISO800 and processed the normally did I actually push-process the film?

alphanikonrex said:

Thanks Chris, beautiful image BTW!

@2F/2F: Yes, you're right that rerating film and processing are separate things and are not directly connected—one can be done without the other. I thought I understood last time, but I realize that I'm still grasping exactly what kind of negatives I will get by controlling these variable.



So by push-processing, which I believe is described in the quote, I'm effectively bringing the highlights from their underexposed thinness up to a more "appropriate" correctly exposed thickness, while the shadows are basically left alone (which is the loss in shadow detail). Correct?

And I'm assuming this is the chart I'll use for the push-processing times (found in the Tri-X Technical Data sheet):

BTW, something occurred to me while reading the blurb on push-processing. It says "Because of these films’ exposure latitude, you can underexpose by one stop and use normal processing times." Is my F2 Photomic's meter really off by a stop? Or when I set it to ISO800 and processed the normally did I actually push-process the film?

Click to expand...

If you process normally, you are not pushing. How you expose the film is completely unrelated to how you develop it, but often people expose with the intention of developing differently.

When you read "Because of these films’ exposure latitude, you can underexpose by one stop and use normal processing times," it simply means that your negatives will still be printable (to a certain degree) even if you underexpose by up to a stop (and develop normally). I don't know how you connected that to your meter being off by a stop.

Let's just be clear on a few things. You are mixing up metering, exposing, and developing. These are three separate things which need to be talked about separately for you to properly understand them.

You can meter a shot however you like. Until you are comfortable with properly exposing and then developing film, it is best to meter shots using an EI to match your film's speed. This will ensure that, if everything else goes properly, the negatives will come out well. You will change the ASA on your meter's dial when you want to intentionally over- or under-expose the film, which may or may not be accompanied by a change in development, depending on the scenario.

Exposing the film is often done at the value the meter tells you to. As you become familiar with film, you'll encounter scenarios when you know the exposure suggested won't give you the negative you want. When you do diverge, you could do it for several reasons. One is to get faster shutter speeds in low light. This is often accompanied by push-processing to bring the underexposed highlights into a more printable range. Another reason is simply to move values around, say, to make white snow grayer. This might not be accompanied by any change in development.

Push-processing increases the contrast of the negative. It is done by increasing development time. This is often used to compensate for underexposure, but the two do not have to go together. The opposite is pull-processing, used to decrease contrast. The times given to you in the chart are good starting points for pushing. As you gain experience, you may find yourself with reason to change those times; the reason for change will be based on personal preference for the quality of the negative.

I hope things are a little clearer now.

Thanks for all the clarifications, Poohblah, it really is a big help to me

And sorry about the confusion regarding the meter—I just did the daylight ƒ/16 test and it will not give me the proper 1/500 reading I should be getting unless I set it to ASA800. I still wasn't sure until now about whether my meter really was off-calibration, so when I read that sentence I thought that maybe my meter was correct and I was actually underexposing, yet the images came out fine (actually better) because of the wide exposure latitude. "Pushing" was the wrong word to use in that case as I was not changing my development, my bad, sorry!

alphanikonrex said:

Thanks for all the clarifications, Poohblah, it really is a big help to me

And sorry about the confusion regarding the meter—I just did the daylight ƒ/16 test and it will not give me the proper 1/500 reading I should be getting unless I set it to ASA800. I still wasn't sure until now about whether my meter really was off-calibration, so when I read that sentence I thought that maybe my meter was correct and I was actually underexposing, yet the images came out fine (actually better) because of the wide exposure latitude. "Pushing" was the wrong word to use in that case as I was not changing my development, my bad, sorry!

Click to expand...

The sunny f/16 rule is anything but hard-and-fast. The brightness of a daylight scene depends on many, many things, but f/16 is just a general rule of thumb. Actually, it sounds as if your meter is doing just fine (especially considering how old it is).

Poohblah said:

Actually, it sounds as if your meter is doing just fine (especially considering how old it is).

Click to expand...

Wait—what? "Fine" as in?

All I know is that my first two rolls which I had the camera set to ASA400 my images were all on the over-exposed side, and after switching the meter to ASA800 for my third roll I got results that I was much happier with, and seemed to have a better balance of blacks, grays, and whites.

alphanikonrex said:

Wait—what? "Fine" as in?

All I know is that my first two rolls which I had the camera set to ASA400 my images were all on the over-exposed side, and after switching the meter to ASA800 for my third roll I got results that I was much happier with, and seemed to have a better balance of blacks, grays, and whites.

Click to expand...

I mean that if you're metering a daylight scene and the meter tells you to expose 800 speed film at 1/500 and f/16, your meter is not far off, if at all. You can test it against a calibrated handheld meter, but if I were you I wouldn't worry about it. Just keep developing rolls. If there is a glaring error, it will show itself. Two (differently exposed) rolls at are not enough to judge; there are too many variables. And if you're happier with your negatives exposed with the ASA dial at 800, then by all means, continue to do so. In photography, the ends often justify the means.

Ahhh, OK

Yes, you're right, if I prefer it like this then that's the way to go!

Thanks for clarifying that

Welcome to APUG!

Steve