torhan
Photographer
I'm not a specialist on automated B/W developing but I don't think any commersial lab use Rodinal.
Take a look at the negs. Can you see details in the thin parts (shadows)? If you do then you can always make another copy thats not totaly black in shadows.
The blown out highlight is a matter of using a lower contrast paper to get details there. The lab should have used less time in developer but that's too late now.
By developing your own B/W film you can make better negs and then scan the negs and adjust contrast digitally. The result is going to be ways better than standard lab results.
Take a look at the negs. Can you see details in the thin parts (shadows)? If you do then you can always make another copy thats not totaly black in shadows.
The blown out highlight is a matter of using a lower contrast paper to get details there. The lab should have used less time in developer but that's too late now.
By developing your own B/W film you can make better negs and then scan the negs and adjust contrast digitally. The result is going to be ways better than standard lab results.
Last edited:
P C Headland
Well-known
I processed Acros 100 (120) in Rodinal 1+100, and the negs came out gorgeous. Huge tonal range, very sharp, and next to no grain. In fact, it was the first roll of B+W I developed myself, and the first roll through the then new-to-me YashicaMat LM.
BTW, the time on the MDC lists a specific agiation scheme for this combination.
Paul
BTW, the time on the MDC lists a specific agiation scheme for this combination.
Paul
phototone
Well-known
Bertram2 said:
There are labs that use a "Cine" long roll processor and it has a fixed developing time, and if they have it set for Tri-x, or whatever standard they have, it will not be suitable for any other film. Other labs may have various types of semi-automatic, or automatic processors that have programmed-in processing times, and if they do not re-set the time in the developer for your particular film, then the results will be bad.
Firstly, I would try to determine if your specific lab "hand processes" your film in small tanks, where the time can be specific to your particular film, or if they "batch" process b/w in a larger tank, or processing machine with a generic time for all films.
If it is the latter, then find out what b/w film they get the best results with, and then just use that film only with that lab.
Unlike colour negative film which has an absolutely fixed developing time regardless of brand or ISO speed, such is not the case with B/W. You will always get much better results with B/W film if you can process it yourself, or find a professional custom lab that "hand processes" the film in small tanks with the developer of your choice.
For those of you who absolutely "must" use a photofinishing processing service, really your best choice might be one of the Chromogenic b/w films that processes in standard C-41 color negative chemistry, as that is a fixed processing time in a standard chemistry, and most labs can do this quite fine.
phototone
Well-known
torhan said:
Quite right. No automated, commercial lab would even think about using Rodinal. The requirements of a large automated lab are firstly, developer life and cost. Secondly, fine grain. There are large cubes of b/w developer concentrate (to make 25 gallons) available to large photofinishing labs that are similar, but not identical to straight D-76, and that is what most would use in large tanks or processing machines. Results would vary widely in quality between different films. Grain would be similar to straight D-76.
phototone
Well-known
P C Headland said:
I believe the original poster was using Neopan 100. Fuji Acros 100 is a newer b/w film with the same ISO as Neopan 100.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
That seems to be a overdelopment problem, either in the negative or in the print stage.
More surely than not the lab is using Xtol, D76, Ilford DD or some similar custom developer and running Neopan [Acros?] 100 through an etra long cycle.
Next time ask them to treat it as TMAX 100 or think in developing yourself.
PS> there is no such thing as a contrasty film, just an overprocessed one
More surely than not the lab is using Xtol, D76, Ilford DD or some similar custom developer and running Neopan [Acros?] 100 through an etra long cycle.
Next time ask them to treat it as TMAX 100 or think in developing yourself.
PS> there is no such thing as a contrasty film, just an overprocessed one
Bertram2 said:Hi to all,
got yesterday a roll of Neopan 100 back with 13X13cm enlargements, again I am badly disapointed.
The first two rolls were already surprisingly bad with black shadows and blown out highlights and assuming that this all had been my own fault I did another roll , very carefully exposed this time .
But again the same problem, all very contrasty , many totally closed black shadows TOGETHER with ugly highlight details in these nature shots, tho the sun was not very bright but quite dimmed by some feather clouds.
My Question. Does my lab mess up my Neopan negs with the wrong dev or is this an extreme contrasty film for cloudy weather, and grey skies ?
I just cannot believe what I see, unfortunately I have no scans available.
Thanks for all input !
Bertram
.
phototone
Well-known
Just bear in mind that NEOPAN 100 is not ACROS 100. Different films, different developing times. same manufacturer and same ISO.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Neopan 100 (SS) and Acros are 2 different films, on eis normal grain the other is t/epitaxial agreed.
P C Headland
Well-known
tom_f77 said:
phototone said:
I should've quoted who I was replying too
- Tom was saying his Acros was too contrasty in Rodinal using the times on the MDC.I do know there is a difference between the two films, but it is worth pointing it out to avoid confusion.
Paul