charjohncarter
Veteran
kaiyen, thanks for your post especially the last paragraph with the film information, I always carry a meter (hand) and check against the on board meter. If there is a difference I either bracket or recheck. I bracketed one stop up and one stop down on the Arista rolls. As you can see by my attached images that the whites are overdeveloped, but there are also few shadow details. Do you think cutting back on the development time will increase the shadows? I worked hard to get exactly what I wanted with the TXT @ 200. I am fine with it, and I don't seem to have to much of an exposure problem. I hold the sheet up and all the negatives are of the same density. They print easily and scan easily. And I have the shadow detail that I like. But as they say: there is always room for improvement. So I may try rising the rated speed a little. I tried to get the shadow detail that I like at the box speed and I was never successful, that is when I cut it back.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
charjohncarter said:
Development time won't realistically affect shadows at all. Shadows are exposure. That's why I got all "spot meter-y" on you. To really figure out a film's ability to get adequate shadow detail, you need to meter the shadows exclusively.
One thing - and this is to again clarify what I meant since we had a bit of a disagreement/misunderstanding - is that when I say you have to meter the shadows, I mean that you have to do that if you _really_ want to judge and evaluate film speed (ability to get shadow details). I am not telling you how to meter and/or shoot your photos.
Again, with my comment above - if it works for you, then it works. I mention that overexposure can add grain, and ideally, to minimize it, you want just the _minimum_ amount of exposure to get your desired shadow detail. But such controlled situations are hard to come by or take a lot of work, so stick with what works for you, no question.
What you could do is this, if you really want to get wacky
In your first picture, you are dealing with not only a contrasty scene (as far as I can tell) but also one where the shadow areas are relatively small. You are certainly not metering the shadows, nor are they even dominant. So your meter is going to cause you to lose those shadows almost all the time. That's just the nature of the scene, and of meters. What you can do is rate the film lower, of just increase exposure, in those situations. So shoot that first scene, which is arguably an extreme example of contrast, at like 25.
Your second shot actually has very smooth lighting, as far as I can tell. You could've probably shot that at 64 or even 80 and still been okay.
This is hard, but what I'm suggesting is that you adjust exposure or your actual ISO dial based on the scene. Eventually you will get a feel for what setting to use for a scene.
This, of course, makes development time hard. You have to develop for the extreme contrast situations, since those have the most exposure and will result in the most blown-out highlights. But then you'll get relatively flat negatives for your second scene.
However, development problems like that are almost unavoidable with 35mm film, where it's unlikely that you'll get 36 straight shots of the same rough contrast range.
One last comment - it is not unusual _at_all_ to rate, say, a 100 speed film at 80 or 64 depending on the developer used. But once you get to a full stop, you are clearly running into major problems, such as running into very contrast scenes a lot. One thing you can do is to change developers or techniques to get greater basic speed.
With HC-110, consider higher dilutions, longer dev times and reduced agitation (like 10s every 3 minutes). I've seen results with TXT that look like legit 800 with this method, in terms of shadow detail. Or just try something like Microphen, which should get the Foma to at least 100 in most situations, if not 125.
allan
Rolleijoe
Member
charjohncarter said:
I've never liked HC-110 for Fomapan films, it just creates muddy tones, which
is what you've got here. The highlights are shot, shadows blocked up, and
contrast way too high.
With Foma, I've gotten the best results from Rodinal. This combination is
outstanding, and is preferred by many others as well. I only use HC-110 for
portraits made with Tri-X or Plus-X, as (for a developer) it gives a softer
"edge" to whatever it touches.
Now I did have success with Tri-X/HC-110 combination while shooting on
Maui when I lived there. The constant light, made shooting a snap,
and the contrast was very easy to control. Zeiss glass is also a nice factor
when it comes to the amount of contrast captured on the film.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Very interesting kaiyen (sorry didn't see your name is Allan until after I posted this), thanks, I have printed that post, if you don't mind. And RolleiJoe thanks for the input on HC-110, I assume that you shoot 120 from your apodo, unless you use one of the Rollei 35 series (or I think they made a SLR too.) California is very contrasty in sunlight too, but the worst was Panama' when I lived there. Nine degrees above the equator, even at 5 in the afternoon is was harsh.
Strangely, The nicest Arista Edu Ultra 100 images I found on Flickr were developed in HC-110, but they were 120. They were so nice, I felt that maybe the 35mm and the 120 films are actually different.
Strangely, The nicest Arista Edu Ultra 100 images I found on Flickr were developed in HC-110, but they were 120. They were so nice, I felt that maybe the 35mm and the 120 films are actually different.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Just fyi, the 120 and 35mm emulsions are supposedly the same, but the LF stuff is different.
allan
allan
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
John: If you're looking for an ISO 100-ish film that gives you the same type of Tri-X look but with finer grain, then it seems this current combination won't do it unless you keep trying with other dilutions and agitation with HC-110. I've never used the Foma/EDU Ultra, so I really don't have direct experience. But if it were me, I wouldn't keep messing with HC-110, as much as I like it and it used to be my go-to soup for Tri-X @ 200, just as you have dialed in.
How much lower EI can you "tolerate"? Maybe try Pan F+ if you can work at EI 40 or 50. The one roll I've tried in the last while was developed in Ilford DDX and I quite liked it. My next couple will be in Rodinal, probably 1:50 but maybe 1:100. It won't look just like Tri-X but finer grain, but you may get a look you really like.
Sadly, I think APX100 was the best "medium" speed film I've used. It shot well at 100 (Rodinal 1:100) for me, so my experience is different than Allan's, but who knows.
As this thread kinda shows that metering is a critical when calibrating. For testing I use spot metering/zone measurements, but after that I depend on less critical metering unless I'm shooting LF. I'm not doubting your metering technique at all, it's evident you know what you're doing. And I think your OP, that you wouldn't be messing with this film any more, was a very reasonable conclusion.
How much lower EI can you "tolerate"? Maybe try Pan F+ if you can work at EI 40 or 50. The one roll I've tried in the last while was developed in Ilford DDX and I quite liked it. My next couple will be in Rodinal, probably 1:50 but maybe 1:100. It won't look just like Tri-X but finer grain, but you may get a look you really like.
Sadly, I think APX100 was the best "medium" speed film I've used. It shot well at 100 (Rodinal 1:100) for me, so my experience is different than Allan's, but who knows.
As this thread kinda shows that metering is a critical when calibrating. For testing I use spot metering/zone measurements, but after that I depend on less critical metering unless I'm shooting LF. I'm not doubting your metering technique at all, it's evident you know what you're doing. And I think your OP, that you wouldn't be messing with this film any more, was a very reasonable conclusion.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Trius,
To clarify, I usually found APX 100 to be about 64 or 80. More like 80. I didn't mean that it would be a full stop slower than box.
allan
To clarify, I usually found APX 100 to be about 64 or 80. More like 80. I didn't mean that it would be a full stop slower than box.
allan
x-ray
Veteran
charjohncarter said:
Run a test with your new film and try the incident meter for your base exposure. Compare it to the reading under the exact same light with your camera on the scene. See how they compare. If the incident meter is dramatically different, say a stop, use the reading and then one from the camera as a test. Then taking notes bracket three stops over and then on the metered exposure then three stops under. Run it normal and see how it looks.
Simple tests can establish a baseline for your process.
charjohncarter
Veteran
RE: Arista Edu Ultra 100
I received the informal report from my email acquaintance in Utah. He wrote: 'Based on my measurements with a densitometer on (this) film (that) I have developed I think the dynamic range of this film is not very high.' I not even sure what that means, but I said I would post it when I received it.
I received the informal report from my email acquaintance in Utah. He wrote: 'Based on my measurements with a densitometer on (this) film (that) I have developed I think the dynamic range of this film is not very high.' I not even sure what that means, but I said I would post it when I received it.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I think he's saying that it can't handle deep shadows and bright highlights well. IOW, that it's a contrasty film.
However, there is no reason why you couldn't overcome that. Pan F+ and especially TechPan are/were _incredibly_ contrasty films that could be handled with proper exposure and development. Yes, Techpan almost always required Technidol developer and times as short as 3-4 minutes, but you could still get a wide dynamic range if done right.
I don't think I've ever heard a densitometer test expressed that way.
allan
However, there is no reason why you couldn't overcome that. Pan F+ and especially TechPan are/were _incredibly_ contrasty films that could be handled with proper exposure and development. Yes, Techpan almost always required Technidol developer and times as short as 3-4 minutes, but you could still get a wide dynamic range if done right.
I don't think I've ever heard a densitometer test expressed that way.
allan
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Allan: Understood. I would be fine with 64 or 80, but fortunately I've been happy with 100 so far. Maybe if I looked harder at the results I have so far I'd adjust to a my exposure to be a bit heavier.