weird density on step wedge

[Kirk Keyes]

You will never get good contact by setting the step wedge against film in a film holder. It just will not work all the time. You should try one of the contact printing methods.

 

[Chuck_P]

I exposed an extra sheet with the wedge the other day when I did my test, so I'm going to give it more time to see what happens to D-Max.

This second sheet turned out that the wedge was down very good on the film, so, pretty clean no streak unlike the one in the OP which was very intrusive on the steps of the wedge to badly bias the readings. That issue has been answered thanks to all for your input in helping me figure that out.

Regarding the development of the second sheet though, I decided to give it the same development time of 11 min as I just had a curiosity about it. Below is the curve from that sheet and my notes on it. I'm of the conclusion there is nothing wrong with the 6 yr old developer and that Dilution H (1:63) produces a longer toe with TMX for somewhat weak midtones. The curve went in the direction I expected to this time with a reduction in the EI to 80. I want to make one for Dil B to see if that will beef up the midtones, but won't drag this thread out on it unless someone interersted and wants to see those results---I know these type things boring to most, but I find them extremely insightful.

 

[smieglitz]

T... I'm of the conclusion there is nothing wrong with the 6 yr old developer and that Dilution H (1:63) produces a longer toe with TMX for somewhat weak midtones. ...

So, is this what you are attempting to do? The reason I'm curious is because of the extreme dilution and extended time you are getting with HC110-H. I use HC110 but do it to specifically reduce development times and due to the fact it is a liquid concentrate. I tend to develop all my films for 6 minutes and vary the HC110 dilution instead.

I would not recommend using year-old developer when running any sort of film test. Why introduce that variable?

Joe

 

[Chuck_P]

So, is this what you are attempting to do? The reason I'm curious is because of the extreme dilution and extended time you are getting with HC110-H. I use HC110 but do it to specifically reduce development times and due to the fact it is a liquid concentrate. I tend to develop all my films for 6 minutes and vary the HC110 dilution instead.

I would not recommend using year-old developer when running any sort of film test. Why introduce that variable?

Joe

No, I want to switch to a developer that is easier for me to store for longer periods and HC-110 is the easiest. I have to use my kitchen and my sessions both developing and printing can be far apart, further than I like but it's the best I can do. I'm currently using d-76 1:1 but it's problematic for me in terms of storage for longer periods of time. So, I'm testing with hc-110. I used it with 35mm and 6x7 for a long time, but tried d-76 when I went to LF last year. I like it, but want to change. Also, I was looking at my MF TMX negs and started to compare acutance between the two developers, I believe I like what I see in hc-110 (h) rather than what I see in the 4x5 with d-76.

Dilution H is recommended (at Covington Innovations) for twice the development time as Dilution B, but the curves have shown me that Dilution H provides weaker mid-tones than d-76 1:1. Many have said it before and they're right, you learn the most from a curve when it is compared to another curve. I hesitate to post another one but here are the two compared. They're both shown after personal speed is found and the "normal" development time determined.

 

[Chuck_P]

I would not recommend using year-old developer when running any sort of film test. Why introduce that variable?

Forgot to add this. A valid point but it is all I had at the time (got it from a store for free that went all digital). I got impatient to wait for another and so gambled a bit, but I think it is alright, IMO.