Taking first steps in developing the film

[M-88]

AgX was right: I wanted to write 'by' but instead used my native 'bij'. Overexposing and underdeveloping is a well known technique to reduce contrast, based on the zone system. By overexposing you take care the shadows retain the level of detail you need, underdeveloping keeps the highlights in check. This is more or less the opposite as pushing a film, where you underexpose and overdevelop, hence my remark on lost shadowdetail and blown highlights when pushing your film to 800 iso.

I should have listened to my friend who offered to teach me Dutch.

As for the matter, I've been thinking. If I want to push to 800, I overexpose 2/3 stops which gives me shooting at around ISO500. Then I underdevelop so instead of pushing to 800 I get what? 500? 600? Clearly some things are out of my reach.

I'm shooting right now at 400 and I'll push it to that much, for a start, to see what happens.

 

[MattKing]

I should have listened to my friend who offered to teach me Dutch.

As for the matter, I've been thinking. If I want to push to 800, I overexpose 2/3 stops which gives me shooting at around ISO500. Then I underdevelop so instead of pushing to 800 I get what? 500? 600? Clearly some things are out of my reach.

I'm shooting right now at 400 and I'll push it to that much, for a start, to see what happens.

You are over thinking this!
You can't combine both over-development and under-development at the same tine!
If you under-develop, you are "pulling" the film development.
If you over-develop, you are "pushing" the film development.
"Pushing" actually doesn't refer to anything to do with exposure - just development.
Just as "Pulling" actually doesn't refer to anything to do with exposure - just development.
HOWEVER,
People frequently combine "Pushing" or "Pulling" with appropriate changes in exposure.
If you under-expose - for example meter at an EI of 400 - then a "push" development makes the results more usable/look better than if you use normal development with your under-exposed film.
If the extreme contrast and dynamic range of the scene mandates reduced contrast than a "pull" development combined with an increase in exposure - for example meter at an EI of 25 - helps make the results more usable/look better than normal exposure combined with normal development.

 

[M-88]

You are over thinking this!
You can't combine both over-development and under-development at the same tine!
If you under-develop, you are "pulling" the film development.
If you over-develop, you are "pushing" the film development.
"Pushing" actually doesn't refer to anything to do with exposure - just development.
Just as "Pulling" actually doesn't refer to anything to do with exposure - just development.
HOWEVER,
People frequently combine "Pushing" or "Pulling" with appropriate changes in exposure.
If you under-expose - for example meter at an EI of 400 - then a "push" development makes the results more usable/look better than if you use normal development with your under-exposed film.
If the extreme contrast and dynamic range of the scene mandates reduced contrast than a "pull" development combined with an increase in exposure - for example meter at an EI of 25 - helps make the results more usable/look better than normal exposure combined with normal development.

I was talking about "overexposing" and "underdevelopment", but you have a point. I'm developing right now. Let's see what happens.

 

[removed account4]

You must be quite proficient with things you do. And I'm just a beginner. Maybe, just maybe, some time later I might give it a try (just like I was saying several months ago that maybe, just maybe I might give home developing a try). And there's also a red wine developer. Such a barbaric act to waste fine drink on film!

i wouldn't say that i am quite proficient but i don't worry about the small stuff
if it was me and i underexposed 3 stops i would over develop by at least 3x30% maybe even 4x30%
have you figured out "bracketing your exposure" yet ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing

good luck !
john

 

[M-88]

i wouldn't say that i am quite proficient but i don't worry about the small stuff
if it was me and i underexposed 3 stops i would over develop by at least 3x30% maybe even 4x30%
have you figured out "bracketing your exposure" yet ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing

good luck !
john

Sure, it's a wonderful thing to waste the film!

 

[removed account4]

naaah its not a waste if you are getting the photograph you want ..
espeically if your light meter is a little off, and your shutter is a little off
and there is more sky than subject, it all adds up and can make the negative thin
a couple of extra frames is cheap compared to the time and effort one spends on
making the exposures and processing the film ... ( especially expired / old film cause you never know )
once the momentt/moments are gone and the scene evaporates ... its never back again ...

 

[MattKing]

Sure, it's a wonderful thing to waste the film!

What John said.
Also, one of the real benefits of bracketing is that you often end up with two or more very different interpretations of a subject. When you combine that with the controls available to you post exposure, you can end up with lots and lots to work with.

 

[M-88]

naaah its not a waste if you are getting the photograph you want ..
espeically if your light meter is a little off, and your shutter is a little off
and there is more sky than subject, it all adds up and can make the negative thin
a couple of extra frames is cheap compared to the time and effort one spends on
making the exposures and processing the film ... ( especially expired / old film cause you never know )
once the moment/moments are gone and the scene evaporates ... its never back again ...

I understand your point, but I rarely address bracketing. It usually happens when I'm not certain of the result. Then again, such cases are rare thanks to various metering modes of my camera. Of course it could be a solution in case of pushing or pulling.

What John said.
Also, one of the real benefits of bracketing is that you often end up with two or more very different interpretations of a subject. When you combine that with the controls available to you post exposure, you can end up with lots and lots to work with.

I've never been an experimenting kind of a guy, but I see where you're going.

 

[Miller]

I've never been an experimenting kind of a guy, but I see where you're going.

Yet all I read is about experimenting... Try to keep notes on every film, about exposure (normal, under- or overexposure), chemicals used, development time etc.
And try not to change more than one variable per film, in order to evaluate the results.

 

[removed account4]

I understand your point, but I rarely address bracketing. It usually happens when I'm not certain of the result. Then again, such cases are rare thanks to various metering modes of my camera. Of course it could be a solution in case of pushing or pulling.


I've never been an experimenting kind of a guy, but I see where you're going.

aren't you using experimental film ( old expired film that you happen to have a 10 foot spool of )
and experimenting to learn how to push develop your film to get acceptable results ?
sorry for my misunderstanding ...
good luck !

 

[M-88]

aren't you using experimental film ( old expired film that you happen to have a 10 foot spool of )
and experimenting to learn how to push develop your film to get acceptable results ?
sorry for my misunderstanding ...
good luck !

I admit, a fair point. It's better to ruin two out of every three frames instead of all frames. I have one roll left and one shot of ID-11. Sounds suitable for one another.

 

[MattKing]

I admit, a fair point. It's better to ruin two out of every three frames instead of all frames. I have one roll left and one shot of ID-11. Sounds suitable for one another.

When you say "ruin" you are assuming that there is just one, single right exposure.
That is like saying there is only one right way to play a piece of music.
Here's two bracketed exposures of the same scene. Is one right, and one wrong? Do you like one and not the other?

 

[M-88]

Oh come on. I can't find something that fancy in a place where I live

 

[MattKing]

Oh come on. I can't find something that fancy in a place where I live

I'll bet you can though!
But more to the point, can you not see how slight changes of exposure (and point of view) gave me two results that differed enough to be worth having both to choose from?
The scene in question included a lot of different tones, and it was exposed on to colour slide film - a medium that has a relatively rigorously defined range. So my exposure choices required me to compromise. Bracketing gave me the chance to see how those compromises manifested themselves in the result. I've shot enough in those situations with slide film to have a good idea beforehand, but the subtleties of woodland colour and tone always include surprises.
Just so you know - I do bracket regularly, because I know that exposure choices are expressive choices.
I don't have many examples of scans showing those varying results, because I only scan a tiny percentage of my photography. I chose this particular example only because this scene just happens to be one where I actually scanned those bracketed exposures. In most cases, I just have negatives or transparencies, and my expressive choice decisions are made outside the digital realm.

 

[M-88]

I'll bet you can though!
But more to the point, can you not see how slight changes of exposure (and point of view) gave me two results that differed enough to be worth having both to choose from?
The scene in question included a lot of different tones, and it was exposed on to colour slide film - a medium that has a relatively rigorously defined range. So my exposure choices required me to compromise. Bracketing gave me the chance to see how those compromises manifested themselves in the result. I've shot enough in those situations with slide film to have a good idea beforehand, but the subtleties of woodland colour and tone always include surprises.
Just so you know - I do bracket regularly, because I know that exposure choices are expressive choices.
I don't have many examples of scans showing those varying results, because I only scan a tiny percentage of my photography. I chose this particular example only because this scene just happens to be one where I actually scanned those bracketed exposures. In most cases, I just have negatives or transparencies, and my expressive choice decisions are made outside the digital realm.

I know what you mean, I used to bracket a lot in my digital days, but then I realized I didn't need three instances of the same scene, especially in digital where I'm not confined by limited shots so I just switched to carefully exposing whatever I liked, exploiting spot meter and shooting in RAW just in case. Of course there's no raw with film but I still limit myself and hardly ever bracket, usually only when I'm not sure what I'm doing.

In the meantime my developer has changed colour. Now it looks champagne. I should use it quickly and find glass bottles for the next batch.

 

[M-88]

I've been doing some research on what to do next. I want to try out Kodak's black and white film, Tri-X and Tmax specifically. Most people around the net say that Tmax has finer grain, but is more complex to process, while Tri-X has traditional, old-style grain and is much more forgiving in both - exposure and development. Is that a reason why Tri-X costs around 1-1.5$ more, or is there anything else?

(I've also read that even though Tri-X is a fairly old film, emulsion was updated several times and right now grain of Tri-X is very fine and the only significant difference between Tri-X and TmX is that Tri-X has higher contrast in shadows, while TmX has higher contrast in highlights)

Also, as someone who has developed only 5-6 rolls of film by now (all of which were cheap Kentmere 100), it'll be a rational decision to go for Tri-X instead of Tmax, right?

P.S. I'm talking about Tmax 400, since Tri-X is ISO 400 and I want to keep things equal in this case.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The only reason why Tri-X might be more expensive is because more people are willing to buy it. It certainly has some kind of "aura" around it, has become legendary.

Buy whatever film you wish, can afford, like etc. Don't be sloppy when processing your film and you will be rewarded, regardless of what film you use.

 

[M-88]

The only reason why Tri-X might be more expensive is because more people are willing to buy it. It certainly has some kind of "aura" around it, has become legendary.

That makes sense in a modern world.

I have never used either Tri-X or Tmax 400 yet, but I shot one roll of Tmax 100 this summer and it was so good that I stopped worrying about Acros 100's demise.

Buy whatever film you wish, can afford, like etc. Don't be sloppy when processing your film and you will be rewarded, regardless of what film you use.

So far I was unable to reach 100% consistency, usually 3-4 images get busted, it's either first, or last ones and they come out undeveloped (too dark). I suspect it's because of agitation, but since I have a tank with spinning handle, I can't use it for inversions and whatever the spinning pattern, all other images look fine, all but the aforementioned ones.

 

[MattKing]

The difference in price between Tri-X and T-Max 400 (TMY-2) is most likely due to the distribution and retail conditions in your local market. Both are excellent films. My preference is for TMY-2 - I think it is the finest black and white film currently available - but I would happily use modern Tri-X if there was a substantial price or availability advantage to it.
If you liked using T-Max 100 (TMX) then you are likely to like T-Max 400 (TMY-2) too.
Neither of the T-Max films are particularly difficult to expose or develop. Tri-X may be slightly more able to withstand poor exposure or poor development technique.

 

[M-88]

The difference in price between Tri-X and T-Max 400 (TMY-2) is most likely due to the distribution and retail conditions in your local market. Both are excellent films. My preference is for TMY-2 - I think it is the finest black and white film currently available - but I would happily use modern Tri-X if there was a substantial price or availability advantage to it.
If you liked using T-Max 100 (TMX) then you are likely to like T-Max 400 (TMY-2) too.
Neither of the T-Max films are particularly difficult to expose or develop. Tri-X may be slightly more able to withstand poor exposure or poor development technique.

Well, some people say Tri-X is much more flexible and therefore much more forgiving and suitable for the beginners. Those people normally also talk about how Tri- is better for street photography thanks to grittier look (and while saying this, their faces look like as if they were describing someone of their romantic interest, or some fancy sports car). But I do not see that much difference between the two films.

 

[MattKing]

Well, some people say Tri-X is much more flexible and therefore much more forgiving and suitable for the beginners. Those people normally also talk about how Tri- is better for street photography thanks to grittier look (and while saying this, their faces look like as if they were describing someone of their romantic interest, or some fancy sports car). But I do not see that much difference between the two films.

The two films are different, but not very different.
Grain is one area of difference.
Spectral sensitivity is another area of slight difference - there is much less need to use a yellow filter with T-Max 400 when you are using it under clear skies.
If you print using an enlarger, T-Max 400 has an amazing capacity to deal with wide dynamic range subjects - highlights that appear really dense can reveal wonderful detail and contrast.
But your description of how people's attraction to Tri-X is like a "romantic interest" is absolutely spot on!
You are, however, probably worrying too much about your choice of film. Pick a film that you can easily source, and use a fair bit of it.
Once you get familiar with that film, and have "developed" a reliable routine using it, you will be in a much better position to tell whether or not a different film choice might make sense.
I haven't been using much Tri-X in recent years - mostly T-Max and now discontinued Plus-X. But most of the binder shown below is Tri-X from the 1970s:

 

[M-88]

The two films are different, but not very different.
Grain is one area of difference.
Spectral sensitivity is another area of slight difference - there is much less need to use a yellow filter with T-Max 400 when you are using it under clear skies.

The only filter I have right now is the red one, so that can be disregarded, I think.

If you print using an enlarger, T-Max 400 has an amazing capacity to deal with wide dynamic range subjects - highlights that appear really dense can reveal wonderful detail and contrast.

No, I actually scan. I have a Soviet printing enlarger with old Zeiss lens attached to it, along with other tools, my father used them when he was young. But it's too much of a hassle for me and too pricy, sadly.

I haven't been using much Tri-X in recent years - mostly T-Max and now discontinued Plus-X. But most of the binder shown below is Tri-X from the 1970s:

Ah yes, Plus-X, yet another fabled medium (along with Panatomic-X) I will never have a chance to try. Well, being young isn't as nice as it seems, sometimes.

I guess I will need to buy both films and do a side-by-side comparison to see which one fits me better. Of course at low ISO range TmX is my way to go, while high ISO is taken by P3200 (Delta 3200 is grainier and with somewhat less contrast), which leaves only ISO 400 to be explored.

 

[MattKing]

Ah yes, Plus-X, yet another fabled medium (along with Panatomic-X) I will never have a chance to try. Well, being young isn't as nice as it seems, sometimes.

I'd be keen to see Plus-X return, but failing that Ilford FP-4+ is a capable substitute, and Kentmere 100 is probably a good choice too.
I still have a small amount of Plus-X - I'll think of you when I next use a roll .

 

[M-88]

I'd be keen to see Plus-X return, but failing that Ilford FP-4+ is a capable substitute, and Kentmere 100 is probably a good choice too.
I still have a small amount of Plus-X - I'll think of you when I next use a roll .

If Kentmere 100 ia anything near Plus-X, it better stay dead

 

[M-88]

So uh, I finally got Delta 3200, which I shot at 1600 and developed with times for ISO3200 in ID-11. I'm pleased to find that I did not kill any frame by incorrect agitation, for the first time in my life. I dimwittedly used Nikon F80 with some plastic lens of f/4-5.6 and it was a mistake.