Limitations of black and white 120 film.

I've just printed a 27.5 by 22 inch print from TMY2 shot on my Mamiya 7 - 6 by 7 - and it's excellent and effectively grain free. This was scanned on a Nikon 9000.

My brother commented on how beautiful it is, which is high praise indeed.

Mike
 
wintoid said:
This is 35mm XP2Super rated at 800, and didn't tell the lab anything
Click to expand...

Then you are only under-exposing the film by 1 or 2 stops, not pushing the film. To push film, not only requires some under-exposure, but also increased development time to compensate. To pull film is reverse, over-exposure and decreased development time.

Most pro labs are able to push or pull C-41 process, usually -1 to +2 stops.
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
Then you are only under-exposing the film by 1 or 2 stops, not pushing the film. To push film, not only requires some under-exposure, but also increased development time to compensate. To pull film is reverse, over-exposure and decreased development time.

Most pro labs are able to push or pull C-41 process, usually -1 to +2 stops.
Click to expand...

I specifically didn't mention pushing at all in any of my posts, and I've never tried it with a chromogenic. Should I expect an improvement if I push? It doesn't really seem to be necessary, like it would be with conventional BW processes.

To be honest I've mixed exposures from EI 200 up to 1600 on the same roll, and I couldn't see much difference in density (to my eye) between the under/over exposed shots.
 
I really love ilford xp2 film, which I use @800 iso in my hasselblad. I am however considering tri-x and standdevelopment since I heard so many good things about that film when pushed very far. I never liked delta 3200, but then, I never properly developed and exposed it (I used it @ 3200 iso without pushing).
 
wintoid said:
I specifically didn't mention pushing at all in any of my posts, and I've never tried it with a chromogenic. Should I expect an improvement if I push? It doesn't really seem to be necessary, like it would be with conventional BW processes.

To be honest I've mixed exposures from EI 200 up to 1600 on the same roll, and I couldn't see much difference in density (to my eye) between the under/over exposed shots.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, never having used C-41 B&W film. It does make a difference when using C-41 negative film, which I push and pull all the time.

I expect that the exposure latitude of C-41 B&W must be quite wide, but then 200 to 1600 is only 3 stops, well within the exposure latitude of most C-41 film.
 
I seem to remember Roger (Hicks) saying that Delta's true speed was actually more like 1600. Maddoc's example sort of proves this to me .. shot at 3200 it gets a little dirty looking IMO!
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
Then you are only under-exposing the film by 1 or 2 stops, not pushing the film. To push film, not only requires some under-exposure, but also increased development time to compensate. To pull film is reverse, over-exposure and decreased development time.

Most pro labs are able to push or pull C-41 process, usually -1 to +2 stops.
Click to expand...

According to the fax sheet for XP2 Supper http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf

The film can be used from ISO 50 to 800 with normal processing but with certain trade off such as ISO 50 giving the finest grain but denser negatives.

Also states that push processing isn't recommended as no practical increase in speed is obtained.
 
I am new to film, but i hope one day i can be more keen and informed about push/pull processing, but until that day i am still using B&W film as it is box speed, i can do some push/pull if i want now but i can't be sure if i will get good results as i want and i can't waste many rolls for testing, most of you can get film easily but we can't, so i am so limited in using film than you.
 
Keith said:
I seem to remember Roger (Hicks) saying that Delta's true speed was actually more like 1600. Maddoc's example sort of proves this to me .. shot at 3200 it gets a little dirty looking IMO!
Click to expand...

One of my pet peeves is people talking about the true speed of a film.

Film manufacturers give an ISO speed for each of their films. The ISO speed is found using their standard developer which in the case of Ilford is ID11 stock and for Kodak I think it's D76 stock.
The ISO speed tests have to produce a Contrast Index of 0.58 which is regarded as normal contrast.
But as we know, we all deviate from using the standard developer, times, temps, dilutions and speeds and that always results in different contrast index, shadow detail etc. There is no such thing as a true speed for a film. The characteristic curve is variable according to processing so a films speed is always variable depending on how you process it.
I think Roger likes using DDX which gives a slight increase in effective film speed for all the delta films. But for Delta 3200, which is a low contrast film, the ISO speed using ID11 is 1250 but using microphen, which is a push developer, results in normal contrast when used at 3200 speed and Ilfords recomended time and temp. But it's grainy. Use DDX and you lose a stop of speed, hence the 1600 figure, but you get much better grain control.
 
There's also the new Adox Pan 400 from Fotoimpex, due for wider circulation in coming months. It's very much like APX 400 but faster and finer grained. it still doesn't push that well, but that's what D3200 is for (I must disagree on that one not being good Keith).

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
There's also the new Adox Pan 400 from Fotoimpex, due for wider circulation in coming months. It's very much like APX 400 but faster and finer grained. it still doesn't push that well, but that's what D3200 is for (I must disagree on that one not being good Keith).

Marty
Click to expand...


I'm very fickle Marty ... one bad experience with Foma and I was out the door! 😀
 
Freakscene said:
Foma don't have anything to do with the AdoxPan. it's being made on old Agfa machinery by Fotoimpex.

Marty
Click to expand...


I know ... I was just demonstrating my lack of persistence when things don't go right.

I heard that Les Porter was trying to get the rights to distribute Adox in Oz?

Speaking of Adox ... I've had mixed reuslts with it. CHS 100 Art seems to give me a rather chalky look (xtol or rodinal) and I still have a fair bit of it left in 120 ... what am I doing wrong oh wise one? 😀


linv_0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, I see. Foma has worked well for me, within its limits (mainly speed and grain).

I have no idea why you don't like your results, I haven't processed any of the Efke manufactured films for years and my notes suggest that the only ones I did process were the 25 and 50 speed ones. I did find them finicky and found that Beutler was the best developer for them. All the eastern european films gave me headaches when developing them for other people in a commercial environment in which I had to use TMax RS unless the client was willing to pay more.

From the shot you showed, it doesn't look like you're doing much wrong to me, maybe except for bleaching or lightening the highlights in the ground and old vehicle areas of that shot. You could also try exposing more, with a slight decrease in development.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Freakscene said:
Ahhh, I see. Foma has worked well for me, within its limits (mainly speed and grain).

I have no idea why you don't like your results, I haven't processed any of the Efke manufactured films for years and my notes suggest that the only ones I did process were the 25 and 50 speed ones. I did find them finicky and found that Beutler was the best developer for them. All the eastern european films gave me headaches when developing them for other people in a commercial environment in which I had to use TMax RS unless the client was willing to pay more.

Marty
Click to expand...


The image I posted took a lot of work to get it like that ... the original scan was so flat and lacking in contrast it was amazing.

By the way I meant to thank you for the great spec sheet you PDF'd me for Xtol ... it's brilliant! 🙂
 
Keith said:
The image I posted took a lot of work to get it like that ... the original scan was so flat and lacking in contrast it was amazing.

By the way I meant to thank you for the great spec sheet you PDF'd me for Xtol ... it's brilliant! 🙂
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I have distributed it to dozens of people since Kodak decided that dilutions of greater than 1+1 were a bad idea.

If it's flat, develop more, but bear in mind that thin emulsions build contrast faster than medium speed moderate contrast films.

Marty
 
Keith said:
I like the strong contrast in those Chris ... really dramatic! 🙂
Click to expand...

The two that I developed in PMK were shot in New Mexico, where the sun is always harsh and bright. Hard light to tame! The wooden shed developed in Rodinal was shot in Indiana where the light is sometimes just as bad, but we do get softer light some days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom