Under-developed or under-exposed (or scan problem)?

[MattKing]

A quick bit of post processing yields this:



This tells me that the negative as developed gives you a lot of contrast to work with. It would still be worthwhile to try increasing development.

 

[cliveh]

A quick bit of post processing yields this:

View attachment 267677

This tells me that the negative as developed gives you a lot of contrast to work with. It would still be worthwhile to try increasing development.

Matt, we all know that post processing we could turn it into a lith print if we want to. I'm glad to see that you are now advocating increased development,.

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

Thank you for sharing your experience, good things to know.

35mm was 2009 film. I didn`t try to push it, just shot it at iso 100 and developed just as suggested in developing chart. I added just 30 sec. It probably could benefit from additional minute or so, . I got 40 pieces of that Fortepan 100 film for a very resonable price, so I will have to find the correct developing timings.

6x7 was relatively new Tmax. One thing that could cause problems to some degree, I guess, is the fact that I pre-soaked the film, but just for one minute and not extended the developing time. I read later that that may be the problem.

Agitation was constant for the first 30 seconds (45 sec Tmax), and 6 turns every minute. Same with fixer.

As a curiosity, here is aprox. 80 years old negative (btw, is this Neuschwanstein castle?), forgotten in old Vollenda, that I developed in HC110. Many things can be done in PS it seems. Same fogginess before the quick "fixing" (just clipping points on levels histogram on all 3 chanals) , due the age this time.

Learning basics every day and this site is most helpful. Salut.


Sorry Bavarians. Wrong view.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, we all know that post processing we could turn it into a lith print if we want to. I'm glad to see that you are now advocating increased development,.

Clive, I'm not sure that I am. As I said earlier:

The medium format negatives might benefit from more development, but might also be perfectly appropriate for a digitization workflow.

And of course:

It would still be worthwhile to try increasing development.

(emphasis added in both cases)
I am advocating that Marijan first try to optimize the digital results from the negatives in hand, and then compare the optimized obtained from negatives that have been developed a bit more. He/she might prefer the results from digitization of the existing negatives.

 

[cliveh]

Thank you for sharing your experience, good things to know.

35mm was 2009 film. I didn`t try to push it, just shot it at iso 100 and developed just as suggested in developing chart. I added just 30 sec. It probably could benefit from additional minute or so, . I got 40 pieces of that Fortepan 100 film for a very resonable price, so I will have to find the correct developing timings.

6x7 was relatively new Tmax. One thing that could cause problems to some degree, I guess, is the fact that I pre-soaked the film, but just for one minute and not extended the developing time. I read later that that may be the problem.

Agitation was constant for the first 30 seconds (45 sec Tmax), and 6 turns every minute. Same with fixer.

As a curiosity, here is aprox. 80 years old negative (btw, is this Neuschwanstein castle?), forgotten in old Vollenda, that I developed in HC110. Many things can be done in PS it seems. Same fogginess before the quick "fixing" (just clipping points on levels histogram on all 3 chanals) , due the age this time.

Learning basics every day and this site is most helpful. Salut.
View attachment 267678 View attachment 267679 View attachment 267680

Did you by any chance use the massive development chart that is consistently wrong and very misleading? It is worked out by extrapolation of numbers rather than practical experimentation. As a previous post mentioned, ty an increase your development by about 20%

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

Did you by any chance use the massive development chart that is consistently wrong and very misleading? It is worked out by extrapolation of numbers rather than practical experimentation. As a previous post mentioned, ty an increase your development by about 20%

Yes I did for Fortepan. And Kodak recommended times for Tmax. I will try longer times on Fortepan. And Tmax without any soaking first.

I have an intention to start with darkroom again (got Kaiser VP3005 and few lenses wating) so my main intention is to get the negatives as perfect as I am able to get them. But in the meantime I would like to shoot and process it in PS and LR. So I got to get familiar with both workflows.

 

[ced]

When you use a camera to digitise from negs you should try to get rid of all area outside of the image (use a mask/s) this will change the initial result quite dramatically. The edge of the 35mm film "looks" fogged & as others have said under developed. The medium format is not fogged but is also under developed.

 

[grain elevator]

When you use a camera to digitise from negs you should try to get rid of all area outside of the image (use a mask/s) this will change the initial result quite dramatically. The edge of the 35mm film "looks" fogged & as others have said under developed. The medium format is not fogged but is also under developed.

You also need to limit any light falling on the top of the negative, that is to say work in a dark room unless you use strong flash or a light tight slide copier.

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

I use the Kaiser V-system 3005 mask as a "crop" tool on Kaiser scan light panel, when photographing my negatives . I did put few "wider" shots in this thread so people can see rebate and spacing's between negatives. And it is fairly dark, but not "dark room" dark. Will try to see the effect. Thanks for suggestions.

Main issue was definitely underdevelopment. Here is few photographs of my last negative. This time it is almost "perfect" to my abilities, prepared for dark room o PS / Light-room processing. OK, not the same camera as earlier, this is Xenar on Rolleicord Vb, and the film is fresh Ilford Delta 100. But main thing is that again, I had to prolong the recommended film makers (Ilford) developing times for a given temperature and chosen developer, HC110. I did 6 min and 30 sec at 71,6F (22°C). At that temperature it should be 5 and half minutes according to Ilford and other sources. So 20% longer and film is OK. Even additional 30 sec. wouldn't do harm I guess.

So I wonder what is/are the reason(s) that my films needs longer developing times. Can it be simply, I dont know, water I use?? HC110 is half a year old, almost full bottle, expiring date end of 2022. I know that times given in charts are just starting points, but can one expect this kind of regular-constant deviations from recommended times. I can adopt easily, but I would like to know anyway.
Fixer was 4 min of freshly mixed Ilford Rapid this time. Agitations, first minute than 5 inv. per min. Same the fixer.

My first quick test shoot with Rolleicord Vb. It`s Xenar is quite the lens. I was quite amazed. It made me forget that this is a photo of a scanned negative/positive when I was reviewing it on PC, looking at the level of the details on that power station photo.

 

[cliveh]

Pleased to see you are now getting better negs through increased development. You ask why your film needs longer and I would suggest the time you originally used was too short. Published development times are often wrong, especially those quoted by a film manufacturer for another type of film. Find your correct development time for what works for you by trial and error.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Clive about the "what works for you" part.
When you can, try printing the old and the new. If it were me, I might very well prefer the old, but that is me.

 

[Marijan Radaljac]

I wonder what are the "hidden" factors that can and do influence development times. Many people use recommended numbers from let`s say Ilford technical sheet for that particular film. Why so different results at same temperatures, same developer, and more than similar workflow (take that as a rhetorical question)?
I know I need to learn this things and find the answers by myself through the work and by gaining some experience with this materials. I am quite sure that that is the best and most useful approach. Looking forward to try to print some photos in the dark room. Soon I hope.
Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Why so different results at same temperatures, same developer, and more than similar workflow (take that as a rhetorical question)?

One common reason - thermometers are like light meters, it's rare to find two uncalibrated thermometers that read exactly the same.

 

[grat]

That might be a point in favor of Sous Vide circulators-- since they're designed for preparing food, one would hope there's a certain amount of consistency in their calibration.

 

[ced]

I think you have nailed it & this might just be your normal process now, so stick to it & don't try to analyse too much (only when it is out a lot of course). Enjoy & post images!