dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
So, after doing a little non-scientific "test" of Tri-X @ 3200 (refer to my previous thread located here at RFF ) and after re-reading a few folks online (specifically Merciful's thread also here at RFF and Sockeyed's info found in this thread over at PNet AND some general info found over at PhotoSig ) I decided to give it a try (-x) 
.
Here's what I found (note that this little experiment is also completely unscientific):
TOOLS
I shot using my Bessa R3A and, usually, the collapsible Cron @ f2 (except where I could go a bit longer like f4 or maybe f5.6). I ran a roll of Tri-X (24) through the camera last night whilst at a local bar (had some karaoke going on) and I let the R3A do all the metering. Following the PhotoSig thread I decided to over expose the images by 1.5 stops.
DEV METHOD
I used the same method that's been discussed here and elsewhere: Rodinal 1:50 @ 68F (20C) for 51 Minutes with inversions every 5 minutes. Stop for 2 minutes. Fix for 2.75 minutes. Wash for 30 seconds. Hypo-Clear for 2 minutes. Wash for 5 minutes. PhotoFlo for a minute tops. Hang to dry Scanned via the Minolta Scan Elite II and adjusted the white point/black point via levels and resized - no sharpening done.
FINDINGS
The negs are extreeeeeeeeemely thin. They are "supermodel" thin. It was hard for me to make out the "cut points" on the negs when I was cutting them to sleeve them but after holding them up to the light a certain way it was a no brainer.
Even though they lacked any real details to my eyes (there were some noticable highlights/shadows) they did scan quite nicely. The grain is acceptable for 12,800 - but that's something I'm not so sure about - I find it's ok but is the grain itself solely created by the film structure or does the exposure/dev time etc. impact it as well?
Exposures were pretty much bang on EXCEPT for the fact that light sources in a dark bar will definitely throw off the internal meter. What I mean by that is, in last image I've posted here, there is a bright light coming from the upper left hand corner of the image. This was a TV set that was used to broadcast the words of the songs that people were singing out to the rest of the bar. When that TV was in the scene/shot it totally blew the exposure since the R3A is center weighted average (ya ya.. I know.. bottom LEFT weighted..). I've grown so accustomed to Canon's multi zone exposure that I think "meter = good = no problem in exposure". This, I feel, is a good thing. It makes me think more and more about the exposure of a shot when I learn stuff like this. The only thing I would do differently next time is be a LOT more aware of my surroundings regarding lighting. When you're in a low lit place, all it takes is one 100 Watt bulb in the frame to mess up an exposure if you're not thinking
The images turned out quite good and I can seriously see using this film for uber low light photography - dimly lit bars, available light indoors (churches etc.) and places where flash photography is not allowed.
The Cron is sharp. I can't remember the last time I didn't apply some sort of sharpening to images I had scanned.
I've uploaded 3 images, all of my buddy Darcie (who was kind enough to be a guinea pig). The second image is slightly blurred - 1/8 second at f2 and she was moving.. go figure. The first image I cropped for the amount of space I left above her head and the fact that there looked to be a pole growing out of her noggin .
Cheers
Dave
Oh.. P.S. If you guys want to see the full size scans, don't hesitate to ask and I'll put them up on my site for download.
.Here's what I found (note that this little experiment is also completely unscientific)
:TOOLS
I shot using my Bessa R3A and, usually, the collapsible Cron @ f2 (except where I could go a bit longer like f4 or maybe f5.6). I ran a roll of Tri-X (24) through the camera last night whilst at a local bar (had some karaoke going on) and I let the R3A do all the metering. Following the PhotoSig thread I decided to over expose the images by 1.5 stops.
DEV METHOD
I used the same method that's been discussed here and elsewhere: Rodinal 1:50 @ 68F (20C) for 51 Minutes with inversions every 5 minutes. Stop for 2 minutes. Fix for 2.75 minutes. Wash for 30 seconds. Hypo-Clear for 2 minutes. Wash for 5 minutes. PhotoFlo for a minute tops. Hang to dry
Scanned via the Minolta Scan Elite II and adjusted the white point/black point via levels and resized - no sharpening done.FINDINGS
The negs are extreeeeeeeeemely thin. They are "supermodel" thin.
It was hard for me to make out the "cut points" on the negs when I was cutting them to sleeve them but after holding them up to the light a certain way it was a no brainer. Even though they lacked any real details to my eyes (there were some noticable highlights/shadows) they did scan quite nicely. The grain is acceptable for 12,800 - but that's something I'm not so sure about - I find it's ok but is the grain itself solely created by the film structure or does the exposure/dev time etc. impact it as well?
Exposures were pretty much bang on EXCEPT for the fact that light sources in a dark bar will definitely throw off the internal meter. What I mean by that is, in last image I've posted here, there is a bright light coming from the upper left hand corner of the image. This was a TV set that was used to broadcast the words of the songs that people were singing out to the rest of the bar. When that TV was in the scene/shot it totally blew the exposure since the R3A is center weighted average (ya ya.. I know.. bottom LEFT weighted..
). I've grown so accustomed to Canon's multi zone exposure that I think "meter = good = no problem in exposure". This, I feel, is a good thing. It makes me think more and more about the exposure of a shot when I learn stuff like this. The only thing I would do differently next time is be a LOT more aware of my surroundings regarding lighting. When you're in a low lit place, all it takes is one 100 Watt bulb in the frame to mess up an exposure if you're not thinking The images turned out quite good and I can seriously see using this film for uber low light photography - dimly lit bars, available light indoors (churches etc.) and places where flash photography is not allowed.
The Cron is sharp. I can't remember the last time I didn't apply some sort of sharpening to images I had scanned.
I've uploaded 3 images, all of my buddy Darcie (who was kind enough to be a guinea pig). The second image is slightly blurred - 1/8 second at f2 and she was moving.. go figure
. The first image I cropped for the amount of space I left above her head and the fact that there looked to be a pole growing out of her noggin . Cheers
Dave
Oh.. P.S. If you guys want to see the full size scans, don't hesitate to ask and I'll put them up on my site for download.
Last edited:
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
Ok ... Now you got me going to experiment @12,800 also
What post processing in photoshop did you do in these photos?
Could you post one "before" that processing, i.e. in "raw" ?
What is a "thin neg"?
Nice photos
What post processing in photoshop did you do in these photos?
Could you post one "before" that processing, i.e. in "raw" ?
What is a "thin neg"?
Nice photos
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
pedro.m.reis said:Ok ... Now you got me going to experiment @12,800 also
What post processing in photoshop did you do in these photos?
Could you post one "before" that processing, i.e. in "raw" ?
What is a "thin neg"?
Nice photos
Hey Pedro..
Very little post processing was done other than resizing from the original scan. I scanned at full resolution for the Minolta Scan Elite II (2820 dpi). Loaded the scan into Photoshop, adjusted levels accordingly (i.e. white and black points) and then resized the photo to 72dpi levels and maximum 600x400 (or 400x600) size.
I'm not at home now but I will upload a full size scan later tonight.
The "thinness" that I talk about with respect to the negatives is that I can barely barely barely (yes, THREE "barelys") make out an image on the neg. Scanning seems to have no problem seeing the image but it's hard to my naked eye with some of the images. Harsh contrast (such as the first photo of my buddy Darcie) helps the image show up on the negative but of course then you are dealing with harsh contrast
. You see how some of your 3200 shots are on the negatives.... imagine them "fading" even more on the negative
that's what I think "thinness" is Cheers
Dave
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
I've noticed another interesting thing about my pushing @3200. The developer solution that usuly gets dark purple, this time came clean almost like water.... did you got that too 3200 and 12800?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
pedro.m.reis said:
Whoa.. nope.
Mine still came out looking like Grape Kool-Aid
Are you mixing 1:50 or 1:100?
Dave
GeneW
Veteran
Interesting findings, Dave! Perhaps this is one area where scanners have an edge over traditional darkroom enlargers.dcsang said:
Thanks for posting this.
Gene
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
dcsang said:Whoa.. nope.
Mine still came out looking like Grape Kool-Aid
Are you mixing 1:50 or 1:100?
Dave
1:50, 33m @20Cº
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
pedro.m.reis said:
Odd..
Mine always comes out like Grape Kool-Aid.. I don't have the guts to take a sip of it though
Could be the Tri-X film - is it older stock? Just guessing here.. I don't have any real answers to that.
Dave
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
dcsang said:Odd..
Mine always comes out like Grape Kool-Aid.. I don't have the guts to take a sip of it though
Could be the Tri-X film - is it older stock? Just guessing here.. I don't have any real answers to that.
Dave
Odd results in my developing trys is an normal result to me
Well , the film was fresh, developed just after taking the shots.
I realy tough that anything was wrong when i saw the clear water coming from the tank .. but some pictures were there
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
pedro.m.reis said:Odd results in my developing trys is an normal result to me
Well , the film was fresh, developed just after taking the shots.
I realy tough that anything was wrong when i saw the clear water coming from the tank .. but some pictures were there
I somehow doubt this but do you think it could be..... Old Rodinal ??
I know that the Rodinal would have to be pretty old to be "Old Rodinal"
Dave
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
dcsang said:I somehow doubt this but do you think it could be..... Old Rodinal ??
I know that the Rodinal would have to be pretty old to be "Old Rodinal"
Dave
hehehe, no because i'm starting to process my own films i just bought a bottle of Rodinal.
jdos2
Well-known
Tell me, please, Pedro, from where did you buy it? Can you find it locally? Do you have an address for the store, if you did?
Diz-me, Pedro, de onde comprou? Pode achar localimente? Tem um endereço?
Inquiring minds wanna know!
Psst! By the way, Candian Photographer Ted Grant is in the Algarve right now, enjoying Portuguese hospitality! A friend of mine had dinner with him and family in Lisbon a couple days ago. When she realized who he was, she became slightly star-struck and didn't want to show him any more pictures!
Diz-me, Pedro, de onde comprou? Pode achar localimente? Tem um endereço?
Inquiring minds wanna know!
Psst! By the way, Candian Photographer Ted Grant is in the Algarve right now, enjoying Portuguese hospitality! A friend of mine had dinner with him and family in Lisbon a couple days ago. When she realized who he was, she became slightly star-struck and didn't want to show him any more pictures!
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
jdos2 said:Tell me, please, Pedro, from where did you buy it? Can you find it locally? Do you have an address for the store, if you did?
Diz-me, Pedro, de onde comprou? Pode achar localimente? Tem um endereço?
Inquiring minds wanna know!
Psst! By the way, Candian Photographer Ted Grant is in the Algarve right now, enjoying Portuguese hospitality! A friend of mine had dinner with him and family in Lisbon a couple days ago. When she realized who he was, she became slightly star-struck and didn't want to show him any more pictures!
Well tomorrow i'll go to the lab where i bought the Rodinal to buy some more since Agfa is starting to have some problems right?
If you want i'll ask if they ship it... or i can ship it myself.
jdos2
Well-known
Actually, I'm just curious- I've never seen a Real Photo store in Lisbon, only the tourist spots and FNAC, so when next I go I would like to visit one.
JD
JD
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Dave,
Now _that_ is what I'm talking about! Nice work. It's nice to see such great results in a situation that really, really cried out for pushing.
fyi - grain is the result of the emulsion's grain structure (a grainy film can't be less grainy than the graininess of the film, exposure, dev time and dev temperature. I am pretty sure it's overexposure that makes it grainier - that's why people go for the thinnest neg than can get (different standard of "thin" than what you got, of course). So the underexposure itself didn't increase the grain, but the looong time in the developer did. And "long" is relative to the developer - using a really active developer for a short amount of time would have yielded a lot of grain, too, since that developer would usually be used for a much shorter amount of time.
allan
Now _that_ is what I'm talking about! Nice work. It's nice to see such great results in a situation that really, really cried out for pushing.
fyi - grain is the result of the emulsion's grain structure (a grainy film can't be less grainy than the graininess of the film
, exposure, dev time and dev temperature. I am pretty sure it's overexposure that makes it grainier - that's why people go for the thinnest neg than can get (different standard of "thin" than what you got, of course). So the underexposure itself didn't increase the grain, but the looong time in the developer did. And "long" is relative to the developer - using a really active developer for a short amount of time would have yielded a lot of grain, too, since that developer would usually be used for a much shorter amount of time. allan
N
Nick R.
Guest
Nice shots, Dave. They look better than my tmax3200 @3200 dev'ed in HC110. Next I'm going to try the same in Xtol.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Nick R. said:
Thanks Nick.
I think, now that I sort of have "the hang of it" per se (i.e. I know what I should be looking out for in the frame, what the lighting should be like etc.) I'm going to give it another go at 12,800 or 6,400 this weekend at a wedding.
Thankfully it won't be the "only" film I'll be shooting (mostly going digital but the couple want B&W shots and I prefer B&W from film).
I have yet to try HC110 - so far as I can tell, right now, Rodinal (while most people seem to cringe at it for "normal" film stuff) is pretty decent and has almost replaced all other developers I've tried/used... and I really should emphasize almost (but likely won't)
Cheers
Dave
pedro.m.reis
Newbie but eager to learn
jdos2 said:
The store where i buy all my stuff and print my photos is in the back of "Centro Cultural de Belem" near the "Mosteiro de Jerónimos". Their site is http://www.nameloja.com
I dont know if this store match your definition of Real Photo store, but a visit could't hurt
.
N
Nick R.
Guest
I don't think that HC110 is great for pushing -at least the little I've tried with Tmax. However, for normal exposure it works very well. I've had good results with HP5+. And you can't beat its convenience.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Nick,
Donald Qualls at PN and apug (not sure if he's on RFF) uses HC-110 with TXT at up to 1600 with good results. I think his description is that EI 800 looks like it's a "real" 800 speed film, 1600 looks like a 1 stop push, etc. I don't know if he's tried it at higher EIs.
He uses decreased agitation with long development times to get the most shadow detail while controlling highlights.
allan
Donald Qualls at PN and apug (not sure if he's on RFF) uses HC-110 with TXT at up to 1600 with good results. I think his description is that EI 800 looks like it's a "real" 800 speed film, 1600 looks like a 1 stop push, etc. I don't know if he's tried it at higher EIs.
He uses decreased agitation with long development times to get the most shadow detail while controlling highlights.
allan