charjohncarter
Veteran
I just developed and scanned my final two rolls of Arista Edu Ultra 100 rated at 50. I developed them in HC-110 (H) for 7.0 minutes, 68 degrees F. I agitated for 30 seconds then two spaced of 3 inversions. These negatives look somewhat better than the first two rolls (8.25 and 9.5 minutes). Still, there seems to be an inability to get any details in the shadows. I will post two attachments: one taken in bright sun and the next inside with low available light. Someone on flickr has some nice photos taken with this film and developed as I just did. His images have better shadows than mine but still they are dark and not as nice as Tri-X or Plus-X. I don't think I will use this film again, but I am posting these just for anyone that wants information about this film.
Attachments
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I can see the darks are strong on the first shot along the shoreline however the shadows in the second still reveal the woodgrain in the panelling .. that seems pretty good to me.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree it (Arista Edu Ultra 100) is better in low contrast subjects. It still is harsh. In my previous post on this film, I felt that it wasn't as contrasty in soft light situations, almost acceptable. These images were not manipulated is PS, just cropped and the border. As I stated, it's intolerance for shadow exposure is overwhelming and has to be considered in each shot. I rated the film at 50 and maybe it needs an even lower rating, with commensurate reduction in development time. Some suggested a different developer, but I can't comment on that because I have used only one developer for since 1972.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I agree with your overall assessment, I was just observing the detail came thru in the one photo. There are better BW films to achieve the detail you are looking for from both Ilford and Kodak.
From the posted scans, I'd agree with your assessment. The highlights are blown (so the development could be cut back to save them) and the dark areas without detail (so more exposure could capture more detail and texture). How about a higher dilution with HC110? I've not used that developer, but I understand it's pretty flexible by use of different dilutions, and agitation methods.charjohncarter said:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Are you certain that it is not a scanning problem? Have you checked out the negatives with a loupe to see whether there is any detail in the shadows or are you relying on your scans to come to that conclusion?
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
charjohncarter
Veteran
I did scans on two scanners with the first two rolls: a lab, and my own scanner. The histograms were similar. But I don't rule that out (scanner problem). I sent negatives to a fellow B&W film enthusiast in Utah, I don't know him but he offered. He is going to put them through his densitometer. I will post his results when I get them.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I don't know about a higher dilution of HC-110, but I certainly didn't over agitate these rolls.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
How did you meter these scenes? I strongly recommend against making shadow detail/speed judgments of emulsions without spot metering the shadows. I realize that's not how people use RFs, but if you want to get any really usable data re: speed, you need to spot meter.
allan
allan
x-ray
Veteran
30 seconds initial agitiation is excessive agitiation. I've used HC 110 or Ilford HC (same) for over 30 years and never had a problem but it is a very active developer and can build contrast quickly. When you fill the tank bang it on a table or something a couple of time to knock tha air bubles off the film and gently agitate it for about 10 seconds. Be gentle! Then very gently agitate every 30 seconds. I don't invert the tank but twist it while making about a 20% inversion. Gentle is the secret here.
Remember exposure controlls shadows and developement controlls highlights.
I did a resident study with Ansel Adams in 1975 and HC-110 was his favorite. That's when I switched and have used it for 80% of my film since.
Remember exposure controlls shadows and developement controlls highlights.
I did a resident study with Ansel Adams in 1975 and HC-110 was his favorite. That's when I switched and have used it for 80% of my film since.
charjohncarter
Veteran
kaiyen, I used the on board meter on two different cameras on these images. x-ray, I like that apodo, I did agitate for 30 seconds at first, But then only twice during the entire cycle. I don't like excessive contrast as you may have surmised, but I will try your method in the future. Doesn't it seem easier to add contrast in PS than to remove it?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Well, it doesn't really matter if you used the onboard meter on a thousand cameras, if you aren't locking into the shadows during the process (either with a spot or by filling the metering pattern with it).
I'm just saying that if you're going to make calls on the speed of the film, you need to be metering properly. Once you reach that point, then you still might find that, for the types of scenes you tend to shoot, you still need to rate it differently than the speed you just discerned because of the averaging meter in your camera.
For instance, when I can spot meter, I shoot Pan F Plus at 40. When I cannot, I use 30 or even 25 if it's really contrasty out.
allan
I'm just saying that if you're going to make calls on the speed of the film, you need to be metering properly. Once you reach that point, then you still might find that, for the types of scenes you tend to shoot, you still need to rate it differently than the speed you just discerned because of the averaging meter in your camera.
For instance, when I can spot meter, I shoot Pan F Plus at 40. When I cannot, I use 30 or even 25 if it's really contrasty out.
allan
charjohncarter
Veteran
I just used non spot metering, without locking on anything. Many wide angle shots and many with a 200mm lens. I don't know how more general you could get. I usually use Tri-X @ 200, and, as I said in another post, I was looking for a fine grain alternative. With Tri-X I rated at 200 as I've said I P&S, my results are good enough to make me happy. Besides, I was looking for the Ballpark with Arista Edu Ultra 100 not a Home Run. In my case, if it didn't get into the Ballpark, early, then why try to hit a Home Run. To further use the ridiculous sports analogy, I'll move to another team
Last edited:
Freneticist
Member
Kaiyen is right. Your built-in camera meter is going to give you a reading from the highlights, from camera positon. If you want to shoot for detail in the shadow, you need an incident meter reading taken from within the shadow. Use your camera meter for reflective from camera position, average the two. As stated earlier, Meter for the shadow, Develop for the highlights. You can shoot the film at asa6, but if you are metering from camera postion only, with built-in meter, then you are still going to get a lot of highlight, and not much detail in the shadows. Try shooting the film at box-iso, take your camera-meter reading, stop down two stops, and shoot longer. I will try and find some shots I took at night where my canon meter would not register. I shot at 5.6, two full minutes, agfa 100, shot at 100, the building was a full city block away, and the detail in the brick around the bell-tower is astounding. You can't always take the meter's word for it. Ya gotta play around, and see what works.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have an incident meter, and if you think the average B&W film user pulls it out and uses it on the streets of San Francisco (as you and kaiyen probably don't do) you are crazy. OT, how many members use their incident meter? Get real, the subject is: Arista Edu Ultra 100 (35mm, not 4x5 or 8x10), is it too contrasty in my hands. Plain and simple. I don't want Ansel Adams, I just want a good film, and I have it with Tri-X, Plus-X. Sorry, I tried something different that I didn't like. I know I'm getting testy. But try the film and then complain about my technique.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I'm editing my post - taking it out. I would delete it except that I don't like acting as if I never posted in the first place.
For anyone that saw my original post, I apologize for letting myself act a certain way just because someone else did. I'll recuse myself from this thread from here on out.
I wish RFF weren't becoming like this for me.
allan
For anyone that saw my original post, I apologize for letting myself act a certain way just because someone else did. I'll recuse myself from this thread from here on out.
I wish RFF weren't becoming like this for me.
allan
Last edited:
Freneticist
Member
Char,
Apologies if post came off sounding crass and condescending. I read the post as though you were looking for answers for lack of detail in your shots. You questioned developing methods and received feedback regarding it, but intent was not criticism when I mentioned metering and settings. Just questioning and suggestion. No, I don't meter every shot. Now. I did, until I found "general" settings that worked for me. And yeah, I missed a few opportunities for good pics, because by the time I got all the "technical know-how" out of the way, the shot was gone.
Anyway.
Once again: Apologies for any offenses.
Good light.
Fresh eyes.
Apologies if post came off sounding crass and condescending. I read the post as though you were looking for answers for lack of detail in your shots. You questioned developing methods and received feedback regarding it, but intent was not criticism when I mentioned metering and settings. Just questioning and suggestion. No, I don't meter every shot. Now. I did, until I found "general" settings that worked for me. And yeah, I missed a few opportunities for good pics, because by the time I got all the "technical know-how" out of the way, the shot was gone.
Anyway.
Once again: Apologies for any offenses.
Good light.
Fresh eyes.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
charjohncarter said:
My dear fellow: As you seem to be familliar with Ansel Adams, you probably know each film has its own characteristic "curve", or more generally speaking its own point at which information starts to register information (the toe - or information in the shadows) and starts to block up (the shoulder - or "blown" highlights. You are in charge of placing the exposure so that information is registered on the film. If your technique is sloppy, you are going to have difficulty with your results. The problem is not the film.
I think Allan was trying to help you evaluate how to get to the point where you could make a rational judgment about the behavior of the film in question (that is, understand Arista 100's characteristic curve -- whether or not plotted). Now before you bite my head off too, I lived in the Bay Area for three years and know what the light is like there in the winter months: harsh, specular, very contrasty. Street photography in February in downtown SF can be like an experiment with lith film - and your metering technique matters. When light has this quality, the range of brightness that you are asking film to record is pretty astounding. P.s. I use a handheld meter 99% of the time and sometimes a grey card to help me judge where to put the exposure -- even with 35mm and certainly with digital which handles blown highlights much less well than film. It is more necessary to be careful about exposure in SF/winter situations, rather than less.
Maybe what you are saying is that you want a film that is tolerant of casual exposure technique. If that's the case, I would try one of the chromogenic b&w films like Ilford XP2 or Kodak T400CN and bracket your exposures until you find a EI that you like.
BTW - Daniel - just took a look at your Week 7 PAW. VERY nice indeed.
Ben Marks
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I just posted, maybe wrongly, an informal review of a film that is sold openly on the market, and gave my development numbers (my metering technique may be sloppy, but my development technique is not). As you will see by a search of RFF there are very few, if any, posts about this specific film on RFF. The reason for my post was informational, nothing more. In the past if I needed information about a film I have used this forum or photonet. These little bits of development and film characteristics data are very helpful, and sometime do/don't work. But at least you get an idea of what to expect, and where to start. Some of the best info I've gotten has been from kaiyen. I'm sorry if I got upset.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
One comment about your actual goal of finding a finer grain film than TXT @ 200 (or whatever it is that you expose it at - I know you overexpose). First, consider _not_ overexposing by so much. Clearly, you want the shadow detail, but 200 EI is overexposure unless you are using a combination of developer and technique (mostly just pulling) that will compensate. But overexposure will increase grain. Grain is minimal while retaining shadow detail somewhere around 250-320 in most developers. At 200, you have to consider D76 1+0 or even Perceptol.
FP4 is just as flexible in terms of exposure, but is grainy for a 125 speed film. So no good there.
Foma 100, which is what you're shooting, is supposedly the closest thing to Agfa APX 100. The latter was not known as being super fine grain, IIRC, but great in terms of tonality. Agfa films also tend to be slower in almost all developers than its box speed, but a full stop seems a bit excessive. And, again, your comment about frustration over shooting at 50 (which wasn't and was never interpreted as to be the _main_ point of your post, just one of them) caused me to bring up some suggestions about getting better results though better metering techniques.
So, in a way, my suggestions re: metering also have an impact on grain.
If you do carry a mter with you, you can try Delta 100. It's certainly not all that forgiving, but if you do carry that meter around or at least expose somewhat conservatively (sunny f16 at least, not the f11 "shadow detail" rule I often use), you will find remarkably fine grain. Otherwise, if you're forced to shoot Foma at 50, you might as well move to Pan F + (but very contrasty, so watch your development times) or even the Efke films, which almost always give full speed, even in Rodinal.
allan
FP4 is just as flexible in terms of exposure, but is grainy for a 125 speed film. So no good there.
Foma 100, which is what you're shooting, is supposedly the closest thing to Agfa APX 100. The latter was not known as being super fine grain, IIRC, but great in terms of tonality. Agfa films also tend to be slower in almost all developers than its box speed, but a full stop seems a bit excessive. And, again, your comment about frustration over shooting at 50 (which wasn't and was never interpreted as to be the _main_ point of your post, just one of them) caused me to bring up some suggestions about getting better results though better metering techniques.
So, in a way, my suggestions re: metering also have an impact on grain.
If you do carry a mter with you, you can try Delta 100. It's certainly not all that forgiving, but if you do carry that meter around or at least expose somewhat conservatively (sunny f16 at least, not the f11 "shadow detail" rule I often use), you will find remarkably fine grain. Otherwise, if you're forced to shoot Foma at 50, you might as well move to Pan F + (but very contrasty, so watch your development times) or even the Efke films, which almost always give full speed, even in Rodinal.
allan