Straight scan no exposure adjustment Tmax 100 4x5

[MJLangdon]

Apart from the sky being blown out because I wanted to focus on getting the window frames white I'm pretty pleased with this negative.

F45 ISO80
Red 23A +1 2/3 stops
Reciprocity +1/3 stop
Zone III to V
N+2 development
-1/2 stop development compensation
1 second exposure

Developed in 44ml of HC110 to 956ml water @ 20 degrees C for 6 minutes 30 seconds.
Stopped in 16ml of Kodak indicator stop bath to 984ml water @ 20 degrees C for 1 minute.
Fixed in 200ml Tmax fixer to 800ml water @ 20 degrees C for 5 minutes.
5 minute running water wash.
Hypo cleared with 200ml Ilford Hypo clear to 800ml water @ 20 degrees C for 3 minutes.
5 minute running water wash.
5ml Photo Flo to 995ml water @ 20 degrees C for 1 minute.
Hung to dry for 3 hours.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Apart from the sky being blown out because I wanted to focus on getting the window frames white I'm pretty pleased with this negative.

F45 ISO80
Red 23A +1 2/3 stops
Reciprocity +1/3 stop
Zone III to V
N+2 development
-1/2 stop development compensation
1 second exposure

Developed in 44ml of HC110 to 956ml water @ 20 degrees C for 6 minutes 30 seconds.
Stopped in 16ml of Kodak indicator stop bath to 984ml water @ 20 degrees C for 1 minute.
Fixed in 200ml Tmax fixer to 800ml water @ 20 degrees C for 5 minutes.
5 minute running water wash.
Hypo cleared with 200ml Ilford Hypo clear to 800ml water @ 20 degrees C for 3 minutes.
5 minute running water wash.
5ml Photo Flo to 995ml water @ 20 degrees C for 1 minute.
Hung to dry for 3 hours.

View attachment 166245

the N+2 development was probably a bit too much but you can recover that in printing.other than that ,looks like a peppy neg to me.

 

[MJLangdon]

the N+2 development was probably a bit too much but you can recover that in printing.other than that ,looks like a peppy neg to me.

Knowing that the dynamic range of the scene was from zone III to V (V being the white window surrounds) do you think that doing N+1 development and raising the window surrounds to probably zone V 1/2 would of been bright enough for white paint with detail?
Dodging the frames in printing would of been an option but I thought that this would of been too fiddly so opted for burning in the sky as there was no detail in the sky anyway.

I could of composed the image to exclude the sky altogether but someone has smashed a window and it has been boarded up and had a security sign placed on it, didn't want that in my photo

 

[Rick A]

"The proof is in the printing" . If you don't have an enlarger, contact print that puppy and then let's have a look at it.

 

[MJLangdon]

"The proof is in the printing" . If you don't have an enlarger, contact print that puppy and then let's have a look at it.

Totally agree Rick I will be printing tonight on my De Vere 504 only thing is I have only got 5 sheets of paper left so hopefully it won't take too many attempts to get right

 

[Alan Klein]

This is what it looks like just digitally reversed using Irfanview. I like the tones and contrast. Print should be great too.

o.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

III to V? That must be excluding the sky, no?

 

[pentaxuser]

III to V? That must be excluding the sky, no?

And the white window surrounds as well I would have thought. Even the majority of the building's stone work looks like VI to me.

Is this scene's SBR really only 3 zones?

Just curious and it is largely immaterial to the outcome as a print which I am sure will look fine

pentaxuser

 

[MJLangdon]

III to V? That must be excluding the sky, no?

Hi Andrew, yes that is the white window surround that was placed on zone V to make sure the shadows were on zone III then I Brightened the white window surrounds by N+2 development otherwise it would of been a really flat looking print or very hard to print.

 

[MJLangdon]

And the white window surrounds as well I would have thought. Even the majority of the building's stone work looks like VI to me.

Is this scene's SBR really only 3 zones?

Just curious and it is largely immaterial to the outcome as a print which I am sure will look fine

pentaxuser

Yer the main walls are about zone V but from the shadows to the white on the window surrounds it was only 3 zones contrast because it was completely overcast, very flat lighting.
I chose to expose darker and expand the development by two zones to make it a lot higher contrast than it actually was so I wouldn't end up with a flat print or one that is hard to print.

 

[MJLangdon]

This is the results from a straight print (because I have run out of paper)
I have Sepia toned this one a bit too much for my liking.

This one is another straight print with a lot less Sepia toning and a slight Selenium tone a little better.

I did have a problem with grey mottling on the back of the paper on this one. Does anyone know what would cause this mottling?

 

[removed account4]

Straight scan no exposure adjustment

what does that mean?
are all the uploads of yours to this thread
photoshop'photoshopesque manipulations ?
not sure what skkanner you are using but
sometimes unless you click RESET on the driver
or manually drag everything out to the sides and 1.0 the middle
and grey everything out, it automatically adjusts the levels.
i wish i the image was a little smaller so i can see it ...

 

[MJLangdon]

what does that mean?
are all the uploads of yours to this thread
photoshop'photoshopesque manipulations ?
not sure what skkanner you are using but
sometimes unless you click RESET on the driver
or manually drag everything out to the sides and 1.0 the middle
and grey everything out, it automatically adjusts the levels.
i wish i the image was a little smaller so i can see it ...

Hi Jnanian,

What I mean is I haven't dodged, burned adjusted levels in an editing software.
Of course I had to adjust white and black points on the scanner and mid point in till it matched the actual print as close as I could get it.

I can fit the whole image on my mobile phone screen so u must have a very small screen if u can't fit it all in!

 

[removed account4]

thanks mjlangdon
i have a very large screen, and find scans that take up a large portion of the screen are much harder to look at
than small scans. yours isn't too bad, but typically i have seen people who shoot 4x5 or larger and they upload a 32x40"scan to show what a great
camera &c they have .. i usually don't even look because there is no point.

have fun with your photo-ing !

john

ps your working solution of photoflo might be what the bottle suggests is the right amount
but you only really need 1-2 drops / inversion tank or tray or other developing device, more may lead to residual scum on your film..

 

[MJLangdon]

thanks mjlangdon
i have a very large screen, and find scans that take up a large portion of the screen are much harder to look at
than small scans. yours isn't too bad, but typically i have seen people who shoot 4x5 or larger and they upload a 32x40"scan to show what a great
camera &c they have .. i usually don't even look because there is no point.

have fun with your photo-ing !

john

ps your working solution of photoflo might be what the bottle suggests is the right amount
but you only really need 1-2 drops / inversion tank or tray or other developing device, more may lead to residual scum on your film..

The images have been resized to 1600 pixels on the longest edge @ 300 dpi no where near the full 8272 pixels for the full res image.

What size do u recommend for uploading on Apug?

 

[removed account4]

72dpi and about 7-8" on the long edge, no point in 300dpi ( its kind of overkill ) ..
but that is just me i am sure others love giant images...

 

[MJLangdon]

OK cheers for the info John I'll remember that for next time