don't go there. you are about to starting a trial and error game.this can take forever. start with a proper film test and get it right from the starthowever, this will take 6 sheets just for the test, I'm afraid. there are no short cuts to quality.
Thanks Simonh32,
Ralph brings up the importance of testing. That referenced post, where I developed a roll in Dektol 1:9, leaves out details of the tests I performed that led me to choose 5 minutes. In January I had done a set of tests at different development times, which gave me time/contrast information.
George Papantoniou,
You could make normally exposed and processed negatives, and then use a lith process from a successful negative to get prints with the look you are going for.
It may also be convenient to try a few exposures on the same sheet of 8x10, in a similar way to a printing test-strip. You will need a film-holder with a well fitting slide and probably shoot the test subject indoors with artificial light - both points in order to reduce the possibilities for light-leaks via the light-trap. Make multiple exposures, three is do-able, withdrawing the slide partially for each one and remembering the time is cumulative.
Keeping a constant aperture, and having the longest exposure as the usual ISO rating (ie. assuming the relatively active developer gives a speed increase over ISO) a three-exposure, two-stop range might be something like 1/30s, 1/60s, 1/60s. The total exposure per strip in this example would be 1/15s, 1/30s and 1/60s. With a carefully selected/made test subject, you would be able to get a good idea of highlights and shadow details much more quickly/cheaply than developing three sheets.
I tried this for pinhole testing, with longer exposures, but ran foul of the imprecision of reciprocity failure . . . too optimistic
For the occasions where I've developed film in Dektol 1:2, I've always developed for two minutes. Only once did I developed a roll of Tri-X 35mm in warm Dektol as I was in too big of a hurry to wait for it to cool. I produced my best portrait from that batch of negatives. Very grainy and contrasty. I don't know about 8x10 whether the graininess would be all that obvious, but the contrast difference should be quite noticeable.
George Papantoniou,
Assume you like the look of your beautiful posted gallery photo, and want to obtain that look naturally, you are right to plan to "underexpose" and "overdevelop".
But Dektol straight is going to be difficult to control.
The day I did my tests for Dektol 1:9, I also did snip tests at 1:5 and made a note to myself that 1:5 is too difficult to control. I got densities over 2.0 in 5 minutes and really I don't want "black" negatives for Silver Gelatin printing on Grade 2 or 3 paper.
At 9 minutes, I achieved a "normal" contrast for Tri-X 35mm with Dektol 1:9. This verifies the rule-of-thumb that PE told me about (1 minute per part of water). So keep that in mind.
For higher contrast, develop longer or at higher concentration than I did. I'd guess a couple fewer parts of water or a couple more minutes.
In general, developing film to high contrast requires MORE control if you want assured results. Mr. Ford, my high school print shop teacher (imagine John Wayne with librarian's half-glasses), used to look down on us and call us pinheads if we came to him for advice when we forgot to include a test strip in the camera shot. Because a bad shot with a test strip, is easy to count out the half f/stops to the correct exposure. But without a test strip, you (and the teacher) have no idea how far off you are.
When shooting high-school newspaper pages, a test strip can be in every sheet of film. You just cover it up when making plates. But when taking photographs, you want all the film for your picture. That's why it's more practical to do tests on separate sheets of film.
Test or not, it's up to you... I'd test... or put a grayscale in every picture.
George Papantoniou,
Assume you like the look of your beautiful posted gallery photo, and want to obtain that look naturally, you are right to plan to "underexpose" and "overdevelop".
But Dektol straight is going to be difficult to control.
The day I did my tests for Dektol 1:9, I also did snip tests at 1:5 and made a note to myself that 1:5 is too difficult to control. I got densities over 2.0 in 5 minutes and really I don't want "black" negatives for Silver Gelatin printing on Grade 2 or 3 paper.
At 9 minutes, I achieved a "normal" contrast for Tri-X 35mm with Dektol 1:9. This verifies the rule-of-thumb that PE told me about (1 minute per part of water). So keep that in mind.
For higher contrast, develop longer or at higher concentration than I did. I'd guess a couple fewer parts of water or a couple more minutes.
In general, developing film to high contrast requires MORE control if you want assured results. Mr. Ford, my high school print shop teacher (imagine John Wayne with librarian's half-glasses), used to look down on us and call us pinheads if we came to him for advice when we forgot to include a test strip in the camera shot. Because a bad shot with a test strip, is easy to count out the half f/stops to the correct exposure. But without a test strip, you (and the teacher) have no idea how far off you are.
When shooting high-school newspaper pages, a test strip can be in every sheet of film. You just cover it up when making plates. But when taking photographs, you want all the film for your picture. That's why it's more practical to do tests on separate sheets of film.
Test or not, it's up to you... I'd test... or put a grayscale in every picture.
...I have heard the phrase "difficult to control" used in the past, and I still don't grasp the meaning. I surely must be missing something.
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?