What do you do when you forget to label your film?

[Donald Qualls]

So, @MattKing you're one of those guys who believes "pushing" is nothing more than film abuse. Mind you, I believe most of what you wrote (though a Push +2 development will improve shadow speed slightly -- perhaps a half stop, in most developers, relative to Normal). That said, I've (accidentally) shot film through the base side (loaded the film backward in large format) and got images with usable shadow detail by using a special developer.

Super Soup

This developer was created in an attempt to salvage some Tri-X sheet film negatives that were loaded backward and exposed through the base, approximately five stops of antihalation between the lens and the emulsion. It works very well, and with the recommended process prints at near-normal contrast rather than showing the extreme contrast you'd get with a conventional push (which, in any case, can't come anywhere near this level). It seems to get literally everything possible out of any film on which I've treid it -- and given what's in it, is most likely developing to completion, which is what controls the contrast.

6 ounces water
24 ml Dektol stock solution
8 ml HC-110 syrup (or 32 ml stock solution)
1 g ascorbic acid
1/2 tsp washing soda (sodium carbonate monohydrate)
2 g potassium bromide (optional)
Water to make eight ounces

Develop for fifteen minutes, agitating very vigorously every thirty seconds. Stop and fix normally. Some fog is normal, and can be printed through. You will (of course) see an increase in grain, but it's not as much as you might expect; with large format and even the larger medium format negatives the grain increase may be barely noticeable (and isn't objectionable in comparison to super-fast films in 35 mm).

Film Effective EI
Tri-X (ISO 400), 400TX 6400
Tri-X (ISO 320), 320TXP, TXT 5000
Forte 200/Classic 200 1000
​

 

[MattKing]

So, @MattKing you're one of those guys who believes "pushing" is nothing more than film abuse.

Donald:
It is more a case that:
1) I care more about mid-tone and highlight rendition than some - I'm less of a Zone system fan and more of a fan of the ISO criteria for speed, which is more heavily influenced by people's reactions to those mid-tones and highlights; and
2) I believe that many people greatly over-estimate the ability to increase true speed by increasing development.
You may have noticed that early on in the thread I asked about the lighting conditions when the film was exposed - particularly the contrast. Sadly, I received no response.
I do believe in careful use of "push" development, but only when contrast can be handled appropriately.
I always find it an illustrative example that Kodak doesn't recommend a development time increase when T-Max 400 when it is under-exposed by a stop. That is no doubt due to their determination that the deleterious affect of increasing the development time is of more importance than the improvement in shadow and lower mid-tone rendition one achieves from that increase.
With respect to your "Super Soup", it looks interesting, but I expect it also involves some other compromises. I'm guessing that in addition to the increase in grain, you probably end up with a significantly changed characteristic curve.
If I was in to mixing my own developers, I would probably try it out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@MattKing My "Super Soup" is very much a special purpose developer. Longer term, what I had envisioned (after verifying I could take Tri-X as far as I did) was being able to shoot hand held candids in dim conditions with my Speed Graphic -- f/4.5 135mm Tessar and focal plane shutter, I can hand hold fairly reliably down to 1/20 and I had considered trying to get or cobble together the light beam add-on for the Kalart RF. The underlying concept was proven some years go with FP3000B instant film; going 2/3 to 1 stop above that speed would open some interesting opportunities.

Sadly, my work schedule now largely precludes being out in the evening, when it's dark enough to matter but people are still active. Winter's coming on, though, so I might be able to do some Weejee channeling in the coming months, but without the flash -- and still get home in time to get my sleep. I've got Dektol, some old HC-110 syrup, and plenty of ascorbic acid and laundry soda...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with @MattKing. When I want more shadow detail I use the Zone System, always use Box Speed and most of the time I am using Box Speed. While I was at Kodak I tested pushing and other than a slight speed boost from XTOL all I got for my efforts was increased contrasts. Basically the film manufacturer will always know much much more than you will ever know so just take to heart and mind.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I usually shoot at box speed myself. A few times, however, I've found some surprising results.

For instance, I discovered some years ago that Fomapan 100 pushed +2 (to EI 400) has the same development time, similar levels of shadow detail, and nearly indistinguishable grain, as Fomapan 400. At one point, I seriously considered whether they were actually the same emulsion.



I also found that extended development with minimal agitation (almost semi-stand) in highly dilute developer will give a true speed increase of about 2/3 stop with the films I tried it on (even with a developer that usually loses 1/3 to 2/3 stop):

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I agree with @MattKing. When I want more shadow detail I use the Zone System, always use Box Speed and most of the time I am using Box Speed. While I was at Kodak I tested pushing and other than a slight speed boost from XTOL all I got for my efforts was increased contrasts. Basically the film manufacturer will always know much much more than you will ever know so just take to heart and mind.

I very much prefer more shadow detail, and the most oft question I get asked by people who send film in to me is “how come my shadows and blacks don’t have very much detail?” Followed quickly by “how do I get deeper blacks with more detail?”

I simply tell them to put +1 exposure compensation if their camera supports it and they will get much better shadows and blacks. Many of these people are used to shooting digital which has usable details down to 7+ stops below a properly exposed middle grey, and film just doesn’t really do that before running into film base plus fog. It’s made even worse by those shooters whole shoot film the same way they shoot digital, erring on the side of under exposure for fear of blowing out their highlights.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

For instance, I discovered some years ago that Fomapan 100 pushed +2 (to EI 400) has the same development time, similar levels of shadow detail, and nearly indistinguishable grain, as Fomapan 400. At one point, I seriously considered whether they were actually the same emulsion.

I’ve often wondered this too... i might add it to my list of things to investigate more closely via H+D curves... wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants if they turned out to be very close to the same.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It’s made even worse by those shooters whole shoot film the same way they shoot digital, erring on the side of under exposure for fear of blowing out their highlights.

Just need to sell them slide film. It works pretty much like digital (except for the whole 7 stops below middle gray thing).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Just need to sell them slide film. It works pretty much like digital (except for the whole 7 stops below middle gray thing).

id sure love to, if it weren’t so expensive... it’s 3 times the cost of consumer film, and almost double the cost of the professional films.

in digital land, even with Canon’s supposedly crappy dynamic range, you can very safely expose -1 to -2 and still have pretty noise free shadows and blacks, with considerably better highlight rendition, assuming you’re shooting raw. If shooting jpegs, expose it correctly.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll take your word for it, @Adrian Bacon . My experience with digital under more control than my phone is one vacation with a Nikon D70 -- yes, that was 6, count 'em SIX megapixels. Found I didn't like the camera much, never mind the low pixel count (it's an old camera). Partner got a D90 -- 12 megapixels, same lenses and almost identical controls (but different memory cards). Didn't like that either. Honestly, it's not the digital part I dislike, so much -- it's the camera doing everything for me. And even if you set it to manual, shoot RAW, and nail the exposure, it's still just electrons in a storage device. The film I just developed and hung to dry is an actual, physical artifact, and barring physical damage, will show an image to the naked eye (sure, a negative, but anyone with a brain will figure out it's light where it should be dark and vice versa) for the next few centuries.

Maybe the real solution is to get those film noobs into a darkroom...

 

[Ariston]

For the record, I have shot dozens of rolls of this film at 400 and 1600. I know how each looks when developed, and I shoot the speed I want for the look I want (or the extra speed I need). I also know that I have over-developed a roll shot at 400 and it was much too dense for my scanner.

I have some good ideas from everyone - so thank you to everyone!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Honestly, it's not the digital part I dislike, so much -- it's the camera doing everything for me.

If you're shooting jpegs, yes, that by and large is true (it might have also been early digital cameras didn't give much control). If you're shooting raw, you have as much control as you want, including how the raw file is processed into a viewable picture afterwards. The thing to keep in mind is that the ISO for a digital camera is based on how much light is needed to saturate the sensor, unlike with film, where its how much light do you need to have to get off of film base plus fog, so with film, it's minimum amount of light, with digital, it's the maximum amount of light, so with film, it's pretty common to expose more, and with digital, it's pretty common to expose less. Where you run into problems is when you treat film like digital and expose less. With most films there's only 5-6 stops of exposure between middle grey and film base plus fog, and lots of highlight headroom. With digital, typically, you only get 3-4 stops above middle grey before you're clipping out, but under middle grey, (at least on modern cameras with 14 bits), you have close to 10 stops of exposure before you run into the noise floor, with at least 7 of those stops really clean.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Adrian Bacon I've never used a "modern" digital camera, and I'm not likely to. Too. Much. Money. The other problem with digital is that by the time I can afford it, it's so obsolete you can't buy replacement batteries, never mind get it fixed -- and no chance at all of fixing it myself.

I've only ever shot raw, and generally stick to either aperture or shutter priority -- at least I understand those and can tolerate that level of automatic operation. I'd rather spend my post-processing time in a darkroom smelling chemicals than at a computer, though -- especially since ever piece of kit in my darkroom, together, cost less than a copy of Lightroom (and I'm reliably informed that GIMP just doesn't cut it).

Film camera prices are going up again (or have been recently), but I've got a bunch of pretty decent film equipment from the "you're in charge" era (dates from 1927 into the 1980s, maybe one or two from the 1990s but those are the "point and shoot" sort that I got for five or ten bucks a pop), and recently picked up an RB67 body with one lens and two film backs for far less than a "modern digital" lens costs.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

@Adrian Bacon I've never used a "modern" digital camera, and I'm not likely to. Too. Much. Money. The other problem with digital is that by the time I can afford it, it's so obsolete you can't buy replacement batteries, never mind get it fixed -- and no chance at all of fixing it myself.

I've only ever shot raw, and generally stick to either aperture or shutter priority -- at least I understand those and can tolerate that level of automatic operation. I'd rather spend my post-processing time in a darkroom smelling chemicals than at a computer, though -- especially since ever piece of kit in my darkroom, together, cost less than a copy of Lightroom (and I'm reliably informed that GIMP just doesn't cut it).

Film camera prices are going up again (or have been recently), but I've got a bunch of pretty decent film equipment from the "you're in charge" era (dates from 1927 into the 1980s, maybe one or two from the 1990s but those are the "point and shoot" sort that I got for five or ten bucks a pop), and recently picked up an RB67 body with one lens and two film backs for far less than a "modern digital" lens costs.

Why not just stick it in manual mode? They have a built in meter that tells you where the exposure is. It also costs almost nothing to take a shot, look at it on the camera, and if it's too dark or too light, delete it, change one of the settings and take another shot. I guess it depends on how much you value your time, or better put, how much your clients value your time and turnaround time... Yes, flagship digital cameras (or even "pro level") digital cameras cost a lot, however, you can get a whole lotta bang for the buck with lower end digital cameras. You still get all the control, just less features, which in all honesty, most of the features of flagship and pro cameras are only there for specific use cases. For example, a Canon Digital Rebel SL2 (or even the earlier generation SL1) body goes for ~$500 (brand new), and if you have EF glass from Canon's film cameras, it works perfectly with those lenses. 80%+ of the image quality bang of a $6000+ flagship 1DX camera for a fraction of the cost. Sure, it doesn't shoot 16 frames a second, or have a battery that lasts long enough to shoot a full Sunday game, or have NFL football level auto focus, but it gives you full manual control and shoots raw, and has enough features that you can totally make great pictures with it. With pro level cameras, you're paying for features, not necessarily image quality performance. If you don't need those features, why pay for them? All that being said, yes, spending $500 on a body isn't chump change, and yes, spending another ~300-500 on lenses isn't chump change either, but I've easily got that much or more spent shooting film. I shot with entry level digital cameras for many many years, and looking at my output, you'd be hard pressed to tell it was shot on a dirt cheap body. It wasn't until much, much later that I started looking at more expensive bodies and figuring which ones had features that I'd actually find useful and be willing to pay for. Even today, even though I have a reasonably high end digital body for paid work, I still shoot full manual, in single shot mode. In fact, the only reason why I bought the body was because it had face and eye detect auto focus, which given that most of my paid work is portraiture, means I can shoot a lot faster and have way more in focus keepers, and have a faster turnaround, which means I make more money in the same period of time.

At any rate, there's nothing wrong with either film or digital. It's just a preference thing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got the features I need in my RB67. Or my Speed Graphic. Or Graphic View. Or even my 1927 Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera.

Quality lens, check. Big film, check. No battery, check.

Don't forget, this is the "Analog Only" section...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've got the features I need in my RB67. Or my Speed Graphic. Or Graphic View. Or even my 1927 Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera.

Quality lens, check. Big film, check. No battery, check.

Don't forget, this is the "Analog Only" section...

yeah, I know it’s the analog only section.... I was providing a comparison to Analog... for example, fast turnaround? On Analog, no check. Fast and reliable autofocus that always gets the eyes in focus? Again, on analog, no check. Each has their strengths. If all you require is big film and a good lens, that’s one thing, but that doesn’t cover every use case a guy is going run into.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If I needed those features, I'd be looking at much newer cameras than the ones I have/want. I don't even want electronic shutters (though it looks like I'm going to wind up with one, since there isn't a 645 SLR without that).

No autofocus: check. No power advance: check. No invisible microelectronics: check.

I have no desire to shoot in a fast-paced environment. Even if/when I start to earn money at this, there'll be no weddings, no birthdays (at least not the traditional party shoots). Maybe an Afghan box with Harmon Direct Positive so I can hand out "instant" prints big enough to see on materials I can still buy, or maybe Instax Wide on my Speed Graphic, if I can stand to pre-order the back for that from Lomography.

 

[darkosaric]

Enlargers and darkroom users have a bit more success with too dense negatives.

This is very true. When I am not sure - I overexpose and overdevelop. More grain is not a problem for me, negative needs to be dense and "fleshy" .

 

[Adrian Bacon]

If I needed those features, I'd be looking at much newer cameras than the ones I have/want. I don't even want electronic shutters (though it looks like I'm going to wind up with one, since there isn't a 645 SLR without that).

No autofocus: check. No power advance: check. No invisible microelectronics: check.

I have no desire to shoot in a fast-paced environment. Even if/when I start to earn money at this, there'll be no weddings, no birthdays (at least not the traditional party shoots). Maybe an Afghan box with Harmon Direct Positive so I can hand out "instant" prints big enough to see on materials I can still buy, or maybe Instax Wide on my Speed Graphic, if I can stand to pre-order the back for that from Lomography.

if that works for you, then great! It’s all good.