Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?
Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?
Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?
Then why does everyone say they are WRONG by a whole stop for D3200 times? That if you shoot D3200 at 3200, dev for 6400... Etc, why do many say this if the manufacturer is "correct"?
Because it's a starting point that gets the film, in controlled experiments, to the contrast that the film was designed for.
That starting point is what each and everyone of us have to jump off of when we begin. Some people do things scientifically and use step wedges and film curves to determine how they must expose and process their film to suit their needs. Some use step wedges and contact prints to do the same. Others might use a 'let's see how the print looks' and determine from there what their regimen of film use must be.
The common denominator is - what you get from me, any other expert of hack on this forum, Ilford, Massive Development Chart, or any other source is to be treated as a 'recommendation'. You must then take it and make it yours by using the same combination and finding out for yourself.
That's why I said 'no free lunch'. Can you read the above paragraph and just realize that nobody else can tell you how long your dev time should be?
I think the problem is you guys are just in it too much, you're TOO good, so you can't answer simple questions because your understanding of it is way more complex than mine and refuse to dummy it down to a simple level because you believe that viewpoint to contradict your greater understanding.
Alas, I am just too simple minded for the likes of you...
And what I really mean by all that is that I'm really just tired of talking about this, I can't take anymore, all you people get so complex and so elaborate and make everything so complicated. It does to always have to be so complicated, and you don't always have to be do semantically correct all the time, wrong vs "wrong for me" sometimes I think everyone here just likes to be difficult.
You're all great photographers and in a sense I value your information, but I'm tired...
It never ends with your constant correcting (this isn't directed at you specifically Thomas or Matt just happened to be happening with many) every turn is "Stone you aren't thinking about it right, Stone you aren't doing it right, Stone you are not successful because you have no style, Stone why do you bother posting such crappy images, Stone your vocabulary sucks, Stone you won't understand anything until you print, Stone you have to read these 8 books to understand anything.... Etc.... It never ends...
Sometimes you can learn things on your own without using the system in place, Ansel invented his own system, why can't I?
*barbaric yawlp*
Stone, I feel your pain. I too use experience of others, but only as a starting point. Let me give two examples, one which I was happy with the results by following others' recommendations, and another which I was not entirely happy.
Like you, I shoot E-6. All I had was Provia 100F, but I needed a faster film. At the time Provia 400X wasn't discontinued, but my local camera store didn't have any in stock. I did research online and found most people recommended that when pushing 2 stops, Provia 100F is best exposed at EI 320. I followed their lead, and was happy with the results.
Now, for something a bit trickier, I was experimenting for the first time with Infrared photography. I was using the Rollei IR 400 film, and looked online to see what EI most people use to shoot this film with an IR720 filter. I got recommendations ranging anywhere from ISO 12 to ISO 3. The first roll I shot, I bracketed my shots at EI 12, 6, and 3. I switched the camera to manual exposure mode, my ISO to 400, and then dialed in exposure compensation (no filter) to get EI 12, 6, and 3, then put the filter on and took the shots. Like you, I don't have a dark room, so my output is scans. Unlike you, I'm not set up to do my own developing, so I sent the film to the lab. In my opinion, the results from this process all looked overexposed. The shots taken at EI 12 were the least overexposed, and only seemed to be over a little. They were still usable. The next roll of IR 400 I shot, I shot at EI 25, and used the same process as before, and I am happy with the results.
If I were you, I'd pick a recommendation and go with it. You'll get something usable, even if it may not quite be what you wanted.
Those that have the desire to excel at this put in the time. They do the boring stuff, delve into the science part (at least to some degree), find out what curves mean when it keeps popping up in discussions, examine their work critically, etc.
Not being willing to do the above indicates a lack of passion, and without the passion what's the point?
I have a passion for art and creation, not charts.... Think of me like Jim Morrison... He had no musical training and just made stuff up that sounded good to him... LOL
Yeah that's right you're Jim Morrison.
The thing is, you're doing the very thing you accuse others of - ie way overcomplicating it all. If you have no interest in the basics of exposure, how developers work and so on (which is ok), I really think your art would be best served by sticking to one or two films and one standard developer, at least for a while. Get a nice straight curve and then do your scanning business.
I've followed most of your threads, and I'm telling you pretty much everything you've written about, asked about etc. - it all seems like a big mess. DD-X, old Rodinal, new Rodinal, old Technidol, expired Tech Pan, TMY, Pan F, Acros, HP5, Tri-X, double-X (WTF?), everything pushed or pulled or whatever. All this and you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of a film's characteristic curve.
Pick a time and pray to St. Veronica.
I like that. Is she the actual patron saint of photography? Because she took a picture of Jesus.
Yes, and for that reason.
anthotype ? ( shroud or turin ? )
Michael is right and Chris offers some very good advice. Going back to the OT I have done what you are attempting and I would follow Ilford's recommendations for DDX. I would def. NOT extend development, the extra density will be of no help. Trying to extrapolate from what some people do with Delta 3200 doesn't make any sense. Let's be realistic, you've underexposed by 3 stops in typical interior lighting? Disaster. It may be even worse if the lighting was strictly tungsten. Pick a time and pray to St. Veronica.
A simple and direct instruction is to develop the film exactly as specified by Ilford for these conditions. Ignore any other source. This also means having all the chemicals and the tank at 20C (or 24C if chosen) throughout processing - take care with the process and it will take care of your results.
Remember that developing for a long time doesn't really change the filmspeed by several stops, it changes the contrast. As you will (probably) not be printing this roll but scanning it, and contrast is the easiest thing to change with a scanned neg, then don't worry about it. You will get some results.
The biggest variables by far are the accuracy of your metering and the accuracy of your camera. You can easily be out more than a stop by accident here, without noticing anything obviously 'imperfect' in your technique.
The D3200 development times are for different contrasts. Most people these days are probably using that film with 'soft' diffusion enlargers instead of traditional 'hard' condenser enlargers and that is why most prefer a slightly higher contrast negative. Remember developing for ages doesn't increase the filmspeed, it just changes the contrast. DDX and Microphen (and equivalents from other manufacturers of course) do gain a small amount of filmspeed and build contrast more gently because they work differently to, for example, Rodinal which actually loses a small amount of speed compared to the 'standard' D76/ID11.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?