Pushing HP5+ to 3200

[Chris Lange]

Now you're just being pedantic.

 

[MattKing]

Yup, which means changing my procedure, I don't care how little the change is, I made a statement that I don't want to change my procedure. Call me stubborn, but everyone tells me to stick with the same procedures and also not to use multiple emulsions in one place and then tell me to change my film and procedure in another place... Hypocrites much?...,

What fix are you using?

 

[removed account4]

Now you're just being pedantic.

methinks you mean idiotic

 

[StoneNYC]

What fix are you using?

Ilford rapid fix which someone said could be too acidic for FONA but it was also the ilfostop that I would not be using and I just want to follow my same procedure with lining up my dev's and keeping to the same steps. I know this seems "idiotic" but I have to set up my stuff every time from a box, to my sink, and work fast before someone needs the sink, so I don't want to have to think about changing the procedure. Just go go go...

 

[MattKing]

Ilford rapid fix which someone said could be too acidic for FONA but it was also the ilfostop that I would not be using and I just want to follow my same procedure with lining up my dev's and keeping to the same steps. I know this seems "idiotic" but I have to set up my stuff every time from a box, to my sink, and work fast before someone needs the sink, so I don't want to have to think about changing the procedure. Just go go go...

Stone:

Ilford Rapid Fix is a non-hardening rapid fix. If the FOMA is sensitive to that, it is way too picky to spend time with in a temporary darkroom.

And I too work out of a couple of Rubbermaid totes when I develop film at the kitchen sink, so I know about the importance of simplifying the systems.

 

[Truzi]

Stone, do you chill your red and white wines to the same temperature so as to avoid changing procedure? Perhaps you don't match the wines to the food at all, just sticking to one wine.

Sorry, couldn't resist, ha ha.

 

[removed account4]

stone,

i have to admit, you have been on my ignore list for 2 days and i don't think i can keep you there
i see your responses to other people's responses and think that i may remove you from my list ...
your responses are too funny to keep off my view.

your process is so imbedded in your technique that you can't replace your stop bath with water
or do a pre wet ( something you should be doing anyways ) ?

you act as if you are ansel adams rigid with technique, LOL ha ha ha ha

 

[erikg]

Reread this statement, and tell me if that means changing procedure... Think hard...

It's responses like this that make you such a popular guy around here. That you fail to see the irony in making such a statement within an epic thread which started with you asking for information about developing a film that you exposed in a way you never had before... It's too funny. The value of this forum is that although someone is responding to a specific question the information may be very helpful to others, you never know, so if it happens that you don't wish to use it, don't. Let it go, no need to argue.

 

[markbarendt]

Yup, which means changing my procedure, I don't care how little the change is, I made a statement that I don't want to change my procedure. Call me stubborn, but everyone tells me to stick with the same procedures and also not to use multiple emulsions in one place and then tell me to change my film and procedure in another place... Hypocrites much?...,

Umm Stone, actually I and probably most of the others who have suggesting sticking with one or two films and one developer, are suggesting that you adjust your process: exposure, time, agitation, temperature, dilution, whatever; to adapt your that combo to match your vision and to make that film work with your output process/tools.

Most of us will probably suggest that in the beginning only one variable be changed for each experiment (each roll or sheet) so that you can see if it gets better or worse. 4x5 is perfect for this. Shoot 2 sheets of exactly the same scene at exactly the same exposure (say 3200) and then develop them one at a time. Develop one per Ilford's instruction for 3200, develop the other per their instructions for 1600. Scan them and see which prints better/easier.

There are 100's of variation combos that you can make to your process and you should.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Ilford Rapid Fix is a non-hardening rapid fix. If the FOMA is sensitive to that, it is way too picky to spend time with in a temporary darkroom.

And I too work out of a couple of Rubbermaid totes when I develop film at the kitchen sink, so I know about the importance of simplifying the systems.

Yea FOMA doesn't like fixers that are too strong in ... (Can't remember if it's acidic or alkali but whatever ilford rapid fix is one of them, too strong or something. (Someone told me on another thread).

I only used FOMA100 because I was getting rid of a bunch of 35mm film I would never use and traded for the 4x5 to get me started in 4x5 when I didn't have extra money for film buying. I did like it's look but I won't buy it because of the emulsion issues. Thanks for understanding the "living out of a box" lol

Stone, do you chill your red and white wines to the same temperature so as to avoid changing procedure? Perhaps you don't match the wines to the food at all, just sticking to one wine.

Sorry, couldn't resist, ha ha.

Nope, I simply only drink red and keep my wine rack in the basement with my developers because my basement is a constant 55 degrees all year long

stone,

i have to admit, you have been on my ignore list for 2 days and i don't think i can keep you there
i see your responses to other people's responses and think that i may remove you from my list ...
your responses are too funny to keep off my view.

your process is so imbedded in your technique that you can't replace your stop bath with water
or do a pre wet ( something you should be doing anyways ) ?

you act as if you are ansel adams rigid with technique, LOL ha ha ha ha

Thanks...? Lol

Does that mean you didn't get my PM's either?

It's responses like this that make you such a popular guy around here. That you fail to see the irony in making such a statement within an epic thread which started with you asking for information about developing a film that you exposed in a way you never had before... It's too funny. The value of this forum is that although someone is responding to a specific question the information may be very helpful to others, you never know, so if it happens that you don't wish to use it, don't. Let it go, no need to argue.

Changing my dev times is entirely different from changing the steps and actions I take....

Also, I made a definitive statement "I'm not changing...in any way" And his response was "oh but you only have to change this thing and this thing" .... It was a stupid statement, since I already said twice I'm not changing anything... So it deserved a response like the one I gave, if it makes me unpopular to point out foolish comments, so be it.... People point out my foolish comments all the time.... Lol

 

[eddie]

.. water pre wet and nostop water bath instead
no pinholes or froubles with anything, less chems to deal with ..
a nobrainer ...

My routine for over 25 years... I use distilled water for all my film chems, including the pre-wet. I started this regimen when I had some pinholes. Never had the problem again. I can't recall ever running into emulsion problems, due to manufacturing errors, but I've never used any of the films which people claim to have the problems. I wish I could blame the manufacturers for my crappy results but, alas, they're mine...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Stone, I think with respect to this particular film you'll be fine following Ilford's instructions. Since we didn't actually shoot what you shot, it's impossible for us to give advice that will actually give you anything of value.

I hope your film turns out well.

I get very defensive about some of your questions, because I had to work really hard to come to a decent understanding of the system of black and white photography. My first 1,000 rolls were the worst. When somebody comes here and asks, over and over again, about very basic information, then it's like I'm supposed to give you a quick solution to something that took me hundreds of rolls of film to understand.
Do you understand why so many here answer the way they do? And do you understand why we imply that you need to focus more and do some of the hard work on your own?

I'm asking you because I want you to do well with your photography, but you are the single most frustrating person I've met to give advice to. I want you to be able to gauge the lighting of a scene and know how to expose your film and develop it to get the most out of it, to be abel to just react to it and do it, where those thoughts are just like a chain reaction through your subconscious where you just instantly know what you must do. But I am yet to meet anyone that picked that skill up from listening to others, only those that DO get to that point of confidence in their materials.
Please note that I'm not even touching subject matter or artistic choices, I am only talking about being proficient in your process. The more skilled you are, the LESS you have to think about things that relate to process, which frees your brain up to think about the content. That is, in my book, a place where you can start to exercise artistic freedom, because you're not bound by basic and rudimentary decisions.

See what I mean?

 

[eddie]

I'm asking you because I want you to do well with your photography, but you are the single most frustrating person I've met to give advice to. I want you to be able to gauge the lighting of a scene and know how to expose your film and develop it to get the most out of it, to be abel to just react to it and do it, where those thoughts are just like a chain reaction through your subconscious where you just instantly know what you must do. But I am yet to meet anyone that picked that skill up from listening to others, only those that DO get to that point of confidence in their materials.

I got a bunch of "(expletive deleted)" when I said the same thing... HAHA...lol

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I got a bunch of "(expletive deleted)" when I said the same thing... HAHA...lol

I really wish Stone the best. I do. But I'm going to stop here and focus on my own work, because this isn't doing anything for me in return.

 

[eddie]

I don't think anyone would reply, if they didn't want him to succeed. Myself included.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I think with respect to this particular film you'll be fine following Ilford's instructions. Since we didn't actually shoot what you shot, it's impossible for us to give advice that will actually give you anything of value.

I hope your film turns out well.

I get very defensive about some of your questions, because I had to work really hard to come to a decent understanding of the system of black and white photography. My first 1,000 rolls were the worst. When somebody comes here and asks, over and over again, about very basic information, then it's like I'm supposed to give you a quick solution to something that took me hundreds of rolls of film to understand.
Do you understand why so many here answer the way they do? And do you understand why we imply that you need to focus more and do some of the hard work on your own?

I'm asking you because I want you to do well with your photography, but you are the single most frustrating person I've met to give advice to. I want you to be able to gauge the lighting of a scene and know how to expose your film and develop it to get the most out of it, to be abel to just react to it and do it, where those thoughts are just like a chain reaction through your subconscious where you just instantly know what you must do. But I am yet to meet anyone that picked that skill up from listening to others, only those that DO get to that point of confidence in their materials.
Please note that I'm not even touching subject matter or artistic choices, I am only talking about being proficient in your process. The more skilled you are, the LESS you have to think about things that relate to process, which frees your brain up to think about the content. That is, in my book, a place where you can start to exercise artistic freedom, because you're not bound by basic and rudimentary decisions.

See what I mean?

I do see that, I did say that of you feel you don't want to contribute because you want to keep your discoveries to yourself, that this is OK by me, and that if you want to share, that would be great also.

I believe you're the one who shot that small tree surrounded by a line of larger trees and used TMY-2? And suggested less and more agitation? That was you wasn't it?

If that was, I did give it a try and have since moved to something of a compromise between what you suggested and what I was originally doing, and it's worked out great, and I'm thankful for the advice you gave about that.

Anyway, on the other hand, you could think of it this way too, imagine if Ansel were around, and people saw him using his zone system, and then asking him to explain it to them, and him replying "figure it out yourself, do the work" can you see how that could be perceived too? Why go through all this excess testing when the knowledge is already available? Why waste all that time and money (to which I have very little) when I could have the knowledge from the start and move on to more important things like learning how to refine the knowledge for my own purposes...

 

[StoneNYC]

I got a bunch of "(expletive deleted)" when I said the same thing... HAHA...lol

Thomas said much nicer things than you did, I was fairly upset at your comments. But obviously over it now.

 

[miha]

Since film developing tend to be as easy as frying an egg, I faill to see what's all the fuss about.

 

[eddie]

Why go through all this excess testing when the knowledge is already available? Why waste all that time and money (to which I have very little) when I could have the knowledge from the start and move on to more important things like learning how to refine the knowledge for my own purposes...

Because, as has been said ad infinitum, your results will be different than the results of others, even when using the same materials. If Thomas, Chris, John, etc, were all given the same film/developer they'd all come up with different results. In fact, it may be that you wouldn't even know they used the same film.
If you're just looking for starting points, the manufacturers give them to you, written on every box of film you buy.

 

[eddie]

Thomas said much nicer things than you did, I was fairly upset at your comments. But obviously over it now.

I'll try to be more coddling, next time...

 

[Chris Lange]

Since film developing tend to be as easy as frying an egg, I faill to see what's all the fuss about.

Quoted for emphasis. It is supposed to be the most methodical and simple part of the process. Printing is where the chaos is.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Quoted for emphasis. It is supposed to be the most methodical and simple part of the process. Printing is where the chaos is.

I find that as a beginner, developing film and printing were both chaos, until I understood that the negative is merely a step in the process. It needs certain properties in order to make printing much more predictable and less chaotic. So a long time ago I set out to practice making negatives that work well with the rest of my process, and today I am much better at it then I was about a decade ago, but still learning every time.

The conclusion I draw from my trials is that the better we are at the boring and methodical stuff, the more we can engage in the fun of creating. Like any artist, knowing our tools inside and out is priceless knowledge; not only does it improve the results, but it also makes it more economical with far less waste. Especially for important shots.

But I also agree with you that printing can be very intense. It's not like every negative I attempt to create turns out the way I want it to, and usually those technically inferior ones are the ones with the best content, of course... So swearing and a few glasses of wine later I might have something to show for, as opposed to developing a few rolls of film, which is incredibly easy by comparison and I can almost do in my sleep.

 

[Chris Lange]

I simply don't understand why Stone seems to think he is above learning from his own mistakes. First hand experience with both error and success is what allows you to excel...not someone, whether it be in a book, or on a website, or in person, telling you what to do. We have provided a book's worth of advice to you already Stone, not only on the topics you specifically ask about, but on ancillary issues that become apparent down the road. So while you want us to tell you what to do, you also don't want us to tell you what to do.

This ought to cover the general gist of things:
[video=vimeo;11064775]http://vimeo.com/11064775[/video]

 

[miha]

It is supposed to be the most methodical and simple part of the process. Printing is where the chaos is.

Luckily, I've been getting "normal" looking negatives with my metering technique while following (quite rigorously I must say) mfr's recommendations on developing for the last 20 years. Maybe my thermometers, camera conditions, water quality etc are in line with those of the mfr, so I never needed any adjustments in order to get easy to print negatives, or maybe I'm just lucky. Or maybe my negatives don't look "normal" at all :confused: Anyway I tend to think of it as C41.

 

[removed account4]

SNIP ..... and i added YOU in there

imagine if Ansel were around, and I / Stone saw him using his zone system, and then I / Stone asked him to explain it to to me, and he did, and when i asked him to teach me more about all sorts of stuff he replied" you can learn and figure it out yourself, by doing the work, i'll guide you but you need to do a few things yourself"

he would have had you do film tests for 3 weeks line up your negatives and tell him which exposures were which.
he would have had you make the film grid
and then he would have had you do it again.
and then he would have had you make prints of everything so you understood what
under exposed + under developed ( or whatever) negatives LOOKED LIKE and printed like

he probably would have told you to do every single thing people here have told you ... ( maybe as nicely, maybe not )
and if you came back with tests of 4 different films and a handful of developers and not followed through with what he suggested ( since you made it seem you were so eager to learn )
or told him you didn't want to "change your process" "you just wanted the answers up front"
i am guessing he would have gotten frustrated with you ...