The trouble with being self taught!

[ajuk]

Obviously after developing about 75 films I still could do with lessons, Friday I developed some Tmax 400 @ 800 in Xtol and I got very thin negs, then yesterday I decided reluctantly to develop some HP5+ in some Xtol from the same batch and took great care in agitating right and got really dense negs almost too dense, but that showed me that I should take great care in making sure I give my films enough agitation? To me agitation is spinning the tank round in circles for 5 seconds every minute, since if I invert the tank it leaks. Also what is hardening fixer?

 

[SuzanneR]

I would also give some thought to how well you've exposed the film, too. I'm not sure more agitation would make a poorly exposed negative denser. A hardening fixer will help keep the wet emulsion from being too soft as it dries. For most modern films (Kodak or Ilford) it may or may not be necessary, but for certain films, especially a few manufactured in eastern Europe it can be very useful.

 

[Jesper]

Try not to change too much.
Start out with one film and one developer. You say that you exposed Tmax 400 @ 800. Did you change the time accordingly for the developer?
If you didn't you should get thinner negatives (everything one step underexposed).

My guess is that it got more to do with underexposure than agitation.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Are the negatives thin in the entire spectrum of grayscale? Or just the shadows?

If it's only the shadows, you need to increase your exposure and develop for the same amount of time or possibly a little less. If it's the whole grayscale, it's probably a combination of underexposure and underdevelopment.
You need to be very observant and take notes so that you have records and can backtrack through them to understand trends in your development. For these notes to be useful, it's best to learn with one film and one developer. Print your negs often too, or (God forbid ) scan them if that's what you do. Learn how to change exposure and development to suit your needs, to generate negatives that print easily with a full rich scale.

Increased agitation and development time can and will alter how your negatives look. As will exposure. A simplified version of the full truth (a good place to start) is to judge your shadow detail (also called film speed) by exposing your film at one stop over (for ISO 400 film - exposure index 200), normal (400), and one stop under (800). Develop normal according to developer manufacturer's instructions. Then print/scan your negatives to find out at what exposure level you get sufficient shadow detail, and then learn the lesson that if you underexpose you negatives, especially in situations with a lot of contrast, you will sacrifice shadow detail.
When you get the shadow detail right, (don't pay particular attention to the rest of the tonal scale until you're done with determining shadow detail / film speed), it's time to fine tune development. Shoot a roll at your preferred film speed / shadow level - this is an individual number for you and you only - and now cut the roll in three shorter pieces. Develop one -25%, one 'normal', and one +25%. Now repeat the printing/scanning and see where you like the whole tonal scale.

With time you will learn to judge how you must expose and process your film in order to get a good full range negative from all kinds of lighting situations. Agitation is a powerful factor, and I change it from agitating every 30s to every 5m depending on what I need and want from my negative. With altered agitation, total development time needs to be adjusted as well...

So, experiment, but don't experiment with materials. Shoot and process lots with the same film/dev combo (LOTS - as in a couple hundred rolls). Take notes. Study your notes. Print often. Be curious. Break rules. Completely overdevelop a roll by adding 50% time to your development regime, or agitate the hell out of the film tank. Just to see what happens. If you study closely what happens, you might just learn something you wish to use.

And, lastly, get a tank that you can invert fully if you can. It's better that way.

 

[Rick A]

Dont forget to monitor your chem temperture. If your developer is just two degrees warmer than the time/temp numbers you've selected, you will get denser(overdeveloped)negs.

Rick

 

[jp80874]

You have received some very good answers to address this specific situation. If you would like to work on the thread heading, “The trouble with being self taught!” do what you would have done if you had taken Photo 1 and Photo 2 at most high schools and colleges where wet darkroom work is still taught. Purchase copies of:
Black and White Photography, a basic manual, Henry Horenstein, Little Brown
Beyond Basic Photography – Horenstein, Henry, Little Brown

Since these have been almost universal text books for 30 years, copies are available on eBay and other used book sources for as little as $3-$5. At least that is what I paid five years ago when I started taking college courses in my retirement. After that it is just work, taking pictures, processing film and printing. The courses I have taken concentrate in related series of work.

In the Advanced Photo classes you have to create a theme and produce a series of twenty 11x14 or larger prints, matted and over matted. The prints must be the best you can do for your level. To insure that your level improves the courses I have taken require class critiques of ten new prints, 15 minutes per individual, spotted and flattened, related to your series, every two weeks. You have to talk about your work and how each picture relates to the series. Most of the students start with 35mm and work up to medium format.

If you are masochistic you go to 4x5, 8x10, 7x17 and up. I just started my 18th course in retirement and love it. This term I am shooting 8x10, enlarging to 16x20. Last term I made 7x17 contact prints. After learning B&W this college teaches and allows you to do color and or digital. Each has its advantages. Whether this work is self imposed or in class, if you do the work you will get the results.

John Powers

 

[ajuk]

Thanks.

I had previously pushed T-max 400 to 800 in Microphen and got really good negs, I the one picture I did take in daylight looks better then the rest but still a bit thin, I'm hoping it is down to agitation that I got results like this, with the Tmax I got the time I needed for 800 1+1 off the massive dev chart, I just have it a whirl every minute maybe forgetting a few times, with the HP5+ I agitated it for a full 5 seconds every minute. Looks like this is the first time I have used Xtol to push unless you count D3200 @ 3200, they came out as I would expect. Looking through my Negs is depressing I have 19 contact sheets to make!

 

[tkamiya]

I also use Tmax400 and XTOL and had similar problems. What I noticed is that Tmax film is incredibly sensitive to variations in development. Please also note, the chemical you pour in may be at certain temperature but as you process the film, chemical reaction and outside temp will change the processing temp as well. During my test with plain water, temp change of 2F or so was observed during 8 minutes time. With chemical, I'd imagine change will be greater.

What I do is to stabilize the film and canister by water pre-wash, and control the chemical temp and processing temp by using water bath during development time. I am keeping mine within +/- 0.5F and I get consistent results. It's not much of additional work since I set everything up in the same water bath, leave for an hour or so, come back and measure the water/chemical temp, go back to my chart to find the proper time, and start the process. I made a chart with exact timing in one degree steps by interpolating the figures from Kodak.

Also keep in mind, gentle circle won't do much of agitation in areas where films are close together. (most of the roll....) It needs to be fairly vigorous. I use inversion method.

 

[SuzanneR]

One more quick thought for you that I forgot earlier... in determining if the issue is one of exposure or development... check the number markings on the film. If they appear black, then you have developed the film fully, and the problem is with the exposure. If they don't look to be fully black, then the issue is with development, and perhaps with a lack of agitation.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

As mentioned above, you only want to change one thing at a time. Say you change up your film, your dev, your time, your agitation cycles, a couple of other things. The film comes out great. OK. What made the difference?

If I were to mess around with something, the first thing I would try would be developing time. You want to make sure you have a procedure that is spot on identical time after time. Of course, a human factor like agitation can't be 100% the same but we homo sapiens can generally get it pretty close.

I would first, go over your expsoure technique. Perhaps expose a roll at a white and black checker type surface, placing your blacks and white equidistant from Zone V, expose enough film to test with. Process some with your basic temp, agitation, time method and see how it comes out. Adjust time from there.

 

[ajuk]

Update I developed some more Tmax 400 in Xtol 1+1 this time I agitated it properly and it I wasn't pushing it, the negs were less thin but still quit thin anybody else tried this combo should I use stock solution or switch back to Microphen, the only reason I switched was because Microphen is expensive can it or an equivalent be bought in larger sizes?

 

[Existing Light]

Are you using your camera's auto exposure or using a handheld meter? Sometimes the auto exposure in the camera can be tricked by bright scenes or dark scenes and (some times wrongly) compensates. If you're using a handheld meter or spot meter, you pretty much eliminate that possibility, unless you do something stupid like set the wrong ISO (which I've done quite a few times ).

you might also have to shoot your film at a slower ISO, perhaps 320, 250, or 200. I dont shoot tmax and dont use xtol, so I cant comment directly on that. I've noticed with HP5+ and Rodinal 1:50 that I should shoot it at 200 or 250. Perhaps you should sacrifice a roll or two (or three) and shoot a scene at different exposures and see which one gives you the shadow detail you want and adjust your developing time to get the highlight detail you want.

I wish you luck

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you using your camera's auto exposure or using a handheld meter? Sometimes the auto exposure in the camera can be tricked by bright scenes or dark scenes and (some times wrongly) compensates. If you're using a handheld meter or spot meter, you pretty much eliminate that possibility, unless you do something stupid like set the wrong ISO (which I've done quite a few times ).

Example light reading including too much sky => too light so it resulting in being under exposed.

Steve

 

[Existing Light]

Example light reading including too much sky => too light so it resulting in being under exposed.

Steve

A too dark situation could be when metering a scene with lots of shadows or a person in front of a black wall. The meter might try to compensate for the shadows or black wall and overexpose a bit. (of course, you could just zoom in on the person in front of the black wall, or get closer if you dont have a zoom, meter the face, step back and use that exposure)

Perhaps I should have included the examples when I made my first post

 

[CBG]

... since if I invert the tank it leaks ...

Time to get a tank that does not leak. They're not all that expensive. Gentle inversions are probably the most dependable, most repeatable agitation and if your tank leaks you are kind of stuck with less effective agitation.

 

[ajuk]

There doesn't seem to be a problem with my meter.

 

[2F/2F]

The trouble with being self taught: Too many educational influences with no particular structure. Too easy to pick up erroneous information from Joe Blow, and then have to be told later that Joe Blow was full of it. If you are going to be self taught (as I, and kabillions of others are), I think you should focus on just a handful of sources for your information. A few books, a truly knowledgeable mentor, perhaps (though they are few and far between). Picking up random bits of information here and there will make it a rocky road...as much of the information will simply be wrong, or will be shortcuts that will not improve your understanding.

 

[Rick A]

Well spake 2F/2F-- I would think the bulk of us are self taught. there are some great books out there that I've read over the years, and I keep a copy of "Photography" by the Uptons for a reference source. Of coarse, I still have a few others around, but that is my main go-to.

Rick

 

[Steve Smith]

I like being self taught. For me it is the only way. I have taught myself photography, music and, at work, how to use our CAD system and CNC machinery.

I absolutely hate being shown how to do something - especially when it's by a person who only recognises his own way of doing things. When I do need to be shown though, I am quite lucky as I only need to be shown once and I will remember it.

Everyone is different though. Some like working it out for themselves, others prefer to be shown.


Steve.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ajuk,

You should be able to acquire a non-leaking new Paterson tank at reasonable cost from the usual suppliers.

Tom

 

[Sirius Glass]

When one is self taught they only need look a the mirror to see the source of their problems. I am self taught, but when I could not get the results that I should be able to, I took a private one day class with Per Volquartz and learned so much it took a long time to incorporate everything he taught. Money well spent.

Steve

 

[Ronald Moravec]

They are thin and lack shadow detail because of 800.

Spinning around causes increased developer replenishment around the edges compared to the center so you may get density differences across the width.

You would be better served with a lift rod technique, or even better a proper tank.

You will also be better served by using one film and and learning to develope it properly. Then move on to something else. The last thing new people need to do is "pushing" film. Does not work, never has, never will.

Do not change technique as that introduces too many variables and you never are sure what changed what.
Consistency is dull, but that is how you get perfect negs.

 

[brucemuir]

The new Tmax 400 is supposed to tolerate pushing quite well but I have no direct experience yet.

On thing I do know that properly exposed Tmax negs will generally appear "thin" so I'd look at the entire range in the neg and see how they print.

I've found that for me I need to rate TMX @ 80 and sometimes 64 depending on the contrast range I'm shooting.

 

[cmo]

Update I developed some more Tmax 400 in Xtol 1+1 this time I agitated it properly and it I wasn't pushing it, the negs were less thin but still quit thin anybody else tried this combo should I use stock solution or switch back to Microphen, the only reason I switched was because Microphen is expensive can it or an equivalent be bought in larger sizes?

If all negs are thin and time and agititation and exposure are right... what's left? Yes, temperature.

What kind of thermometer do you use?

 

[ajuk]

Not dilution? I mean I've not had problems with HP5+ + Xtol or Tmax 400 + Rodinal.