Your results are strange. With development times between 5 and 8 minutes at the 1:75 dilution, I would have expected under-development, as these seem quite short. Even Bob Schwalberg, whose Rodinal times are on the short side, suggested between 8 and 11 for FP4 (old version) in 1:75. How did you reach your development times?
I don't have a densitometer,
I just project the light and put the negative directly on the light meter, over the cell.
Yeah, I agree, they're strange. But... I started with common times found on the web and I got very dense negatives, so I started reducing the time and then, close to the 5 min "safe-area" treshold, I started diluting more.
I have a similar problem with home-made D76 (too much density for highlights, too thin for shadows). But it's "home-made" so it's not a solid reference and I switched to a commercial alternative (at least my shadows are ok now).
I tested my thermomters and they're fine.... so... I don't know :-(
Hrrmmm...Second is to adjust time of paper in the developer
...
3. With the unexposed negative (representing Zone 0) in your enlarger, make a test strip on your preferred paper at grade 2. Dry this strip and look for the first time revealing black. This will be the segment whereby you can't make out any other segments as your time got longer. At this point, you have your SPD (Standard Printing Density.)
4. Without changing anything, put a Zone VIII negative in your enlarger and expose a piece of paper using your SPD. Cover half with a card. Dry and evaluate. What you're looking for here is a very slight density between the exposed and unexposed sides.
...
In that case, print the zone VIII negative on your paper with a coin on the paper, you would want to see just the outline of the coin. Your print exposure time is the minimum time for max black on the rebate.
If you can't see the outline of the coin, decrease development of the next negative. If the coin outline is very obvious, increase development of the next negative.
I can see several possible ways your calibration is going off the rails.My first enlarger was an old Omega B22 condenser from a flea market. I followed the directions above to learn my exposure/development time which ended up somewhere around 5.5 mins in D76 1+1, and even that was quite contrasty to print at grade 2 with that enlarger, but I didn't know any better. Fast forward 7 years and I am now a nerd with a densitometer and I can tell you these negatives are severely underdeveloped for printing with a diffusion enlarger, most require grade 4, and if I'm using a softer paper like Foma 131 I will have to print at grade 5 and even then it's a low contrast print.
I'd seriously consider if this is the enlarger you plan on using for the long run before you commit to tailoring your negatives to such a low contrast. And if so, I'd think about using grade 1 as your target instead just in case you ever end up in a diffusion/soft paper situation.
...
Zone | Description |
0 | Pure black - no detail |
I | Near black, with slight tonality but no texture |
II | Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded |
III | Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture |
IV | Average dark foliage, dark stone, or landscape shadows |
V | Middle gray: clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood |
VI | Average Caucasian skin; light stone; shadows on snow in sunlit landscapes |
VII | Very light skin; shadows in snow with acute side lighting |
VIII | Lightest tone with texture: textured snow |
IX | Slight tone without texture; glaring snow |
X | Pure white: light sources and specular reflections - paper white, no detail |
What is it you are trying to do?Good morning, everyone.
I'm trying to improve my knowledge of photographic materials, unfortunately without the use of a densitometer. So, I'm conducting development tests using Foma's Rodinal with FP4+, experimenting with different times and dilutions. I use a condenser enlarger with a warm LED bulb.
I have two main issues:
I create the exposures using two adjustable LED lights with "daylight" color temperature, pointed at a wall, and determine exposure values for different zones by adjusting shutter speed and aperture. My spot meter is a Gossen, which I have verified and provides correct readings.
- I don't have a densitometer, so I use a Sekonic 308x. I project light from the enlarger at a fixed height onto the light meter's cell (without the dome) and take a reading through the film. The base+fog density readings are around 0.3, and overall, this method seems to give me reasonable readings.
- After checking thermometers, lenses, shutters, etc., I still notice that my developments tend to be quite energetic. When developing for times between 5 and 8 minutes at a 1:75 dilution, with an EI of 64 or 80, I still find that the Zone VIII densities are unprintable at the exposure time required to achieve black. Depending on the method, the densities I get range from 1.02 to 1.26 above base+fog. I use Fomabrom Variant 111 paper and Ilford contrast filters. Zone I gives me densities around 0.06 - 0.09 depending on the EI, and Zone II is visibly lighter than black.
Now, my question is: Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?
Good morning, everyone.
I'm trying to improve my knowledge of photographic materials, unfortunately without the use of a densitometer. So, I'm conducting development tests using Foma's Rodinal with FP4+, experimenting with different times and dilutions. I use a condenser enlarger with a warm LED bulb.
I have two main issues:
I create the exposures using two adjustable LED lights with "daylight" color temperature, pointed at a wall, and determine exposure values for different zones by adjusting shutter speed and aperture. My spot meter is a Gossen, which I have verified and provides correct readings.
- I don't have a densitometer, so I use a Sekonic 308x. I project light from the enlarger at a fixed height onto the light meter's cell (without the dome) and take a reading through the film. The base+fog density readings are around 0.3, and overall, this method seems to give me reasonable readings.
- After checking thermometers, lenses, shutters, etc., I still notice that my developments tend to be quite energetic. When developing for times between 5 and 8 minutes at a 1:75 dilution, with an EI of 64 or 80, I still find that the Zone VIII densities are unprintable at the exposure time required to achieve black. Depending on the method, the densities I get range from 1.02 to 1.26 above base+fog. I use Fomabrom Variant 111 paper and Ilford contrast filters. Zone I gives me densities around 0.06 - 0.09 depending on the EI, and Zone II is visibly lighter than black.
Now, my question is: Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?
Ciao Axettone!
A couple of things more from me, if you don't mind.
Here's the Zone System as envisioned by Ansel Adams and as I use it (thanks to Wikipedia):
Zone Description 0 Pure black - no detail I Near black, with slight tonality but no texture II Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded III Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture IV Average dark foliage, dark stone, or landscape shadows V Middle gray: clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood VI Average Caucasian skin; light stone; shadows on snow in sunlit landscapes VII Very light skin; shadows in snow with acute side lighting VIII Lightest tone with texture: textured snow IX Slight tone without texture; glaring snow X Pure white: light sources and specular reflections - paper white, no detail
So, when doing the max-black test, you should look for a slight separation (the very slightest, but in lighting that approximates good print viewing lighting) between FB+fog and Zone I density. I'd still try printing for Zone VIII and see if that didn't solve your problems.
All of your evaluations should be done after the print has dried. Get a hair dryer out to speed things up if you need, but drydown is real and makes a big difference in the highlights.
As you see from the Zone descriptions above, Zone VIII was originally envisioned as the last Zone with texture.
Now for the spoiler:
If I were using 35mm film, I wouldn't bother with the Zone System at all. If you really want to base your exposure on a shadow value, then just rate your film 2/3-stop slower than ISO (this compensates for the difference in metering technique), and then find a developing time that gives you good prints in "normal" lighting at grade 2 or thereabouts. With your condenser enlarger, I'd likely aim for 1.5 so I could get a diffusion light source in the future and not have to struggle with the negatives.
That said, I likely wouldn't even bother spot-metering a shadow value with small film, I'd just use the in-camera meter and add exposure with the exposure compensation dial for contrasty situations where the meter gets tricked into underexposing.
Then I'd just adjust on the fly: if shadow separation was consistently too weak, I'd use a lower E.I. I'd refine development time to get "normal" subject-brightness-range negatives to print well at an intermediate grade while still leaving enough room for the extremes at the ends of the paper contrast scale. (I hope that's clear.)
If you really want to rely on the ZS, remember that you can always adjust E.I. and development time later based on your actual results. Good notes help.
As for development: Developer activity depends on your agitation scheme and temperature (and developer dilution, of course). If your developer is too active and your times are too short, a higher dilution can help.
Best,
Doremus
Congratulations ! You found all by yourself the solution of your problem.I think I spotted the cause of one of the two problems: my negative readings are affected by Callier effect.
Congratulations ! You found all by yourself the solution of your problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?