I'm getting really thin negs...help :)

Hi!

So. My issue is very thin negs (almost transparent and impossible to scan). I'll try and explain my setup:

Film: 4x5 Fomapan 100
Developer: Ilfosol 3
Stop: EcoStop
Fix: EcoFix
Rinse: water and final with PhotoFlow

Shot with:
Speed Graflex
Handheld lightmeter

Ok. So I just made a test with the above. The subject being a plant, shot indoors with even light distributed by window:

I measured the light with settings on ISO 100.
The measured values where: 1/8 on 11.

1) I then did one exposure as: 1/8 on 11.
2) And another one as: 1sec on 11.

I pre-soaked for 5 minutes. Then developed the whole thing in Ilfosol 3 (one shot) at 1:9. 6 minutes. All chemicals at 20 degrees Celsius. Stop. Fix and Rinse. Dried them. The result was:

1) Almost transparent with very little visible information.
2) Much much closer to a usable neg with visible information. But not quite there.

What I'm looking for is to figure out where in my process I should adjust. Am I developing for too short a time? The lightmeter is working fine - but could I be doing something wrong when exposing? The lens seem to operate perfectly. The one bit of information I have on Fomapan in Ilfosol 3, is from the Massive Chart. One entry states 5 minutes at 1:9. Mine was, as noted above, at 6 minutes.

Any help is appreciated, and please do tell if I'm missing vital information.

All the best,

Kim

DISCLAIMER... My old account is no longer in use - I say this so you won't get the idea that I made this account for the purpose of firing off requests for help. I'm a long time user of APUG - both answering and questioning

Try to shoot one color negative and develop in lab - so that you are sure that camera and light meter are ok. Also if possible buy some cheap developer (Rodinal for example) and develop one test negative.
Pre-soak 5 minutes - why so long?
Fomapan is not old and expired?

When I look at the massive dev chart I only see times for Fomapan 100 in sheet form for Ilfosol S, not Ilfosol 3. Could the problem be that you need times for Ilfosol 3?

Duncan

Your chemicals are at 20C but is your tank/reels/film much cooler, in which case the chemical temperature goes down as soon as you add the chemicals and you get underdevelopment? I had this problem and pre-warming (or pre-cooling) the tank/reels/film in a small insulated cooler and placing the tank in the cooler between agitations (for 135 and 120 film), made all the difference. Using a digital thermometer with a wire probe in the cooler, and pots of warm and cool water, enable you to maintain the right cooler water temperature.

This approach works well with color developing as well, which requires good temperature control for the developer step.

darkosaric:

Pre-soak for 5 minutes was something I picked up along the way, could this have an impact on my problem? Regarding colour negs....I do them on a regular basis and they turn out perfect all the time. The Fomapan should be fine. It says 2017-10 on the label.

frobozz:

I found it here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+100&Developer=Ilfosol+3&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C

mklw1954:

The room I'm working in is at a constant 19-21 degress Celcius. I don't think this is the problem, but I'll make sure to troubleshoot.

Thanks for your replies all of you. I don't know how to make a reply with multiple quotes. Will try and figure out though. Could it be that the developing time is just completely off?

Huh - the online chart does indeed show Ilfosol 3. The app on my iPhone just has Ilfosol S.

When you overexposed by 3 stops, you got almost reasonable negatives. Seems like you'd have to add quite a bit of developing time to fix it that way, if that is what you are thinking is wrong! I like the idea of exposing a film and using a developer that is known to be good (eg a color neg and developed at a lab) just to rule out lightmeter or shutter problems.

Duncan

My first question, how close were you to your subject? If you were focused closer than infinity, you forgot to add bellows factor. When adding bellows factor, would the exposure then require additional time for reciprocity factor? If light source was tungsten, did you consider adding exposure(some films are rated half listed speed for tungsten)?
What was your developing temperature? Did you temper your tank and chemicals to same temp?
Is your light meter accurate? I've had issues with a meter that consistently read one full stop under what it should have been.
Have you done a complete personal ISO test for your film/meter/camera combo?

I'd also mention that the MDC can be a lottery.

pdeeh said:

I'd also mention that the MDC can be a lottery.

Click to expand...

Absolutely

Frobozz:

Light meter and shutter is not the problem...I make colour-negs/lab-developed on a weekly basis on the same outfit and they turn out just right.

Rick A:

I have a lot of bellows left but how can I calculate bellowsfactor - this is interesting though I already overexposed by three stops in the test.
The lightsource was natural light (sun).
Temperature at 20 Celcius, both chemicals, room and tank.
Lightmeter working and accurate.
I haven't made a iso test for my combo and haven't actually heard of the term. Is there any guides on this? If so, where should I look?

Again, thanks guys! I have a feeling I'll figure this out somehow. I haven't had problems at all with colour negs and lab.

Whats an MDC?

I'm not familiar with this film but..... does it have any print on the edge, like 35mm and 120 films have? Like the brand and/or film type?
If it does, is that print strong and clearly visible, i.e. dark black on the negative?
If it is, then this shows that your development process is probably OK and something is wrong with the exposure.
But if the print is very faint, that shows that the film is under-developed.

cattonizer said:

Whats an MDC?

Click to expand...

MDC = Massive Dev Chart.

the MDC is drawn from a variety of sources - some times are from manufacturers' datasheets (which might be out of date because they refer to older versions of the emulsion), others are from data submitted from users. Anyone can submit data to the MDC. But the times (say) I submit and the times (say) Rick submits for the same film in the same developer might be wildly at variance because we have different cameras, different meters, different agitation regimes, and most of all, different eyes and different preferences as to the kind of negatives we like.

If you have nothing else better to get a starting time from, the MDC is better than nothing. But it isn't "official" or anything like the "final word" on a developing time - you should always start with the manufacturers' datasheets, and those too are also only a starting point.

According to my reciprocity app, Fomapan 100 needs 3 seconds if it metered at 1. Up to that, the metered time is fine. That doesn't solve why the metered 1/8 at f11 wasn't better, though. I've found that metering 100 ASA/ISO as if it were 80 gets me closer.
Usually, the times for Ilfosol 3 are shorter than those for the older version. I know it stays stable a bit better, but was it an already opened bottle?

As soon as you said you photographed a plant, forgetting the bellows extension factor came to mind. Perhaps you didn't compensate for that? The formula is: Bellows extension squared, divided by lens focal length squared. Multiply your exposure by the resulting number. I just measure from the middle of the lens, back to the ground glass to get extension.
Are you sure shooting at box speed is giving you enough density for zone I? Do simple tests to determine that making sure you are focusing at infinity... just to eliminate that variable. You should be able to find a lot of info on the net about conducting such tests. Also try to eliminate reciprocity effect when doing them.

Your negatives are much too thin in both the shadows and the highlights.

If adding a bunch of exposure gets you closer to a good negative, then I would opine that your problem is with exposure.

I would say something different if your problem was with contrast - decent shadows but not enough build up of density in the highlights.

cattonizer said:

Frobozz:

Light meter and shutter is not the problem...I make colour-negs/lab-developed on a weekly basis on the same outfit and they turn out just right.

Rick A:

I have a lot of bellows left but how can I calculate bellowsfactor - this is interesting though I already overexposed by three stops in the test.
The lightsource was natural light (sun).
Temperature at 20 Celcius, both chemicals, room and tank.
Lightmeter working and accurate.
I haven't made a iso test for my combo and haven't actually heard of the term. Is there any guides on this? If so, where should I look?

Again, thanks guys! I have a feeling I'll figure this out somehow. I haven't had problems at all with colour negs and lab.

Whats an MDC?

Click to expand...

Bellows factor is the length of bellows at close focus versus the bellows length with a specific lens focused at infinity. If you are using a 150mm lens, the focus point at infinity is 150mm. This is the distance between film and focal node of the lens. If you focus at less than infinity of the lens, the bellows will need to be extended, requiring more light to make up for it. Say you use the 150mm lens, and the bellows is extended to 300mm to focus on the subject, you will need twice the amount of light to attain the correct exposure for the reading you took. Your exposure was 1/8@f/11, then double that, 1/4@f/11. At least that's my simplified version of it. There are several threads on bellows factor, and I'm sure you can google it and find better explanations than mine.

I agree with Matt. It's an exposure issue.

And if you are scanning, you should cater your negatives to that way of output. I heard that thinner negatives are desired...

Was the film loaded backwards? If so, then your exposure would be reduced by the anti-halation backing, which might cause some of the trouble.

Bill Burk said:

Was the film loaded backwards? If so, then your exposure would be reduced by the anti-halation backing, which might cause some of the trouble.

Click to expand...

Great thought Bill, that would definitely account for the need to triple the exposure.

Alright, a lot of good replies Thanks a bunch. I think this is a case of missing out on both bellow extension as well as reciprocity. I just measured the filmplan > lens at the exposures I listed in the original post. it measured 200mm and the lens is a 135mm. This should make for some of the under-exposure I guess. Then there's the reciprocity.

So...lets say I have the following scenario:

Bellows are extended to 200mm film to lens. The lens is a 135mm. I'm metering 2sec/16.0 at iso 100. The film is fomapan 100. As far as I can tell reciprocity on Fomapan 100 equals 2sec need an actual 7sec. Adding to this is the extended bellows. How is the two factors combined?

Someone mentioned that the film could be loaded backwards...They should be loaded the correct way I'm sure.

EDIT: I guess the correct way is 1) measure 2) adjusting for bellows 3) adjusting for reciprocity, in that order?

When you take a light reading, exclude the sky and your negatives will become denser.

Also load your film frontwards, not backwards.

cattonizer said:

Alright, a lot of good replies Thanks a bunch. I think this is a case of missing out on both bellow extension as well as reciprocity. I just measured the filmplan > lens at the exposures I listed in the original post. it measured 200mm and the lens is a 135mm. This should make for some of the under-exposure I guess. Then there's the reciprocity.

So...lets say I have the following scenario:

Bellows are extended to 200mm film to lens. The lens is a 135mm. I'm metering 2sec/16.0 at iso 100. The film is fomapan 100. As far as I can tell reciprocity on Fomapan 100 equals 2sec need an actual 7sec. Adding to this is the extended bellows. How is the two factors combined?

Someone mentioned that the film could be loaded backwards...They should be loaded the correct way I'm sure.

EDIT: I guess the correct way is 1) measure 2) adjusting for bellows 3) adjusting for reciprocity, in that order?

Click to expand...

Your EDIT is correct.

If the purpose of your exercise is to calibrate your processing, you might want to use a subject that doesn't require bellows extension.

IIRC, anything at least 10x the lens' focal length should work as a subject distance.

Also, IIRC, others have pointed out that Fomapan's reciprocity failure characteristics are fairly extreme.

Try

http://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100

Try shot of dog, wife, kid or front of house sunny side f/16.

If you hold up neg to light you need to have silver in shadow you want detail in. Foma will burn highlights readily but you need contrast as well as shadow detail.

Fomapan 100 (in 35mm) has a ISO close to 125 in Micophen or Rodinal my usage so the data sheet is reasonable.

Stock Microphen is reasonable contrast per data sheet, I use one hour stand 1+100 @20c Rodinal for more contrast.

Stay out of reciprocity failure until you have a good negative.

Xmas said:

Try

http://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100

Try shot of dog, wife, kid or front of house sunny side f/16.

If you hold up neg to light you need to have silver in shadow you want detail in. Foma will burn highlights readily but you need contrast as well as shadow detail.

Fomapan 100 (in 35mm) has a ISO close to 125 in Micophen or Rodinal my usage so the data sheet is reasonable.

Stock Microphen is reasonable contrast per data sheet, I use one hour stand 1+100 @20c Rodinal for more contrast.

Stay out of reciprocity failure until you have a good negative.

Click to expand...

You mention that "Foma will burn highlights readily". Can you explain this? Does this mean that it's definition in the highlights is difficult to accomplish with Fomapan?