P'Cat - FP4 - Semi-Stand - Sharpness - Contrast - landscapes

[fhovie]

Here is a bit of musing while my prints are in the wash. I travel and shoot 4x5. I carry FP4 and TRI-X - FP4 for scenes with an SBR of 5 or less and TRI-X for all those impossible 10 and 12 SBR scenes and anything in between. I used to use Graphlex holders but went back to standard film holders when I realized that I needed to shoot 2 negs of eveything anyway and that with the holders, I was not making myself do that. Anyway, I digress ... I shot some nice new ones of Silver creek lower falls near Salem OR. I shot them in SBR lighting of 5 and shot them at ASA80 with FP4. My first set of sheets, expanded perfectly to my FB Grade 2 paper with great accuracy. A DR of about 1.2 or so. The sharpness was quite good. I had some also of Mt Hood that were even flatter - an SBR of 3 maybe - taken just as the sun was dipping below the horizon. These came out a little soft looking and an DR of approx 1, maybe a little less. They were all developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:150. This group for 25 minutes and 4 aggitations. This should have given me an ASA of 136 and a CI of 0.7 - which is what I got. Sharpness and accutance was very nice - not over the top but sharp enough to please me.

The next batch, I processed at 38 minutes and 4 aggitations which should give me an ASA of 144 and a CI of 0.85 - which it did. The Falls pictures now have that contrast that digi-photoshop junkies yearn for (on grade 2/DR about 1.45) and sharpness is good but accutance has now turned slightly into infectious development and cuased delicate lines to roughen. I realize that I am now 2/3 stop over exposed and I am sure that is not helping. I hesitate to bracket because with this kind of film, I can get away with a little more with greater success than with not quite enough exposure. The Mt Hood photos are saved - Nice straight prints with great contrast (on grade 2)

The reason for this rant is that I preceive certain areas of success and certain challenge areas. Success in that I am able to capture and modify to suit my vision with reasonable proficiency. The challenge is to know the limits in development timing as it relates to the increase of accutance and corresponding increased apparent sharpness and where the accutance becomes infectious and leads to reduction of apparent sharpness.

Perhaps some of you fine APUGGERS have some insight or modifications that might allow for greater expansion and still have sharpness preserved? I must admit - This is a lot of fun and the results are getting close to what I am looking for if not hitting it right on.

 

[Jim Noel]

I could not get past your statement that you have to "shoot" two exposures anyway.

My question is "Why?"

If you know th SBR requires the faster film, or one which is more easily expanded, why do you feel it so necessary to expose two sheets of film?

Do you expose both the seme, or do you make achange in the second exposure?
Do you expose one sheet of each type of film?
Do you always develop one, examine it and determine the development for the second?

I'm sorry, but I just do not understand this need.

 

[fhovie]

Actually - i do expose them the same - that gives me the option of doing something different with each negative as far as development is concerned - also - there is always the possiblity of dust or scratches and with a scene I have to fly to, it is good to have another negative. The reason I expose them both the same is because I am pretty confident in my exposure accuracy - the only thing is that different development processes can rate the film differently - but not usually more than a stop.

 

[vet173]

Maybe you could raise your temp to reduce time in the developer. With Fp-4 I use 1.5:1:200 20min 1.5 min agitation and then once halfway thru @72F. should get you about a .65-.7 CI .85 sounds quite high, more than needed for new #2 Azo, unless your doing alternative processes.

 

[noseoil]

I look on stand development as a sure way to enhance edge effects, if needed. The longer the time in the soup, the greater the chance for edges starting to expand beyond the needed level of sharpness. This is why I have tailored my technique to minimal agitation as a first choice for any development, from 35mm to 8x10. I have found this to be the best of both worlds, great sharpness with relatively slight edges and good tonality. With "normal" development it is not possible to get the best sharpness from pyrocat. With stand development, things can get a bit too dramatic. I just don't enjoy a "normal" negative now as it is too soft, sorry, but I've been spoiled by the best films I have ever produced. Pyrocat & minimal agitation is a wonderful combination with slower films and is now my standard for development.

Last weekend I did two 4x5 shots of a night watchman at the asphalt plant I frequent (most recent upload to my gallery). It was early morning light, a bit cloudy and a bit dim. My frist shot at asa 100 with minimal agitation, much faster than I normally shoot with Efke 100, was just not there. Very little in the way of anything on the film, highlights only and no substance in the film over 80% of the area. What to try next? I decided to use stand development and 50 minutes in our current warmer weather (80f). This was a bit of overkill due to temps and a general lack of sbr's and stand development data on my part. Had to reduce contrast by a full stop in the print. I ended up with a good character shot in spite of my mistakes.

In low sbr's I tend to use Efke 25 whenever possible as it has limitless expansion potential, and use my "high speed" film, Efke 100, in contrasty light. I realize that this limits my ability to shoot in some conditions, but sharp prints are what I try to make and this seems to work best for me. Not right or wrong, but just the way I shoot. tim

 

[Steve Sherman]

Most of the observations here are in line with my way of thinking. If there is one thing that sticks out is that .85 for Azo is too much IMHO. On the other hand, if you are trying to design a negative for the new Azo 2 then I really don't have any practical experience with that paper.

With Older Azo 2 & 3 I like the negs to have a highlight density of no more than 1.55. Azo 3 produces wonderful results with negs around 1.35, it's just the color of three that I don't care for.

I would further agree with Tim that with smaller format films where enlargement is likely the degree of adjancecy effects has to be scaled back from that of a contact print. This could be done with shorter times, more frequent agitation cycles and lastly I think with temperature increases.

As far as second sheet of film exposed the same way, that's my method of working, not to change exposure, but for all the things which can ruined a piece of film, i.e. dust, scratches, camera movement, mishandling during the numerous phases we handle the film and yes those times when my film development calculations are not perfect. I do this with all 7x17 film and even when exposures run into 30 minutes or more. I will admit that when I travel to far away destinations I don't typically shoot many different scenes so it becomes somewhat easier and less costly for me to adopt this practice.

Nice to hear many of you out there making photographs.

Cheers

 

[c6h6o3]

Perhaps some of you fine APUGGERS have some insight or modifications that might allow for greater expansion and still have sharpness preserved?

Frankly, I don't like the meta-sharpness that you get with most films and minimal agitation or semi-stand development except in certain circumstances. (For example, Steve Sherman's 'Penile Colony' would not be half so effective without the incredible sharpness one perceives due to enhanced edge effects.)

What I do like about minimal agitation is its ability to enhance local contrast in the straight line portion of the curve. I use it with 400TMax where I don't get very exaggerated edge effects. But in very flat lighting (like 1 or 2 zones of scale) I can introduce lots of contrast into areas which with my normal procedures would render as nothing but mud.

For me the best of all possible worlds is sharp, but not "etched", expansion of local contrast in flat light, and the ability to achieve extreme compensation yet preserve local contrast in very high SBR situations.

You might want to give TMax a try. I develop it using minimal agitation in 510 Pyro diluted 1:200.

 

[noseoil]

One consideration in this whole business is grain size. I would not think that Tri-x and stand development with 35mm and enlarging would be the best effect, unless you enjoy robust grain, more like pea gravel than grain at that point. The nice thing about film, format and agitation is the variability of results available. Since I tend to use fine grained film, grain isn't a consideration in most of my work. As I've stated, I like the tonality of slow film, slow shutter speeds, a heavy tripod and small apertures. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it does yield some nice films to print with. Sorry, but I can't add a thing about density, contrast and gamma numbers. I evaluate my film as a function of the print and paper I'm using. A bass-ackwards approach, to be sure. tim

 

[Gerald Koch]

Sorry, but I can't add a thing about density, contrast and gamma numbers. I evaluate my film as a function of the print and paper I'm using. A bass-ackwards approach, to be sure. tim

I don't think of this as bass-ackwards but as being practical.