I'm normal!

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Finally, stopping to try everything haphazardly has paid off substantially: I have a normal procedure for 35mm that is dependable and reliable!

For my Spotmatic F, on Tri-X in XTOL 1+1, I have done an EI test, and a development test. I have now an EI of 250, a development time of 8mins, and when I make a proper proof on grade 2, I can see which negatives are properly exposed, and which are over/under. I have settled on a simple metering technique using the camera's TTL centerweighted meter, and it's enough to give me negatives that are properly exposed.

I have now a position on my enlarger, an aperture, and an exposure time to make proof sheets that work each time.

For a negative that is properly exposed, regardless of whether it's a low contrast scene or a high contrast scene, I need about 13-15s at f5.6 for an 8x10 with my 50mm lens.

If the contrast is normal, I need a Grade 2.5, as the tone scale of a G2 print is not "normal" enough to my eyes.

If the subject is less contrasty, then from 3 to 4. I don't really need lower grades because I try to avoid extreme contrast ranges (e.g. black cats in shadows + white dog in the sun).

I develop, stop, and fix my paper according to a fixed sequence, but I know the effect of agitating more (a tad more contrast), or developing longer (midtones/shadows darkening), which I can use for further refinement.

That means I can now do a workprint in just the time it takes to put it in the easel, expose, and process. Heck, I could print my photos as fast as the minilab! If I care about a photo, now I can start from a reliable workprint, and gradually refine it. Otherwise, I have a pretty picture that I can file for later thinking.

And I thought I was so smart to have all these different cameras, films, film developers, papers, and paper developers! In a way, having them gave me an insight into other possibilities, and I'm glad that they're stashed for later. But I understand a little bit more now how useful it is to have an entire chain that works, and that you can tailor according to the circumstances: now I can finally think about something else than the technique!
 

Jerevan

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
2,258
Location
Germany/Sweden
Format
Large Format
Sounds great. Experimentations is nice, but a good standard process is worth a lot- it makes any problems more obvious when they crop up. Another thing I've found (pretty obvious) is my own need for shooting a whole roll of film in the same light - it all makes it easier to see what works and not. Looking back, I can see the 120 being much more consistent (shorter rolls) compared to 35 mm.
 

John Bragg

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,039
Location
Cornwall, UK
Format
35mm
Thats pretty much what I have done. Moved away from my normal dev. HC-110, and gone through all sorts, then coming back to square one, HC-110 again, and refining my personal Ei and dev time. I too print on G 2 1/2 since it is slap bang in the middle of the paper,s contrast range and looks "RIGHT" to me !

Regards, John.
 

Mick Fagan

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
4,425
Location
Melbourne Au
Format
Multi Format
I think almost all of us have been there, done that.

We all have to experiment and push to the limit, pull back, then settle for what we really like, and can really do well.

Mick.
 
OP
OP

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,794
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format

I often saw people saying that people in large/medium format tailor their normal development for G2, while 35mm people tailor theirs for G2.5-3. Maybe that's because of the enlargement factor and what it does to gradations.

One thing that's tempting now is to make comparisons again, by redoing an EI + N test for a different developer/film combo....
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…