back alley
IMAGES
tried to do some scanning yesterday and was completely demoralized.
i had processed 6 rolls of film (the sonnar fiasco was one of them), the negs looked ok but there was not a really sharp frame on any of the 6 rolls and they all looked lightly solarized in some part of the frame.
i can understand the odd slightly fuzzy shot as i'm not that steady these days and with some winter shots there is that body shiver thing
but not one sharp frame?
so, my question is can something in the develping process affect sharpness?
and the film was from different cameras, not just the zi.
joe
i had processed 6 rolls of film (the sonnar fiasco was one of them), the negs looked ok but there was not a really sharp frame on any of the 6 rolls and they all looked lightly solarized in some part of the frame.
i can understand the odd slightly fuzzy shot as i'm not that steady these days and with some winter shots there is that body shiver thing
but not one sharp frame?so, my question is can something in the develping process affect sharpness?
and the film was from different cameras, not just the zi.
joe
EmilGil
Well-known
The choice of developer can affect the appearance of the sharpness, i.e. how sharp the grain looks (acutance) but I find it strange that all shots are unsharp.
What chemistry did you use? How old is it? What dilutions (if applicable)?
When did you last see your optometrist?
What chemistry did you use? How old is it? What dilutions (if applicable)?
When did you last see your optometrist?
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Hi Joe, cann't help on the development side, but how about the scanner ?
See: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37282
Roland.
See: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37282
Roland.
back alley
IMAGES
it might be the scanner, i guess i need to scan a known sharp neg.
i used apx 400 shot at 200 and developed in ddx. the ddx worked ok the week prior but who knows if i hit the deadline with this last batch.
i used apx 400 shot at 200 and developed in ddx. the ddx worked ok the week prior but who knows if i hit the deadline with this last batch.
R
ray_g
Guest
back alley said:
Did the negs look ok or underdeveloped?
back alley
IMAGES
rollie, i read that thread, hhmmm. i did have these negs under some phone books to flatten but maybe not long enough.
joe
joe
back alley
IMAGES
ray_g said:
mostly ok.
one roll seemed a bit off, not quite fogged but something like that.
joe
Xmas
Veteran
Joe
You need to look at the grain with a microscope, the grain edges should be sharp, if the the camera images are soft (may be focus) or (multiple shaky old Joe, note I burn more candles than Joe, at Xmas).
Noel
You need to look at the grain with a microscope, the grain edges should be sharp, if the the camera images are soft (may be focus) or (multiple shaky old Joe, note I burn more candles than Joe, at Xmas).
Noel
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Try using one of those 50's as a loupe and look at the neg itself.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Kin's got a good suggestion - invert a 50mm and it'll be a good loupe with excellent maginification.
However, note that DDX is a speed-enhancing, fairly low-grain developer. It is not high in acutance. Of course, it's not a fine-grain, high-solvency developer, either, so you shouldn't be losing _that_ much sharpness.
If you are after sharpness, use something with more acutance. But, you also seem to indicate that this is relatively sudden, so if DDX was giving you sharp negs before but now not then there is something weird going on.
allan
However, note that DDX is a speed-enhancing, fairly low-grain developer. It is not high in acutance. Of course, it's not a fine-grain, high-solvency developer, either, so you shouldn't be losing _that_ much sharpness.
If you are after sharpness, use something with more acutance. But, you also seem to indicate that this is relatively sudden, so if DDX was giving you sharp negs before but now not then there is something weird going on.
allan
back alley
IMAGES
this is definately an anomoly for me.
i have used this combo before without this strange affect.
if it were one roll i would have thought i was having a really bad day when i shot the film, but this is film from nov and also from last week, even a shot of you allan, on whyte ave from your visit here.
joe
i have used this combo before without this strange affect.
if it were one roll i would have thought i was having a really bad day when i shot the film, but this is film from nov and also from last week, even a shot of you allan, on whyte ave from your visit here.
joe
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
What Kin said ... if the neg is sharp, then it is the scanning, if the negs are not sharp, then I doubt it's the developer UNLESS there was solvent action running wild. I'm not overly familiar with DDX, but my impression is that it has good sharpness/acutance characteristics.
Now as to that solarization effect ... Joe I saw that on your flickr posting, and it is a strange thing. Since we can't see an actual negative, it's hard to draw conclusions since it could be a combination of developing artifacts and scanning. But it does raise a question in my mind as to some sort of chemical contamination or maybe temperature change/shock during processing. Normally the latter would result in reticulation, though.
The 50mm test shots on flickr seem sharp but show the solarization type of effect. So I have to disassociate those two phenomena.
Edit: Re DDX and acutance, I stand corrected. But I agree, it shouldn't have a huge effect.
Now as to that solarization effect ... Joe I saw that on your flickr posting, and it is a strange thing. Since we can't see an actual negative, it's hard to draw conclusions since it could be a combination of developing artifacts and scanning. But it does raise a question in my mind as to some sort of chemical contamination or maybe temperature change/shock during processing. Normally the latter would result in reticulation, though.
The 50mm test shots on flickr seem sharp but show the solarization type of effect. So I have to disassociate those two phenomena.
Edit: Re DDX and acutance, I stand corrected. But I agree, it shouldn't have a huge effect.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
the 'solarization' is on the negs.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
OK ... not to get OT, but those negs are sharp, right? And they were in DDX too, right? And how much time between developing those negs and the latest round of unsharp negs?
This is all very strange.
This is all very strange.
back alley
IMAGES
i need to check the negs again for sharpness.
all 6 rolls were done at the same time in 2 tanks.
joe
all 6 rolls were done at the same time in 2 tanks.
joe
MartinP
Veteran
Just the obvious question - was the DDX used as a one-shot dilution, or did you try the batch-processing idea, as mentioned on the bottle ?
You mentioned a timescale of a week, but I think one would need to use the batch of diluted concentrate within a day to avoid oxidation problems, even if one boiled (and cooled) the water first to drive off some of the dissolved air.
You mentioned a timescale of a week, but I think one would need to use the batch of diluted concentrate within a day to avoid oxidation problems, even if one boiled (and cooled) the water first to drive off some of the dissolved air.
back alley
IMAGES
one shot
i did what i have always done, process wise.
nothing changed from my normal routine.
i did what i have always done, process wise.
nothing changed from my normal routine.
MartinP
Veteran
Very wise. It works nicely for me on Ilford, and tri-x occasionally.
Was the film near a source of strange vapours ? There used to be a kodak hazard leaflet about not putting film in new pvc camera bags (yeuchh), or recently painted cupboards etc. It could be a cause external to your processing ?
Was the film near a source of strange vapours ? There used to be a kodak hazard leaflet about not putting film in new pvc camera bags (yeuchh), or recently painted cupboards etc. It could be a cause external to your processing ?
back alley
IMAGES
not that i'm aware of.
the film was sitting in the tanks for about a week before i processed it but i have done that many times before.
joe
the film was sitting in the tanks for about a week before i processed it but i have done that many times before.
joe
V
varjag
Guest
The government must be adding extra lithium in the water and it affects development.
Seriously though, try half a test roll on a distilled water, with developer from unopened bottle and fresh fixer, and the other half in same chemistry/water as before. If there is difference, you can narrow it down to single component. If not, the cause is likely non-chemical.. can be anything from damaged tank to say new IR-emitting heater in the room where film's loaded.
Seriously though, try half a test roll on a distilled water, with developer from unopened bottle and fresh fixer, and the other half in same chemistry/water as before. If there is difference, you can narrow it down to single component. If not, the cause is likely non-chemical.. can be anything from damaged tank to say new IR-emitting heater in the room where film's loaded.