Very thin negatives, dark scans - what am I doing wrong?

[ProgramPlus]

Did some testing of some new cameras yesterday and had very disappointing results when I developed and scanned. Shot my first roll of film through a Mamiya c33 (Arista Edu 400) and shot cut Kentmere 400 through several Minolta 16s. The 120 negatives look really thin - clear looking in many areas. The 16mm negatives visually look less “off” to me but they are very small so it’s harder for me to judge. The resulting scans are quite dark from both (EPSON V500). I metered using a new to me Gossen Scout II which I believed to be fairly accurate based on comparisons with my K1000 and at times with the cds meter is some of the Minolta 16 (qt and MG-S). I think the Minolta 16 meters are a bit optimistic (letting me shoot indoors when I think I shouldn’t have been able to) but it’s hard to discern a pattern - metered by the camera or metered by the Gossen LM, pretty much all my scans were very dark. I’m not sure if this is a metering problems, inaccurate shutter speed problems, a developing problem or probably least likely, a scanning problem.

I usually semi stand developed with Rodinal 1:100 for an hour. I heard someone say they got great results with 1:200 for 2 hours so that’s what I did. 1 agitated after 70 minutes or so. The house was pretty cool (60 degrees at best) and I ran water from the tub but didn’t really check the temp. Not sure how much difference that could make.
I hope it’s not an issue with my Mamiya shutter speeds. I would tend to think a “faster than it should be) shutter speed is much less likely than a slower shutter speed and the fact that the Minolta suffered from under exposure too (or underdevelopment) makes me think it’s either a metering or development problem.

I downloaded the Lux Lightmeter app expecting to find that my Gossen was actually way off but that doesn’t appear to be the case. In testing today, they are close, one way or the other by a stop or less).

Thanks for any advice on this matter.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Those look underdeveloped to me. Try processing a roll at known temperature, and recommended time in Rodinal 1:50 (add 4% to the time for each degree F below 68) and normal agitation (five inversion or ten seconds of twizzling every minute). I think you'll like the negatives a lot better.

 

[MattKing]

I should probably preface my remarks by saying I am not a fan of reduced agitation (stand or semi-stand) development procedures.
I think you have too many unpredictable variables here to draw any conclusions.
Donald's suggestion would help to remove a few.
I will note the following though:
1) the negatives seem to have a high level of fog. That may be a result of the highly dilute semi-stand development for a long time at uncertain temperatures.
2) the edge print numbers look nice and dense, which is a relatively unreliable indication of sufficient development.
3) with respect to the first negative you posted, while there seems to be a lot of thin areas, the portion you can see of the negative immediately above looks quite good.
Can you take some photos using the incident metering function of your Gossen meter, checked against Sunny 16 conditions? That will help remove a few more variables.

 

[Huss]

Also the current Arista 400 EDU is Foma 400. Which in my use does not seem to be an ISO 400 film. It looks much better at 200. Shooting it at 400 gave me thin negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not estimate that your light meter is "fairly accurate based on comparisons with my K1000 and at times with the cds meter is some of the Minolta 16 (qt and MG-S)", get it calibrated and save yourself aggravation. Use more agitation. Then if that is not enough, longer processing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Also the current Arista 400 EDU is Foma 400. Which in my use does not seem to be an ISO 400 film. It looks much better at 200. Shooting it at 400 gave me thin negatives.

That film is my go-to for 400 speed; I've used it for years at box speed, in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Works great. NOT a 200 speed film, at least with my metering and process.

 

[titrisol]

Have you tried the Foma 400 + Rodinal combination before and have had good results?
Or did you combina a lot of firsts?
To me Foma 400+Rodinal works fine at EI200 or less but not for stand development
Use a different developer or develop normally since what you have there appears underdeveloped

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Under developed. If 1+100 works for you, use it... semi-stand is risky and personally, I avoid it unless I've shot backups, which I can easily do as I tend to shoot LF. You run the risk of bromide drag, or airbells... like I did on a roll of Ilford Pan F yesterday. Normally, I agitate 5s every minute. Did 5s every two, and ended up with airbells on some frames.

 

[tomkatf]

The edge/frame numbers don't look too bad... wouldn't this indicate underexposure (as well as possibly underdevelopment?) overall on the negatives themselves...

 

[removedacct1]

I usually semi stand developed with Rodinal 1:100 for an hour. I heard someone say they got great results with 1:200 for 2 hours so that’s what I did.

95% of the developer is exhausted after 30-40 minutes, so extending the time to two hours is probably useless. One of the "rules" regarding stand development is that you must have a minimum of 5ml of developer in the solution, regardless of the tank size. IE: if you are processing a single roll of 35mm film in a single roll tank, you need to have at least 5ml of developer in the tank. If you don't observe this protocol, you will exhaust the tiny amount of developer long before you've built decent density.

That said, your negatives are both underexposed and underdeveloped.

Like MattKing, I am NOT a fan of this "technique". I've used it in the past and found flaws in the resulting film, every single time. I don't waste my time on this sloppy process anymore. You want better negatives? Adjust the exposure/development time relationship, always using appropriate agitation.

 

[Vaughn]

If you do not have the detail you want in the shadows, you did not give the film enough exposure to get that detail. Scanners are pretty good about pulling detail out of thin negs, but you might want to give it some help with more exposure. If the exposures are long, compensate for reciprocity failure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you do not have the detail you want in the shadows, you did not give the film enough exposure to get that detail. Scanners are pretty good about pulling detail out of thin negs, but you might want to give it some help with more exposure. If the exposures are long, compensate for reciprocity failure.

The flaw with underexposing and over developing is that with under exposure shadow detail is lost forever.

 

[ProgramPlus]

Thanks for the replies. In retrospect it was too many new variables at once. Several untested cameras, questionable lightmeter and a new development method. The more I’ve compared the Gossen LM to the Lux app and to two of my film cameras, I think the metering is not the major problem. Likewise, although the cameras were untested, I got uniformly dark scans with all the cameras so I don’t think inaccurate shutter speeds are the issue.
I’ve only stand developed and felt like I got good results in the past but as a beginner I don’t have the knowledge to properly critique. I stuck with it because I thought it was the most “forgiving” method but I can understand the reasons why people don’t do it.
I’ll do as Donald suggested and try traditional Rodinal development and see what I get. I had a strip of 16 mm still in the fridge loaded it and shot some test images with 3 of the Minolta 16s. Should be able to develop tonight.
Thanks for the replies. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Thanks for all the suggestions.

 

[Vaughn]

The flaw with underexposing and over developing is that with under exposure shadow detail is lost forever.

Very true. I believe that scanning can extract more usable information from thin shadows than can be printed with normal silver gelatin printing -- but usually there is a cost for such things...resolution, grain, contrast, whatever it might be. Seems like if one kept the exposure on the useful part of the curve, then manipulation would be easier. I am not too sure about the OP's "too dark" scans...just lighten them up, right?

I have 4 rolls of 120 to develop... two TriX, two PanF (before the images disappear).

 

[grat]

That film is my go-to for 400 speed; I've used it for years at box speed, in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Works great. NOT a 200 speed film, at least with my metering and process.

I'm so glad to hear someone else say that. As a novice and a Cheap Bast... customer, I figured I should learn 4x5 with a relatively inexpensive film. Arista EDU Ultra 400 (Which is apparently "Foma 400 Action") has worked like a champ for me at box speed, and a bit dicey at 200.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Did some testing of some new cameras yesterday and had very disappointing results when I developed and scanned. Shot my first roll of film through a Mamiya c33 (Arista Edu 400) and shot cut Kentmere 400 through several Minolta 16s. The 120 negatives look really thin - clear looking in many areas. The 16mm negatives visually look less “off” to me but they are very small so it’s harder for me to judge. The resulting scans are quite dark from both (EPSON V500). I metered using a new to me Gossen Scout II which I believed to be fairly accurate based on comparisons with my K1000 and at times with the cds meter is some of the Minolta 16 (qt and MG-S). I think the Minolta 16 meters are a bit optimistic (letting me shoot indoors when I think I shouldn’t have been able to) but it’s hard to discern a pattern - metered by the camera or metered by the Gossen LM, pretty much all my scans were very dark. I’m not sure if this is a metering problems, inaccurate shutter speed problems, a developing problem or probably least likely, a scanning problem.

I usually semi stand developed with Rodinal 1:100 for an hour. I heard someone say they got great results with 1:200 for 2 hours so that’s what I did. 1 agitated after 70 minutes or so. The house was pretty cool (60 degrees at best) and I ran water from the tub but didn’t really check the temp. Not sure how much difference that could make.
I hope it’s not an issue with my Mamiya shutter speeds. I would tend to think a “faster than it should be) shutter speed is much less likely than a slower shutter speed and the fact that the Minolta suffered from under exposure too (or underdevelopment) makes me think it’s either a metering or development problem.

I downloaded the Lux Lightmeter app expecting to find that my Gossen was actually way off but that doesn’t appear to be the case. In testing today, they are close, one way or the other by a stop or less).

Thanks for any advice on this matter.

Why wasting time, effort, film, chemistry and money with stand development?

 

[Ariston]

I don't know that you can get a reliable answer if stand development. I have not had good luck with consistency from stand development.

As others have stated, the writing on the edges looks okay, so the film may be underexposed. Shutter speeds in old cameras are often not spot on.

I would do a normal development with fresh chemistry before I tried to draw any conclusions, though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why wasting time, effort, film, chemistry and money with stand development?

Good question, many of us are too busy with real things to do so we do not bother with stand development. Besides we like good consistent results. If your photographs are not worth anything and you have time on your hands then it could possibly be worth you time. But there are so many good developers, why bother?

 

[ProgramPlus]

So I took some more tests with 3 of my new Minolta 16s and got better, much more useable results with no adjustment in the scanning process (except “unsharp mask” which I didn’t bother to turn off). Just stuff in the backyard at different distances etc. As Donald suggested I did a “by the bottle” 1:50 Rodinal development for 17 minutes plus a correction because it was only mid 50s in the spare bathroom. I think I’ll continue to do traditional Rodinal development in the future.

 

[albireo]

Foma 400 is easily a 250/320EI film at gamma .6 in Fomadon LQN and Fomadon Excel for many users.

Actually, in Fomadon LQN, negatives look beautiful when I expose them at EI 400.

Regardless - all these claims on 'real film speed' make little sense IMHO unless one corrects for a number of variables. Here's a couple I can think of:

a. How do YOU meter?

1. Do you meter using an incident meter and going for the shadows, then correct to place those shadows in zone III?
2. Do you meter using a spot meter and if so, how?
3. Do you meter using, for instance, the reflective meter inside an SLR and if so which mode do you use? The matrix metering in my F90x will give different results than the center-weighted metering in my F90X depending on the scene content. The center-weighted metering in my F90x will give different results from the center-weighted metering in my Olympus OM2n. Sure - these are calibrated meters, but manufacturers took different decisions on what exactly 'center-weighted' means. Or what exactly 'matrix metering' means.
4. other method?

b. What is the purpose of the negatives?

1. For scanning, a target gamma of .6-.7 works great. The contrast is easily handled even by an Epson V550, let alone a Coolscan 9000.
2. For wet printing with a condenser head, for instance, perhaps you're aiming for a gamma of .5 - in any case one should specify that.

Also, as those of us who use Foma regularly will know, Foma 400 is a *beautiful* film which has absolutely nothing to do with Foma 200. Both interesting, and very different. Foma 400 digs much more into the red wavelengths. Think pale skin becoming paler, if you like that. Think Delta 400, but a somewhat softer, dreamier look. It's a bit like having an orange filter always on.

Foma 200 is beautiful in its own right, but no better or worse than Foma 400.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As Donald suggested I did a “by the bottle” 1:50 Rodinal development for 17 minutes plus a correction because it was only mid 50s in the spare bathroom. I think I’ll continue to do traditional Rodinal development in the future.

Manufacturer recommendations (from either film or developer manufacturers) aren't just pulled out of the air: they're arrived at by testing. As such, until I see a problem, I'm very prone to take them over "Hey, I did this and it worked" from some random forum poster or YouTuber.

That said, while I haven't done actual stand development (with B&W -- I've tested it once in C-41, likely won't do it again without a special circumstance), I have done reduced agitation with Parodinal (homebrew Rodinal equivalent), for what I considered sensible reasons, and for what I consider useful gains. I never went as far as leaving the stuff to stand for even fifteen minutes without agitation, but in 1:50 I've agitated only every 3rd minute many times (it was my standard process the last year or so I used Parodinal in my last darkroom); a few times I pushed it out to every 5 minutes, but found bromide drag started to show up. I've used Parodinal at 1:100 to process high contrast document films, but the results weren't as desirable as a low contrast version of Caffenol (with standard agitation) in terms of achieved speed, resolution, and grain.

I've seen negatives that were processed by stand development that were beautiful -- but it's not (IMO) a catch-all for "I'm not sure I exposed this right".

Also, as those of us who use Foma regularly will know, Foma 400 is a *beautiful* film which has absolutely nothing to do with Foma 200. Both interesting, and very different. Foma 400 digs much more into the red wavelengths. Think pale skin becoming paler, if you like that. Think Delta 400, but a somewhat softer, dreamier look. It's a bit like having an orange filter always on.

Right -- but without the 1.5 to 2 stops light loss for that orange filter. Put a light orange filter on with Tri-X, you've got, at best, EI 200 equivalent; shoot Foma 400 and, for me at least, I get good shadows and highlights, and I can (usually) see clouds in the sky (which, for Tri-X without a filter, needs very careful exposure).

 

[titrisol]

Good deal!!!
Water temperature is the key to the adjustment, not ambient temperature. A kitchen thermometer will get you in the ball park then you can adjust.
I normally use the Ilford temperature/time chart found here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Temperature-compensation-chart.pdf
IMHO it's more difficult to adjust in the summer (when water can be at 80F from the tap) as times become ridiculously short; in that case I leave water out for a few hours so that it comes close to room temperature before diluting the developer.
In the old Darkroom books, it was recommended to have all the solutions in a tray with water so that all of them would be at same temperature.

As Donald suggested I did a “by the bottle” 1:50 Rodinal development for 17 minutes plus a correction because it was only mid 50s in the spare bathroom. I think I’ll continue to do traditional Rodinal development in the future.

Also as Donald suggested; decreased agitation (for the 1st 30s then once every 2-3 minutes) with Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 is a way to have compensating development; which works fine for guesstimated exposure. With more active developers (D76 etc) it may lead to bromide drag so it must be used with caution.

 

[removed account4]

hi program plus
you might consider getting a free light meter app for your phone and see how your meters compare to it, it might help you judge light better so you look at your in-camera meters or hand held meters and when you get experience with certain films you will say to yourself " naaah, im going to add 2 stops this is off" ... also calibrate your shooting and your film by shooting a few test rolls bracketing your exposures ( expose as the meter says, expose a stop or 2 extra and a stop or 2 less ) and then develop your film as instructed, then 1 roll 30 or 40% more and 1 roll 30-40% less so you are bracketing your development too. ... THEN. .. make contact sheets or scans &c and see which combination of exposure and processing you like the best and shoot a roll that way. ... most of the time no 2 people's cameras, meters, agitation ( or not ) chemistry mixing &c methods are the same so 1 thing might work for me and not for you. ... taking people's words for what they did on the internet sometimes works, if the people are actually showing you un-adulterated un-photoshopped film scans so you actually see the film and what they did, not their photoshopped ideal of what they want to show their adoring public. not that adulterated film scans aren't good, it shows that the developer and film and exposure and lighting combination can be great. .. but always take people's examples they show on the internet with a grain of salt or a potential stepping off point because no one really knows what they did to get the images they show on the internet ...
I can't really comment on your developer or how you processed your film, directly .. I don't have a similar camera or light meter and I have never used rodinal ... I stick to coffee and print developer when I semi stand ( 1/2 hour at most ) and get acceptable ( sometimes bromide dragged ) results ... that I always fix under a red safelight or in PS..
good luck!

 

[ProgramPlus]

Thanks for all the replies. I did get the Lux light meter app and thus far like it pretty well.

The Arista I’ve only used one other time and wasn’t horribly impressed but that’s based on limited data. The Kentmere has been my go to in part because I’m making my way through a bulk roll.
My underdeveloped results in this case makes me think about a roll of bulk loaded Kentmere 400 that I shot in a new to me Pentax Super Program recently. The scans were useable but all came out quite dark. I still believe the camera’s meter to be “off” as I get very different readings compared to my K1000. My work around was to try adjusting the iso lower by 2 stops or shooting with 4x exposure compensation. The results were not much better - still dark scans. Probably underdeveloped too (also 1:100 stand developed). I think I’ll do as suggested above and reshoot a short roll bracketing my exposure and see what ends up the best (doing a traditional development this time). My goal is to be able to trick the camera into exposing correctly so that I can use the auto modes.

Thanks

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks for all the replies. I did get the Lux light meter app and thus far like it pretty well.

The Arista I’ve only used one other time and wasn’t horribly impressed but that’s based on limited data. The Kentmere has been my go to in part because I’m making my way through a bulk roll.
My underdeveloped results in this case makes me think about a roll of bulk loaded Kentmere 400 that I shot in a new to me Pentax Super Program recently. The scans were useable but all came out quite dark. I still believe the camera’s meter to be “off” as I get very different readings compared to my K1000. My work around was to try adjusting the iso lower by 2 stops or shooting with 4x exposure compensation. The results were not much better - still dark scans. Probably underdeveloped too (also 1:100 stand developed). I think I’ll do as suggested above and reshoot a short roll bracketing my exposure and see what ends up the best (doing a traditional development this time). My goal is to be able to trick the camera into exposing correctly so that I can use the auto modes.

Thanks

Get the camera light meters calibrated and save yourself a lot of grief.