Stand develop different emulsions in one tank?

[Xmas]

Hi Mark

The trolls don't read the OP posts when so chided they deny.
Please don't feel bad, my sides are still hurting...

Noel

 

[Regular Rod]

I regularly mix films with different emulsions and speeds in the same tank and process them all at the same time and temperature. I use a semi-stand agitation regime and a compensating developer. The results please me enough to keep on doing this.

RR

 

[Regular Rod]

Instead of trying to compensate for inconsistent exposure during development why not attack the problem at its source. That is by correctly exposing the film to start with. Underexposure will result in loss of shadow detail and this information cannot be restored by any developer or developing technique. If your camera lacks a meter then hand held ones are readiiy available on the net. There is also the "sunny 16 rule" which will quickly become second nature with practice. This is what was done before meters were incorporated in cameras. In addition it is better to overexpose film than underexpose it.

This is good advice if using sheet film or if using an entire roll of film on one subject with each exposure following the same values as the all the rest on the roll of film.

However, if using roll film for different subjects in different lighting conditions, very passable results can still be achieved by exposing each individual frame to be certain of its shadow texture in say, its Zone III areas and letting the semi-stand or stand agitation regime, with a suitable developer, take care of the highlights. This has proven so successful for my work that it saves me film, as there is now no need to waste frames by bracketing exposures. This approach has made it quite normal to obtain rolls of film with every negative perfectly printable...

RR

 

[markaudacity]

This is an example of what I'm trying to do. This is a scan from a technically terrible negative. Shot meterless, accidentally overexposed by two stops and overdeveloped by a stop, but the moment I wanted, the human gesture, and the tone of the scene are all there.

 

[StoneNYC]

This is an example of what I'm trying to doa. This is a scan from a technically terrible negative. Shot meterless, accidentally overexposed by two stops and overdeveloped by a stop, but the moment I wanted, the human gesture, and the tone of the scene are all there.

I'm not trying to attack you or troll you.

This is a great capture, and it's fine (especially if you're scanning) to be so loosey goosey with shooting and be able to "fix it later" and that's one way of doing things, and many here would say "you can't do that" or you shouldn't, but I'm not saying that at all...

I'm saying that if you are going to shoot and develop in that style, you're going to have situations like this happen often, and unless you're willing to change your methods in some way, then nothing is going to change and you're always going to encounter these situations.

That's all, I never said it was wrong (or if I did I'll correct myself) I'm saying it's wrong to assume that if you continue to do the same thing you should expect different results. You asked a question about changing something, because you didn't want to develop them separately, and then instead of waiting or taking someone else's advice, you simply did it the same way you always do, together in one tank.

So as I said, I fail to understand the point of your entire thread because you've proven that you refuse to change your methods, so there's no point in even asking the question unless you are willing to change at least SOMETHING in your process.

PS this is not a dive bar image... Lol.

But again, I like this capture, not sure how much you adjusted in post but I find it very good as an image.

 

[MattKing]

This is an example of what I'm trying to do. This is a scan from a technically terrible negative. Shot meterless, accidentally overexposed by two stops and overdeveloped by a stop, but the moment I wanted, the human gesture, and the tone of the scene are all there.

Good photo.

If you are going to miss "correct" exposure, two stops over-exposure is a good miss, because black and white negative film is quite forgiving when over-exposed.

But it seems to me that if you want the flexibility to over-expose without causing too much damage, then you probably should look to adjusting your developing to be better suited to that approach - and stand development isn't really the best choice.

Have you considered Tri-X and Diafine?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Why do people feel the need to cuss?

 

[markaudacity]

Your failure to understand why I want to rationalize and control my development and your refusal to accept that changing my shooting style will change the results I get are not justifications for your argument. They're proof that you don't know what you're talking about, which is why it pisses me off that you're wading in here trying to tell me how I should shoot and what film I should use.
Change to HP5? What makes you think I haven't shot bricks of HP5 and didn't like it? Or that I haven't tested it and found that it looks like shit at extreme pushes compared to Tri-X and has ugly, mushy grain in HC-110?

Let's go back and read my original post, which asked if I could stand develop Tri-X and Tmax exposed at 1600 in one tank and get good exposure out of both. None of what you've said answers that. Doesn't even address the question. I didn't say I was having trouble getting negatives I liked. I didn't say I was having trouble with my exposures. I didn't ask for advice on emulsions or metering or any of that. So where did you get the idea that I wanted any of that, if not from an arrogant and unfounded belief that your way of shooting is Right, or that other people want to shoot like you?

What if I told you to move out of NYC cos the rent is insane, the cops are corrupt thugs, and there's no space? Those are all true, but I bet you don't mind them because you like living there for your own reasons. It wouldn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, or that someone asking advice on the best sushi in NYC wants to hear about how terrible New York is.

Basic respect, man. Most people don't want opinions they don't ask for, and find it offensive when others tell them how to do things they don't want help with. Especially on something as personal and esoteric as 'what do I want my photographs to look like?'

 

[markaudacity]

Andrew: because they're angry?

 

[Dinesh]

This thread is awesome!

 

[Xmas]

Hi Mark

You might be wrong I thought Ansells famous shot of the moon was a grab shot (like yours) without the meter and needed intensification.

But I use stand for same reason as you with post borax bath. Is some one to suggest that a two bath is significantly easier to print?

Or is it do as I say?

I don't worry about two stops over I normally shoot one stop over - after I can meter.

 

[removed account4]

And the contention that because I choose to shoot free that I don't know how to use a meter, or especially that my images aren't worth developing, is fucking offensive.

+1

 

[Smudger]

Borax

Hi Mark

You might be wrong I thought Ansells famous shot of the moon was a grab shot (like yours) without the meter and needed intensification.

But I use stand for same reason as you with post borax bath. Is some one to suggest that a two bath is significantly easier to print?

Or is it do as I say?

I don't worry about two stops over I normally shoot one stop over - after I can meter.

Curious about your "post borax bath" ? I add borax to my Rodinal 1:100 stand mix,as it is claimed to inhibit fog. Care to share your method,and rationale? -Thanks

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Is anybody brave enough to use a green safelight and develop by inspection? I've done it with a red safelight with blue and green sensitive film. Works very well.

 

[cliveh]

This is an example of what I'm trying to do. This is a scan from a technically terrible negative. Shot meterless, accidentally overexposed by two stops and overdeveloped by a stop, but the moment I wanted, the human gesture, and the tone of the scene are all there.

This to me does not look like over exposure, but more like under exposure, or under development, or a mixture of both.

 

[markaudacity]

This to me does not look like over exposure, but more like under exposure, or under development, or a mixture of both.

I can't argue how it looks to you, but the negative is almost black. It is definitely not underexposed or underdeveloped.

 

[cliveh]

I can't argue how it looks to you, but the negative is almost black. It is definitely not underexposed or underdeveloped.

Then why is it so soft?

 

[markaudacity]

The building in the background was on fire. The fog at the top of the image is smoke, and the air on the ground was hazy.

 

[Xmas]

Curious about your "post borax bath" ? I add borax to my Rodinal 1:100 stand mix,as it is claimed to inhibit fog. Care to share your method,and rationale? -Thanks

Ok but it is not my method!

Stockler, Ansell Adams & Barry Thorton used soft working developers and post Borax baths.

Barry also used and suggested a post bath with any developer.

http://www.barrythornton.com/

please push the 'two bath' button read and then go to second page.

for teaspoon...

I just use 1+100 Rodinal 60mins at 20C with post bath per Barry teaspoon then double water rinse then plain hypo.

I weigh out rather than use a teaspoon. And let the borax go to completion.

The borax will force the paminophenol in emulsion to exhaustion and gain a little more detail in shadow.

My grab shots are never well exposed..,

Ask if this is too abstract.

 

[Xmas]

This to me does not look like over exposure, but more like under exposure, or under development, or a mixture of both.

The building is wreathed in smoke!

 

[Xmas]

Curious about your "post borax bath" ? I add borax to my Rodinal 1:100 stand mix,as it is claimed to inhibit fog. Care to share your method,and rationale? -Thanks

Rodinal is quite a low fog developer but if you are troubled by fog then Potassium bromide or BZT are the more normal additives recommended.

Is your film bad?

 

[nosmok]

APUG seems pretty testy today-- the last 2 threads I've read have some pretty tasty invective... (ducks).. that being said, as to the original point-- I just yesterday developed a roll of 400TX and a roll of Agfa APX 25 in the same tank of Caffenol CM. Both were exposed at box speed. The development time suggested for each was pretty close. The TX wanted Caffenol CM +i, so I threw in a little salt for the last 5 minutes. It turned out pretty well, actually better for the APx than the TX-- this will probably be my standard development for APX25. (This was not stand development-- it was with agitation.)

So from my single data point, i'd say the answer to the original question is " heck yeah, and I'd do it again". Would I do it if someone was paying me a ton of money for the shots? I don't know-- I don't think I'll ever have that problem!

--nosmok

 

[removed account4]

APUG seems pretty testy today-- the last 2 threads I've read have some pretty tasty invective... (ducks).. that being said, as to the original point-- I just yesterday developed a roll of 400TX and a roll of Agfa APX 25 in the same tank of Caffenol CM. Both were exposed at box speed. The development time suggested for each was pretty close. The TX wanted Caffenol CM +i, so I threw in a little salt for the last 5 minutes. It turned out pretty well, actually better for the APx than the TX-- this will probably be my standard development for APX25. (This was not stand development-- it was with agitation.)

So from my single data point, i'd say the answer to the original question is " heck yeah, and I'd do it again". Would I do it if someone was paying me a ton of money for the shots? I don't know-- I don't think I'll ever have that problem!

--nosmok

hi nosmok

while this is taking the OPs thread for a small detour
i also stand develop using caffenol as my main developer
but i don't use the cm recipe ... something a little different
i use robusta beans and brew the coffee, and i add a ton of soda and
vit c ... and a little bit of print developer ( i happen to use ansco130 cause i have it lying around )
the caffenol i use is in a 3L ( or bigger? ) tub from the dollar store and i put film and paper through it
for 3-4 months than drain half off and add more caffenol to it ...
when i was stand developing i put everything i had in the tank e6, c41, b/w ( iso 32-400 ) all different light conditions
and after a pre wet i left the developer in the tank for about 30 minutes, i was never disappointed.
i sometimes do commercial processing for a lab down the street and sometimes they give me film where the customer asks
for exactly what i did with the caffenol, so its a win win situation
these days i have the same film (shot the same way ) but i process it a little different. i used to just leave the room
and hopefully come back in 30mins, now after a pre wet .. i pour in ansco 130 print develper dilute about 1:8
and agitate 1 full min, then 10seconds every minute for 4 minutes ... pour it out and add the caffenol mixture i mentioned before
and agitate it continuously for 4 minutes ... the film looks better than any film i have processed before ( can't complain )

sorry for the detour OP i'd add my 2¢ in for the hc110, but i have never used it.
black negatives are OK, much better than those with barely anything on them. ..

john

 

[StoneNYC]

Your failure to understand why I want to rationalize and control my development and your refusal to accept that changing my shooting style will change the results I get are not justifications for your argument. They're proof that you don't know what you're talking about, which is why it pisses me off that you're wading in here trying to tell me how I should shoot and what film I should use.
Change to HP5? What makes you think I haven't shot bricks of HP5 and didn't like it? Or that I haven't tested it and found that it looks like shit at extreme pushes compared to Tri-X and has ugly, mushy grain in HC-110?

Let's go back and read my original post, which asked if I could stand develop Tri-X and Tmax exposed at 1600 in one tank and get good exposure out of both. None of what you've said answers that. Doesn't even address the question. I didn't say I was having trouble getting negatives I liked. I didn't say I was having trouble with my exposures. I didn't ask for advice on emulsions or metering or any of that. So where did you get the idea that I wanted any of that, if not from an arrogant and unfounded belief that your way of shooting is Right, or that other people want to shoot like you?

What if I told you to move out of NYC cos the rent is insane, the cops are corrupt thugs, and there's no space? Those are all true, but I bet you don't mind them because you like living there for your own reasons. It wouldn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, or that someone asking advice on the best sushi in NYC wants to hear about how terrible New York is.

Basic respect, man. Most people don't want opinions they don't ask for, and find it offensive when others tell them how to do things they don't want help with. Especially on something as personal and esoteric as 'what do I want my photographs to look like?'

I shouldn't even reply to this... but here goes....

First, I don't even live in NY, I live in Connecticut, I hate the noise and the crime in NY, so we agree about that.

Secondly, I did answer your question, I said sit down and look at the suggested standard times for multiple films you shoot, and fine a general EI that works for each film, that shares the same dev times.

FOR EXAMPLE: doing research, I see times listed for HC-110(B) in both tri-x and tmax

the tri-x shot at 1600 is suggested as 16 minutes, where the tmax shot at 1600 is suggested as 7:30 ... so trix takes more than twice as much time to develop in HC-110 so logic tells me that to answer your specific question "IE, can I toss TMY@1600 and TX@1600 in the same tank and expect both to be developed properly with a 1h stand @20C in HC-110 1:100?"

The answer is NO you can not develop both together and expect both to develop properly.

That's the answer to the question, if you want suggestions further than that, well, I suggested some ways to do that like matching EI's with pushing times that match up.

I find it offensive how angry you are getting form someone being helpful to you, I didn't name call, and I only gave you good suggestions, if you don't want to try them out, fine, but there's no need to be so angry and aggressive.

Anyway, I wish you the best with your shooting, as I said, the shot itself was a good capture, but if you think I'm tough, you should hear the other guys who've commented on my own endeavors, I'm relaxed compared to them. This is a traditional analog site, with people who print traditionally, and from what you've been saying, it sounds like the only way you are recovering these images is through scanning, because from what I've been told about traditional printing, a poorly exposed (or poorly developed) negative is a bitch to print, so perhaps you should be asking this question on DPUG where they will give you more information on how to fix the images in post so they can appear the way you want them to with your current techniques, this would solve the problem of not wanting to change your techniques for shooting or developing, and enable you to still get (hopefully) usable images.

Good Luck!

 

[Xmas]

I shouldn't even reply to this...

allways follow advice from oneself