Processing film at 65F

[Waterman100]

I started developing film about 3 weeks ago, and so far I have done an assortment of TriX, Acros, Arista, and Legacy Pro. I have just finished my first gallon of D-76, so I've done 16 rolls in all, I think.

After the initial two or three rolls, w/ some hit-and-miss, I adjusted my workflow. And now I'm doing two rolls each time in a 4-reel tank and also using a slightly longer time at 65F, instead of the standard 68F.

Using 65F is out of sheer convenience because 65F turns out to be a temp easier for me to obtain & control: tap water and ambient temp at this time of the year is such that if I mix stock D76 and refrigerated water 1+1, I arrive at a ~63 F solution.. From here I can keep it to 65F easily.

So far I have been getting good / scannable results. But I have nothing to compare my results to bec I am still inexperienced in this whole thing. My question is, what variations are introduced to the negatives by using 65F? Is this variation noticeable, or theoretical?

I've pretty much settled on my current workflow, and I'd prefer not to change it (at least for a while), unless it's worthwhile. What do you think?

 

[Chinasaur]

In much the same boat as you. I use Rodinal at 68F. To help people provide you advice, post examples of what you like vs what you think didn't turn out...and then describe what you were seeking. Given those data points, the experts will be able to steer you to what you need/seek.

It worked for me.

YMMV.

 

[Waterman100]

To help people provide you advice, post examples of what you like vs what you think didn't turn out...and then describe what you were seeking. Given those data points, the experts will be able to steer you to what you need/seek.

That's a great suggestion. Here are a few pictures from recent film developments. They all have been scanned with Coolscan V ED w/ Vuescan, straight from the scanner without any Photoshop work.


1) Neopan Acros 100 in D-76 [1+1], 11:45 min @ 66F.
It seems to me that contrast is fine... or could it be stronger / have more contrast?

2) Arista Premium 100 in D-76 [1+1], 10:00 min @ 65F.
The tone in this one is flat. I could use curves to change that in Aperture, but I am very interested in knowing how (or if) using 65F is affecting development results.

3) Acros 100 in D-76 [1+1], 13:00min @ 65F.
Same comment as (2) above. The tone is quite flat, but the colors of the actual subject may have much to do with it.

4) TriX 400 in D-76 [1+1], 10:45 @ 65F.
Like (1), I suppose this one turns out OK, but perhaps could be more contrasty?

5) Acros 100 in D-76 [1+1], 11:45 min @ 66F.
Of all the samples picked, this is the strongest, in terms of tone and contrast. What gives? It was a sunny day, but my friend was in the shades. Is there anything I can do during film processing to reliably influence contrast? Many pictures posted by other RFFers have great looking contrast. Is it mostly Photoshop work like adjusting curves? Or something "analog" that they do?

 

[inSIGHT]

As far as analog goes, you could try experimenting with some colored filters. I hate using photoshop but sometimes it is just easier when you know exactly what you want your already exposed film to look like.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In the 1950s, 65F/18C was the standard temperature in the UK. All you need is more time to compensate, as compared with 68F/20C. There may be a very slight change in tonality, but it's unlikely. Anything signifiicantly cooler may however result in very long dev times and detectable changes in tonality.

EDIT: Checking an old Kodak Dataguide, it looks as though you need 20-25% extra as compared with 68F/20C. There should be time/temperature figures with the D-76, though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[AnteroP]

You might give more agitation during processing. I use Tmax100 and D-76 1+1 at 19 degrees C. I usually agitate the tank (180 degrees turns) 3 times in five sec every 30 sec. When I increased the number of turns to 4, I got more contrastic negative.

Antero

 

[Bob Michaels]

.......................... Many pictures posted by other RFFers have great looking contrast. Is it mostly Photoshop work like adjusting curves? Or something "analog" that they do? ...................................

I attribute everything having to do with contrast for my work to the shape of the curve in Photoshop. I like my negs on the flat side of normal and my scans to be flat. That way I have the flexibility to put the contrast in the highlights, midtones or shadow areas as I want them. Typically I use a strong S shaped curve which compresses the scale (i.e. contrasty) in the mid tones and allows the highlights and shadows to gradually trail off.

I find the shape of the curve in Photoshop to be the most important element in having a print that grabs you. That is the biggest advantage over wet darkroom printing where the contrast had to be dealt with globally via development time or paper grade.

 

[Ronald M]

Your scans have no real blacks in them and appear pale and washed out.

Cause is too long a development time or overexposure. Do not control contrast by agitation, use the clock. Contrast control is always done by time.

Use manual control of the scanner to make them darker. Auto scan introduces another variable and make analysis very difficult.

It is unfortunate people now getting into this have never done darkroom work so they do not have a way to look at a neg and decide if is over exposed or over developed or under exposed or underdeveloped. Auto scanning tries to compensate and you can not figure what is really wrong. You have no frame of reference without darkroom skills.

You need to get a step wedge and make pics of it. The lowest exposure that shows detail in the darks is correct. 99% of the time this is box speed or 1/2 box speed with reduced development.

Development time controls density of highlights. When you scan and get black darks with detail, and the highlights are grey, develope longer to get more light blockage in the highlights.

If there is no detail and light tones are all merged, then you developed too long.

I would suggest you take 6 exposures, 12" of film, develope and shorten the time 10% from what you show and then do another 10% longer and see how they scan. Right now the pics are all too light.

Look at Chris Crawfords site or photos he posted here. You should be able to get a full range of tones with detail in both shadow and highlights like he does

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/

 

[Waterman100]

Your scans have no real blacks in them and appear pale and washed out.

I think you nailed it in the head. That's why I feel something is off with the negatives.

Cause is too long a development time or overexposure. Do not control contrast by agitation, use the clock. Contrast control is always done by time.

Use manual control of the scanner to make them darker. Auto scan introduces another variable and make analysis very difficult.

I will try varying processing time to see how the result would change.

BTW, I use Vuescan. What setting should I set to remove the program's auto scanning function?

You need to get a step wedge and make pics of it. The lowest exposure that shows detail in the darks is correct. 99% of the time this is box speed or 1/2 box speed with reduced development.

Development time controls density of highlights. When you scan and get black darks with detail, and the highlights are grey, develope longer to get more light blockage in the highlights.

If there is no detail and light tones are all merged, then you developed too long.

I would suggest you take 6 exposures, 12" of film, develope and shorten the time 10% from what you show and then do another 10% longer and see how they scan. Right now the pics are all too light.

These are all great advices. Many thanks for the help. I will surely check out the step wedge test.