venchka
Veteran
Y'all asked for samples. Here is one.
Slightly underexpsoed, probably overdeveloped, definitely losses in translation to the web.
Nikkor-W 180mm | f/22 @ 1/2 sec. | 4x5 HP5+ @ 400 | 100ml Xtol + 4ml Rodinal + 300ml Water |EDIT to ADD: 2 minute pre-wash | 12 minutes @ 68°F in a Jobo 3010 Expert tank with continuous agitation on a Beseler motor base.
For my next trick: HP5+ @ 250 for 9 minutes in the same mixture as above.
Stay tuned.
Slightly underexpsoed, probably overdeveloped, definitely losses in translation to the web.
Nikkor-W 180mm | f/22 @ 1/2 sec. | 4x5 HP5+ @ 400 | 100ml Xtol + 4ml Rodinal + 300ml Water |EDIT to ADD: 2 minute pre-wash | 12 minutes @ 68°F in a Jobo 3010 Expert tank with continuous agitation on a Beseler motor base.
For my next trick: HP5+ @ 250 for 9 minutes in the same mixture as above.
Stay tuned.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I like the look of this image, are you disappointed with the shadow detail (re: 250)? It looks good to me.
venchka
Veteran
Thanks John. I'm more disappointed with the highlights-too dense to show much detail. That's why I think the negatives are overdeveloped. I'm just guessing here. 12 minutes was a starting guess. I have done a film speed test for HP5+ and Xtol 1:3 and got ASA 250. I will use that speed and cut back on the developing time. I'm trying to home in on a Zone VIII time for Xtol + Rodinal.
Also: This was taken late in the afternoon in deep shade and overcast skies. There wasn't much in the way of highlights or shadows. Very flat light. That's why I went for an underexposed/overdeveloped N+1 Zone System treatment. Like I know what I'm doing. Right.
Also: This was taken late in the afternoon in deep shade and overcast skies. There wasn't much in the way of highlights or shadows. Very flat light. That's why I went for an underexposed/overdeveloped N+1 Zone System treatment. Like I know what I'm doing. Right.
charjohncarter
Veteran
You are talking about the top of the mushroom? Possibly, over Zone VIII but it is in the out of focus range so I really didn't notice it. But the in focus Zones II and III are all there. Was this a scan of a print? If a scan of a negative it is hard to tell. I love these mysteries, I think you are like me always fine tuning every bit of the process. Anyway, in the in focus areas of the image you look like you have Zone 0 though almost 8. Good work. I guess, find a less difficult subject to meter. Then try again. But I would record all the data here on this shot, because you may find this is the right combo.
Carter
Carter
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
With constant agitation, yes, the dev time is likely too long.
venchka
Veteran
Getting closer at 8 minutes
Getting closer at 8 minutes
Thanks for the help Carter. This is a negative scan. I don't know what it looks like on other monitors. It looks dull on my work monitor. The base of the stem is white on my other monitor. Here it's a sick grey.
Earl, I ran off a quick test roll of 120 HP5+ through the Pentax yesterday afternoon. In real daylight with sunshine, shadows & clouds. I took good notes. Bracketed in 1/2 stops from 400 to 200. Developed with the same 100+4+300 recipe for 8 minutes. The negatives are far from thin. They look pretty good to me. I'll know more when I get them scanned. If 8 minutes is the normal answer, that doesn't leave me much room for N-1 or N-2 develpment. Like I would know how to do that anyway.
Getting closer at 8 minutes
Thanks for the help Carter. This is a negative scan. I don't know what it looks like on other monitors. It looks dull on my work monitor. The base of the stem is white on my other monitor. Here it's a sick grey.
Earl, I ran off a quick test roll of 120 HP5+ through the Pentax yesterday afternoon. In real daylight with sunshine, shadows & clouds. I took good notes. Bracketed in 1/2 stops from 400 to 200. Developed with the same 100+4+300 recipe for 8 minutes. The negatives are far from thin. They look pretty good to me. I'll know more when I get them scanned. If 8 minutes is the normal answer, that doesn't leave me much room for N-1 or N-2 develpment. Like I would know how to do that anyway.
venchka
Veteran
It helps to read the book
It helps to read the book
The Rodinal articles at Unbliking eye were the basis for my Xtol + Rodinal experiments. I just went back and found Sam Elkind's method. Adding more water was in the back of my brain as a way to increase the development times. It appears that Sam did just that.
I seem to be on the right track. I sure wish I had some Verichrome Pan! I'll have to make do with Fuji Neopan 100 Acros and new Tmax 400.
It helps to read the book
The Rodinal articles at Unbliking eye were the basis for my Xtol + Rodinal experiments. I just went back and found Sam Elkind's method. Adding more water was in the back of my brain as a way to increase the development times. It appears that Sam did just that.
I seem to be on the right track. I sure wish I had some Verichrome Pan! I'll have to make do with Fuji Neopan 100 Acros and new Tmax 400.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My monitor has it a silvery gray in the background. So that means the print didn't look that way? Why don't you print it, and get the highlights as best you can. If the shadows are gone or no good then try a shorter time. Also, scan the print on a print scanner and post. Roger Hicks says, and I think he is right, a negative should be able to be printed on 2-3 paper. So if you are way off that: adjust. I should talk I can never get anything the way I want it.
venchka
Veteran
venchka
Veteran
One additional step....
One additional step....
Since adopting the Jobo tanks for all of my film developing, I have been giving all of my film a pre-wash. The time is now down to about 2 minutes minimum. The time isn't critical. I just make sure that the pre-soak water, developer & stop rinse water are all at the same temperature.
BTW, this thread pops up on a GOOGLE search for Xtol and Rodinal. How cool is that???????????
One additional step....
Since adopting the Jobo tanks for all of my film developing, I have been giving all of my film a pre-wash. The time is now down to about 2 minutes minimum. The time isn't critical. I just make sure that the pre-soak water, developer & stop rinse water are all at the same temperature.
BTW, this thread pops up on a GOOGLE search for Xtol and Rodinal. How cool is that???????????
charjohncarter
Veteran
Show us more. I'm interested. I have been doing a Two Bath variation, (of course my own, I can never just go with something someone else has tried) and I feel that I'm getting a little more shadow detail without bombing the highlights. I've only done the first roll with this mystery process, but if other rolls are good, I'll be happy. It is so simple it is almost stupid. But then I've been called addled by many.
venchka
Veteran
The saga continues...
The saga continues...
... 120 HP5+. EI of 400. Xtol : Rodinal : Water = 100ml : 4ml : 300ml = 400ml total. Jobo 2521 tank and 1 reel. 45 rpm on a Beseler motor base. 8 minutes. 68°F.
Disclaimer about my crap scanner: It's an ancient HP that only scans 35mm film. I tape the 6x7 negatives to the light source. I can only scan a 1 5/8" wide strip of the 6x7 negatives. The film is NOT in the proper plane. Therefore, the scans are mushy. However, that doesn't affect the tonality of the negatives. Judge the scan on the basis of tonality. There is a lot in the original. Downsizing for the web doesn't make the original look very good.
With all of those things working against me, I am pleased with the way the image looks. There is detail in the bright white areas as well as the shadows on the roof. I think the clouds turned out well also. No filter. Just what the film saw.
PS: I must admit. After looking at the itty bitty downsized for the web image here, that's a ugly picture. I sure wish I knew how folks make their photos look good on Al gore's Internet.
The saga continues...
... 120 HP5+. EI of 400. Xtol : Rodinal : Water = 100ml : 4ml : 300ml = 400ml total. Jobo 2521 tank and 1 reel. 45 rpm on a Beseler motor base. 8 minutes. 68°F.
Disclaimer about my crap scanner: It's an ancient HP that only scans 35mm film. I tape the 6x7 negatives to the light source. I can only scan a 1 5/8" wide strip of the 6x7 negatives. The film is NOT in the proper plane. Therefore, the scans are mushy. However, that doesn't affect the tonality of the negatives. Judge the scan on the basis of tonality. There is a lot in the original. Downsizing for the web doesn't make the original look very good.
With all of those things working against me, I am pleased with the way the image looks. There is detail in the bright white areas as well as the shadows on the roof. I think the clouds turned out well also. No filter. Just what the film saw.
PS: I must admit. After looking at the itty bitty downsized for the web image here, that's a ugly picture. I sure wish I knew how folks make their photos look good on Al gore's Internet.
Attachments
Last edited: