More contrast from batch of cheap B&W film

[Xícara]

Hello, Mid-year, I bought 10 or more rolls of cheap no-name B&W film. The film is rated at 400 ISO and is meant to be developed in the same manner as Kodak T-Max 400. So far I've just shot and developed a couple of rolls, because the negatives appear to have a very low density and low contrast. If I give more development time than the recommended, will that improve the result and if so, by what percentage should I increase the development time?

Here is a scan of a typical frame:

Thanks!

 

[tezzasmall]

If your scan supplied is actually close to your actual print = presuming you have made a print? (You don't mention doing so...), a slight up in contrast with a bigger grade filter and maybe a bit more exposure of the print would help.

If you have just done a scan, I have just used the AUTO LEVELS button and it came out a lot better, for which a link is attached.

Terry S

 

[Xícara]

Thanks, I haven't yet made any prints from these negatives (I have been printing now for all of 3 weeks!). Yes, adjusting levels in software sometimes makes these negatives usable, but not always and I'd hoped to get a better result at the negative stage - but I'll try and print soon and use longer times and high contrast filters.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is analog subforum. So, to have more contrast add contrast filter on exposure of the negative or add contrast filter on exposure of the print.

 

[tezzasmall]

Hello, Mid-year, I bought 10 or more rolls of cheap no-name B&W film. The film is rated at 400 ISO and is meant to be developed in the same manner as Kodak T-Max 400. So far I've just shot and developed a couple of rolls, because the negatives appear to have a very low density and low contrast. If I give more development time than the recommended, will that improve the result and if so, by what percentage should I increase the development time?

Here is a scan of a typical frame:

View attachment 213851 View attachment 213851

Thanks!

OP: Going back to your original question...

To increase the contrast of the negative in processing, one generally adds about 10% to the development time, which will also up the contrast on the negatives but only do this if after printing some of the ones you have now and are still not happy with the final prints made with a higher contrast filter. Personally, after the fix I showed you, to me the picture looks fine, so will probably print fine. Beware though, that increasing the development time will generally also increase the grain size to a degree. Various combinations of film and developer give different results, so try it and see if the advise I can give you.

Best of luck with your printing.

Terry S

 

[btaylor]

So you really know little about the film. Looks like you need to experiment with exposure and development times. After some frustration using Freestyle’s Arista 200 film at the rated ISO and recommended development times I ended up rating it at 50 and increasing development 20% to get a good negative. Kodak Tmax 100 on the other hand worked perfectly for me at rated ISO and recommended development times.

 

[removed account4]

Hello, Mid-year, I bought 10 or more rolls of cheap no-name B&W film. The film is rated at 400 ISO and is meant to be developed in the same manner as Kodak T-Max 400. So far I've just shot and developed a couple of rolls, because the negatives appear to have a very low density and low contrast. If I give more development time than the recommended, will that improve the result and if so, by what percentage should I increase the development time?

Here is a scan of a typical frame:

View attachment 213851 View attachment 213851

Thanks!

hey xícara
btaylor is on the money !

i always favor over expose a little bit ...
are all the frames with sky like this one ?
your meter might have been fooled by reading the sky
and telling you to under expose your film ...
lots of bright sky or snow or beach scenes tend to fool light meters,,,
in any case i'd 1/2 the iso and add 30% extra developing ..
have a great new year !
john
ps great photo and great flickr feed ! ( i love 1972 vw bugs )

 

[koraks]

in any case i'd 1/2 the iso and add 30% extra developing ..

Yes, that's what I would do in this case as well. The shadows look a little thin, so increase exposure by a stop or so. To increase contrast in the negative, give more development. 10% more as tezzasmall suggests is really very minimal; I'd go for something like 30% or even 50% more development to make a real difference.

But as others have pointed out: I'd print these first to see what changes are necessary. Scanning only tells you so much. In general, scanners tend to deal a little better with thin negatives with weak shadow contrast than optical enlargements, hence I would improve both aspects in this case if your intent is to optically print these negatives.

 

[newcan1]

You can take some of the guesswork out by shooting a roll and doing bracketed exposures: say 50, 100, 200, 400 ISO for each subject. Then assess the negatives after development and assess what the true ISO of the film is based on the density of the negatives. The film may be expired, and may have lost speed. In my experience, film can lose actual speed (ISO) upon ageing, and it can lose apparent speed because it takes longer to develop. If you do a bracketed exposure test and get good density but low contrast with the best ISO negatives, then you can do another bracketed test and give increased (say 20%) development time. Hopefully you won't run out of film before you discover the optimal results!

 

[ic-racer]

If I give more development time than the recommended, will that improve the result and if so, by what percentage should I increase the development time?

This graph is for T-max 400. It might provide a rough guide. It shows roughly 1:1 ratio for development time and contrast index for non-diluted developers. So, if you want contrast index up by 20%, increase development time 20%.

 

[Xícara]

Thanks a very much everyone. Halving the ISO is something I'm actually currently trying with a roll in a Minox 35GT - actually quartering it - it's at ISO100, but I'll shoot the rest of at 200 and develop with the conservative end of korak's sugestion, at 30% more development.

just saw newcan1's post - that's interesting that a film can lose film speed with ageing. I have actually tried ISO200 before - to me, the contrast was also still low (which was the logic behind trying 100 on the current roll). I'm pretty sure the following was shot at 200 (and jnanian, it happens to be another VW) - it still, to me, lacks contrast:

 

[koraks]

it still, to me, lacks contrast:

Yes, that makes sense. Exposure only determines the density in the shadows, while development determines contrast.

 

[Xícara]

Hi, I thought I'd report back with some test photos at ISOs 25 through to 400. The following are raw scans (made for scientific purposes only!) of the 400 ISO film developed for 30% more than the recommended time. I think the best negative is at ISO 25! I wonder if you agree and if you think I should go up to 50% extra time on the next roll to increase the contrast even more? The camera was a Minox 35 GT. Here they are:

ISO 400

ISO 200

ISO 100

ISO 50

ISO 25

 

[pentaxuser]

If these are a true reflection of the negs at various speeds then I'd pick the EI 25 as the best. If your developer time is correct for this no name 400 film then this stuff is in no way 400 film. Unless you are happy with losing 4 stops I'd ditch this film. A film rated at 25 for most of the time in the U.K. has severe limitations but in sunny Brazil may be OK. This stuff looks as if it would fail to meet the U.K.'s Trade Descriptions Act as 400 film .

If it were I, then unless this is was the best I could get without creating severe money problems for myself, I'd buy a decent fresh film and fresh developer and enjoy my photography even if it meant taking less photos

pentaxuser

 

[Xícara]

If these are a true reflection of the negs at various speeds then I'd pick the EI 25 as the best. If your developer time is correct for this no name 400 film then this stuff is in no way 400 film. Unless you are happy with losing 4 stops I'd ditch this film. A film rated at 25 for most of the time in the U.K. has severe limitations but in sunny Brazil may be OK. This stuff looks as if it would fail to meet the U.K.'s Trade Descriptions Act as 400 film .

If it were I, then unless this is was the best I could get without creating severe money problems for myself, I'd buy a decent fresh film and fresh developer and enjoy my photography even if it meant taking less photos

pentaxuser

Thanks and well yes, I won't be using this for anything too important, but with seven rolls left, it may come in handy for something, on a sunny day! It was in Paris that I bought the film - I'm sure it would break a few EU regulations as well....

 

[pentaxuser]

I should have added that in picking the EI 25 as the best, it was very good at that speed. So if you have 7 rolls and the right light levels for an EI 25 film then, yes, I'd use it as well rather than throw it out. By ditching I meant that I would not bother buying more of it.

Branded film such as Ilford, Kodak, Foma is easy to get in Europe and if it is difficult to get and/or is expensive in Brazil then that is a shame. You have my sympathies

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

and jnanian, it happens to be another VW

SWEET !
wish we had a lot of vintage vw's around here
( some people call them "slug bugs" cause you see one and you punch the person next to you in the arm )
personally i think it looks really nice, smooth tonality.
having a lot of mid tones give you more flexibility than having higher contrast film.
having had the opportunity of printing ( in a darkroom and using a computer ) films that have less contrast
are easier to print than their higher contrast cousin...
the last batch you uploaded looks really nice, iso25 looks just about perfect !
have fun!
john

 

[canuhead]

just asking...this is not the first time you're processed film right ?

 

[dxqcanada]

What developing chemical are you using ?

 

[Xícara]

Branded film such as Ilford, Kodak, Foma is easy to get in Europe and if it is difficult to get and/or is expensive in Brazil then that is a shame. You have my sympathies

Yes, I bought a whole lot of Ilford FP4+ 125 when I was there as well but it recently ran out. Here, the cheapest branded B&W film I can get is Tri-X 400 for the equivalent of almost 13 euros a roll. Bought a bulk loader recently and once some film cassettes arrive in the post, I'll start to purchase film in bulk, which will bring the price down to about 7 euros a roll.

just asking...this is not the first time you're processed film right ?

No, I've been processing film for about a year. All other films turn out OK.

What developing chemical are you using ?

Kodak D76.

Thanks everyone!

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Hi, I thought I'd report back with some test photos at ISOs 25 through to 400. The following are raw scans (made for scientific purposes only!) of the 400 ISO film developed for 30% more than the recommended time. I think the best negative is at ISO 25! I wonder if you agree and if you think I should go up to 50% extra time on the next roll to increase the contrast even more? The camera was a Minox 35 GT. Here they are:

ISO 400

View attachment 214180

ISO 200

View attachment 214181

ISO 100

View attachment 214184

ISO 50

View attachment 214185

ISO 25

View attachment 214186

best neg at 25... and it's a gorgeous negative

 

[bernard_L]

A bit late, but, as in all such threads (why are my negatives so...) you should show a straight (smartphone?) picture your negative (encompassing 3-4 frames), in front of (but not stuck against) a white wall. With the familiar reference of the hand holding the film, it would be much easier to judge shadow density, contrast, etc. Your experiment nicely establishes that your film is best exposed 25-50 ISO, but we have no clue as to the contrast.

 

[Xícara]

A bit late, but, as in all such threads (why are my negatives so...) you should show a straight (smartphone?) picture your negative (encompassing 3-4 frames), in front of (but not stuck against) a white wall. With the familiar reference of the hand holding the film, it would be much easier to judge shadow density, contrast, etc. Your experiment nicely establishes that your film is best exposed 25-50 ISO, but we have no clue as to the contrast.

Thanks:

From right to left: ISO 50, 25, 400, 200

 

[bernard_L]

Thank you for providing the photo! Looking at the EI 25 frame, and considering it was shot under an overcast light (no shadows), the contrast is not obviously wrong as far as I can see. I was curious, because that device that shall remain nameless can deliver surprisingly good results from thin negatives.
So you have a nominally ISO 400 film that performs like an ISO 25 film. See if you can find on your film canister, under the lip and above the barcode, a 6-digit number. If yes, go to: industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/ to find out what your film really is.

 

[Xícara]

Thank you for providing the photo! Looking at the EI 25 frame, and considering it was shot under an overcast light (no shadows), the contrast is not obviously wrong as far as I can see. I was curious, because that device that shall remain nameless can deliver surprisingly good results from thin negatives.
So you have a nominally ISO 400 film that performs like an ISO 25 film. See if you can find on your film canister, under the lip and above the barcode, a 6-digit number. If yes, go to: industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/ to find out what your film really is.

Well this is fun. The code is 013994, which shows up as the film of a certain French photographic store, but also, of the non-discontinued films, "Fomapan 400 ProfiLine Action T400" and "Arista EDU Ultra 400". Are all 3 the same film under different names?