Testing Arista EDU Ultra 400 (aka. Fomapan 400) with D23

[dcy]

This is Part III of my film testing saga. I feel like I'm getting better at this. I didn't make any of the mistakes I made in Parts I and II.

Recap: A while ago I took 5 rolls of film and shot a few scenes over and over so I could cut the rolls into pieces and run tests. This is the third roll.

This time we have Arista EDU Ultra 400 (aka. Fomapan 400) shot in a sunny day at EI 250 and EI 200 on my Pentax 17 half-frame camera. I cut the roll into 4 pieces and developed 3 of them in D23 stock solution at around 20°C. Inspired by a thread from @F4U , I've decided to tray straight D23 this time. The Massive Dev Chart suggests a development time of 7.5 minutes, so I decided to "bracket" that value:

1) One piece was developed for 6 min.
2) One piece was developed for 7.5 min.
3) One piece was developed for 9 min.

If the MDC is correct, the middle piece should be properly developed. From my novice point of view, they all look good to me. I like the extra shadow detail (in the trees) with EI 200. I feel that all development times show the same amount of detail in the highlights (the roof of the basilica). I would be interested to know your opinions. Without further ado, here are the results:

Start with a high-level shot of all the negatives:

Now the scans of two sample scenes:

1) D23 for 6min --- EI 250 (left) + EI 200 (right)

2) D23 for 7.5min --- EI 250 (left) + EI 200 (right)

3) D23 for 9min --- EI 250 (left) + EI 200 (right)

 

[FotoD]

Looking at the shadows, I'd rather use the El 200 negs. For contrasty scenes El 100 can sometimes be nice.

And I would probably develop for at least 7:30 min. But that depends on what the negs would be used for. (For alt processes 15 min would be better. 18x24 mm contact prints! )

 

[Milpool]

I like the EI 200 6min but 7.5 is fine too.

 

[ags2mikon]

I think you are doing very well. I would go for the EI 200 at 6-7.5 min. You will find that D-23 1:1 does not build contrast as fast as other developers when you extend development times. Here in the desert southwest that is a nice benefit. I know it is expensive, but D-23 1:1 plays very nice with TMY-2.

 

[Craig]

I'm seeing a lot of variability on your exposures within the same negative strip, so it's much harder to judge development until each frame is exposed identically.

In the first photo of all the negatives, notice how the bottom strip has the left images quite dense and the right images fairly light?

I'd want to work on metering technique to get the resulting densities on the negative consistent frame to frame. Once you have achieved that, then look at adjusting development to bring the density/contrast to where you want it.

 

[F4U]

Thank you dcy. Although i will be using a tank at 75F, I guess I have no choice but to go for 7 minutes and call it good

 

[npl]

EI 200 6-7.5min, I'd say it's pretty consistent with foma's curve (see attached)

Datasheets, first place to look.

 

[dcy]

EI 200 6-7.5min, I'd say it's pretty consistent with foma's curve (see attached)

Datasheets, first place to look.

It was. The datasheet is precisely where I got the idea of trying EI 200 and 250. However, notice that the plot you shared is for D76, not D23. The datasheet does not include times for D23. In fairness, the advice I've received in this forum for D23 is to either copy D76 times or add 10-15%. Looking back at the plot for D76, EI of 200 - 250 corresponds to 6.5-9.5 min in D76. If we add 0-15% to that we'd get 6.5-10.5 min for D23. So overall I'm happy that I covered the wider 6-9min range.


But... following this train of thought... My understanding is that the target contrast in the ISO standard is gamma = 0.6. Looking back at the D76 plot, we see that we reach gamma = 0.6 just after 6 minutes. This corresponds to an ISO of around 190.

In your opinion, would you interpret this plot to mean that, if Foma had actually followed the ISO standard and reported a film ISO based on D76 at 20°C, the would have found a true film ISO of around 200?

 

[dcy]

In the first photo of all the negatives, notice how the bottom strip has the left images quite dense and the right images fairly light?

I hope I'm not being too thick-headed, but I'm not seeing it. I actually think that the left images are light and the right ones are dense, which is what you'd expect from the fact that the left images were shot at EI 250 and the right ones at EI 200.

Here's a zoom-in to the bottom strip:

Am I just going blind? I swear I think the ones on the right are denser... "denser" means "darker", right?... more silver.

I'd want to work on metering technique to get the resulting densities on the negative consistent frame to frame. Once you have achieved that, then look at adjusting development to bring the density/contrast to where you want it.

Well, these are not consistent because I as intentionally exposing them differently in order to test which EI looks best. My metering technique is to point the camera and pray that the internal light meter does the right thing .

So far my observation is that more light = good, which I'm sure will surprise exactly no-one. But even beyond the test strips I have posted, I also shoot color and I took some shots inside the basilica with Kodak UltraMax. After getting the film back from the lab, I found that the indoor photos looked a lot better at EI 320 than EI 400, while the outdoor photos did not look any worse at EI 320.

 

[Craig]

I may have misunderstood how you were exposing the film. Here is a screen capture of your first post:

I was looking at how the left pair of images is darker (denser, more exposure) than the right side ones at the other end of the strip. Were these exposed at a different EI? I though they were all the same.

Hope and Pray metering works most of the time, but not always. The skill is to learn when it doesn't, and why.

 

[dcy]

I may have misunderstood how you were exposing the film. Here is a screen capture of your first post:
View attachment 401152 I was looking at how the left pair of images is darker (denser, more exposure) than the right side ones at the other end of the strip. Were these exposed at a different EI? I though they were all the same.

Oh. I see what you mean. No no, you understood correctly. Yes, every image pair has the same EIs (250 then 200).

Yes. The sky is definitely way darker on those frames than the others. I didn't think much of it until you mentioned it. I just checked the negatives. I can tell you that the pattern is consistent across the entire roll, and across different rolls of film (AristaPan 100, Kentmere 200, Arista EDU 400). So whatever this is, it's not random.

I wish I had taken a cellphone photo of each scene so I could refer back to them later. It is possible that that scene was simply brighter. The scene with the denser sky is facing south, while the ones with the less dense sky are all facing north. I do not recall exactly where the Sun was, but I am in a northern latitude, so in general you'd expect a south-facing scene to be closer to the Sun. This is all speculation on my part, but it's the best idea I have.

Hope and Pray metering works most of the time, but not always. The skill is to learn when it doesn't, and why.

Yeah. I would really like to know why that particular scene has so much more exposure. Even if the sky was brighter, you'd imagine the light meter would just adapt.

Hmmm.... Maybe the scene had more contrast?

 

[Bill Burk]

@dcy I see you take lots of doubles.

Did you have any questions about my suggestion to take triplets?

One shot at +2 stops exposure compensation, followed by two normal shots. When you cut the strips, cut between the pair of normal shots.

Then lay the two normal shots on top of each other on the light box and take a cell phone photo of the set.

We can talk about what it shows. It should reveal whether you have the development time long enough for that film / developer combination.

They should look close, but if the overexposed shot looks darker than two normal sandwiched, suspect too long development. If the overexposed shot looks lighter than the two normal sandwiched, suspect too short development.

 

[dcy]

@dcy I see you take lots of doubles.

Did you have any questions about my suggestion to take triplets?

Oh, I'm sorry I must have missed it. I don't remember seeing it. I probably wasn't paying enough attention.

One shot at +2 stops exposure compensation, followed by two normal shots. When you cut the strips, cut between the pair of normal shots.

Then lay the two normal shots on top of each other on the light box and take a cell phone photo of the set.

We can talk about what it shows. It should reveal whether you have the development time long enough for that film / developer combination.

They should look close, but if the overexposed shot looks darker than two normal sandwiched, suspect too long development. If the overexposed shot looks lighter than the two normal sandwiched, suspect too short development.

That's an interesting idea. I can definitely try that on my next roll. With 72 shots in my half-frame, I can easily devote 3 or 6 shots to test 1-2 scenes and see what I learn about my development time.

Can you explain to me why the test works? I'm trying to reason through it, but I can't figure it out...

Let's see... Development time increases contrast. If we imagine an ideal density curve where the midtones are a straight line, I would imagine that laying two normal shots on top of each other would always look the same as one shot with +1 stop exposure, regardless of whether the film is overdeveloped (curve too steep) or underdeveloped (curve too shallow).

Clearly I'm missing a few steps... Perhaps something to do with the fact that overdeveloped film tends to crush the highlights.

 

[Bill Burk]

Let's see... Development time increases contrast. If we imagine an ideal density curve where the midtones are a straight line, I would imagine that laying two normal shots on top of each other would always look the same as one shot with +1 stop exposure, regardless of whether the film is overdeveloped (curve too steep) or underdeveloped (curve too shallow).

You get the idea.

+2 stops exposure, because the straight line isn't 45-degrees. With a good normal development, the straight line runs about 50% gradient.

But I am seeing now it doesn't work.

A normal exposure, say it wants to give a middle gray density of 0.7 to pick a number out of the air. To double that needs to be about 1.4 density and you don't get that until maybe four stops over exposure.

Maybe the other direction. Two exposures at -2 stops looks like they might be 0.3 and stacked up might add up close to .7

I have to work this out better, because the first idea does not work at all

Shoot. Also have to account for film base because I usually subtract that out. Some film has a gray antihalation and it will show up on the light table as looking gray.

 

[Bill Burk]

@dcy I see you take lots of doubles.

Did you have any questions about my suggestion to take triplets?

One shot at +2 stops exposure compensation, followed by two normal shots. When you cut the strips, cut between the pair of normal shots.

Then lay the two normal shots on top of each other on the light box and take a cell phone photo of the set.

We can talk about what it shows. It should reveal whether you have the development time long enough for that film / developer combination.

They should look close, but if the overexposed shot looks darker than two normal sandwiched, suspect too long development. If the overexposed shot looks lighter than the two normal sandwiched, suspect too short development.

This specifically was a mistake. Two normal negatives do not add up to one with two stops greater exposure.

Not only does this make a huge assumption mistake (it’s one stop difference between them).

Adding 0.30 density may double the exposure of a print.

But you’re going from something akin to 0.72 to 1.02, not from 0.72 to 1.44. It may double the expected print time, but it doesn’t double the density.

And it forgets to account for Base + Fog which itself may range from 0.05 for 120 film and 0.23 for 35mm film which often has anti-halation gray dye in the base.

 

[F4U]

If I may ask... Unless I am mistaken, the OP was fond of his half frame camera but stated also he has a normal full frame. On that second half of the statement is where I have only vague recollection. So my question is, if it is so that you own a normal full frame 35, are you using it? 35mm is as small of a negative commonly considered acceptable for high quality work. When I saw the post of a strip of half frame negatives, I kind of cringed. I had never seen one. "Whoa, way too small," thought I. I also though of the day when this new photographer will get his first GREAT shot, only to fall into disappointment that the image is trapped as a low-end format negative. Half frame 35mm is outside the minimum bounds conventionally accepted with the 35mm negative. Anything smaller can only lead to regret the first time you find the shot of a lifetime. "If only I had done do and so...." Instead, all you have is a grainy, unsharp tiny negative to work with.

 

[dcy]

If I may ask... Unless I am mistaken, the OP was fond of his half frame camera but stated also he has a normal full frame. On that second half of the statement is where I have only vague recollection. So my question is, if it is so that you own a normal full frame 35, are you using it?

It's my wife's camera. She uses it.

35mm is as small of a negative commonly considered acceptable for high quality work. When I saw the post of a strip of half frame negatives, I kind of cringed. I had never seen one. "Whoa, way too small," thought I. I also though of the day when this new photographer will get his first GREAT shot, only to fall into disappointment that the image is trapped as a low-end format negative. Half frame 35mm is outside the minimum bounds conventionally accepted with the 35mm negative. Anything smaller can only lead to regret the first time you find the shot of a lifetime. "If only I had done do and so...." Instead, all you have is a grainy, unsharp tiny negative to work with.

Ok.

 

[F4U]

I trust my intentions are not taken as contrarian. I do not know of your financial means. If that is a limitation. may I suggest a Nikkormat FT2 or FT3? a truly serious professional-grade 35mm often found for paltry sums, even for the most frugal buyer. The only reason I dare to step up and say these tings is that I've seen your posts. You impress me as one wanting to do good work. I would like to think I provided encouragement towards an enduring interest. Your first great shot can happen any time. Having it trapped on that tiny negative is too disappointing of a thought to risk. Regards.

 

[koraks]

I trust my intentions are not taken as contrarian.

Although I'd wager to see your post #16 might easily be mistaken as such, even if not intended that way.

Moreover, the argument of 'great picture trapped in mediocre quality negative' if extended to a reasonable modern standard would result in the suggestion to pick up a second hand Nikon D800 for around $500 (i.e. the same retail price as the Pentax 17 OP has). It'll blow anything on 35mm film out of the water and you have instant access to the images.

The gist of this of course is not to say @dcy should ditch film and switch to digital. What I'm saying is that we end up with some kind of compromise that optimizes for our personal preferences. That compromise is rarely, if ever, objectively superior to whatever other option that can be offered. You @F4U argue that he should be shooting 35mm full frame film, but why not recommend he pick up a Texas Leica and enjoy a 6x9cm frame size? So much better! Fact of the matter is that @dcy went with the camera he's got for his own particular set of reasons/arguments. We can inquire into those and try to understand them, but in the end, the only reasonable position we can take is to accept the reasons of others for what they are, and then make our own decisions based on our own reasons. We can inspire and learn from each other, but the argument that basically goes "aw shucks, should have shot that on xxx, you know" really doesn't go anywhere.

 

[Craig]

I would definitely "Like" your post Koraks if such a feature was here (PS: that's not a request for such a feature).

We use the camera we have, the real work is optimizing our tools. Every camera and format has it's compromises, if those are positive or negative depends on the situation and photographer.

I have many times on a trip thought I need to take the bigger camera to get better negatives and more often than not, it ends up being left in the hotel because it's too heavy to carry all day.

A smaller negative is better than the one not exposed at all.

 

[dcy]

Thank you @koraks and @Craig . What you said really parallels my own thoughts, but more eloquently than what I would have written.

In every hobby you encounter well-meaning advice that basically sounds like

"If you are really serious about XYZ, then you need to invest in these premium materials and you should work hard to master these techniques."

I've heard a variation of that in many different contexts. But it always struck me at odds with the very notion of what a hobby is. Why should I be serious about a hobby?

Separately, my view is that any hobby or activity we do for fun is ultimately about working within an arbitrary list of self-imposed constraints because that's what makes it fun. Football () / Soccer is about learning to control a bouncy ball without using your hands. Football () / Hand-Egg is about learning to throw + catch + run with a decidedly non-aerodynamic object. Speed walking is learning to do go fast without both feet leaving the ground.

Similarly, my view is that choosing to use half-frame, the cheapest films, and cheapest papers is just an arbitrary set of constraints that just happens to control the running cost so that $$$ is never a reason to not take a shot or not do a print.

As @koraks said, if the goal was picture quality I'd shoot digital. I already have a $1,000 mirrorless camera that I like. Had it for years before switching to analog.