wintoid
Back to film
So it's the beginning of a new year, and last night was my last bit of free time before a hard (?) day at work today. I decided to clear out the one half-finished roll of film from my Olympus 35SP. A nice roll of Neopan 400, up to about frame 16 or so. I decided to try Rodinal, because I'm casually looking for a developer that works well (for me) with this film.
2 minutes in to development, I suddenly found myself wondering whether I rated the film at 400. Checked the camera, and nope I rated it at 800. Eek! So rushed upstairs to the computer to get a time for Neopan 400 @ 800 in Rodinal, in between agitations of the film. No dice. I couldn't find the time anywhere (and still can't).
In the end I took a guess, extending the 11 minutes I was expecting to use for ISO400 to 16 minutes for ISO800. I did get results, albeit rather dark, and have attached one to this post as illustration.
I now find myself wondering about a good starting time for Neopan400@800 in Rodinal 1:50. Does anyone have a time?
2 minutes in to development, I suddenly found myself wondering whether I rated the film at 400. Checked the camera, and nope I rated it at 800. Eek! So rushed upstairs to the computer to get a time for Neopan 400 @ 800 in Rodinal, in between agitations of the film. No dice. I couldn't find the time anywhere (and still can't).
In the end I took a guess, extending the 11 minutes I was expecting to use for ISO400 to 16 minutes for ISO800. I did get results, albeit rather dark, and have attached one to this post as illustration.
I now find myself wondering about a good starting time for Neopan400@800 in Rodinal 1:50. Does anyone have a time?
Attachments
pesphoto
Veteran
Usually with going from 400 to 800 asa I dont change my dev time at all, but that's me.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
pesphoto said:
Same here, but perhaps this is not ideal either. I would start by adding a 10%-15% to the original time, in your case this would make for 12'30"-13' or something like that. If you got reasonable results with 16' but you would have liked them less dark this could be a good guess...
Giella lea Fapmu
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Cute image. Looks like it came out well. IIRC (I don't do a lot of pushing), the time should increase ~50%, so it seems you guessed right (?).
edit: judging by giellaleafapmu's post maybe I didn't remember correctly.
edit: judging by giellaleafapmu's post maybe I didn't remember correctly.
gareth
Established
I add about 40% time for a one stop push. I usually reduce the amount of agitation also.
Max Power
Well-known
Wow,
For having SWAGged it, I came out really well!
IMHO it looks only about a stop over developed; you've lost a bit of shadow, but the highlights are really good. At any road, overdeveloped is easier to print than underdeveloped.
Looks like a fantastic combo; I think I'm going to have to try it with D-400!
Kent
For having SWAGged it, I came out really well!
IMHO it looks only about a stop over developed; you've lost a bit of shadow, but the highlights are really good. At any road, overdeveloped is easier to print than underdeveloped.
Looks like a fantastic combo; I think I'm going to have to try it with D-400!
Kent
wintoid
Back to film
Max Power
Well-known
wintoid said:
Still, I'd say you're only out about one stop. Although the coats of the adults seem to lack detail, one can make out the pattern of the bark on the trees.
Kent
Michael I.
Well-known
wintoid said:
I love the picture the way it is.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Hm...I don't think your _highlight_ contrast is bad at all. Even in your second example it's pretty good. What you're seeing is pretty serious loss of shadow detail, making the picture "darker," as you say. That is from exposure, not development. So development is fine, but apparently Neopan doesn't push well, even one stop, in Rodinal, for you.
Keep highlights and shadow detail separate when talking development and exposure.
allan
Keep highlights and shadow detail separate when talking development and exposure.
allan
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Well, the suggestions are all over the map! I think the 16min timing worked well enough; the results are pleasing. It's a tad contrasty, but that's partly agitation. Pushing the development always loses shadow detail; that's the physics of it.
Since Rodinal is a compensating developer and you were at 1:50, over-extended development is not as bad a thing as with other types of developers. That said, I think you'd be able to dial it back to 15 minutes and reduce agitation and improve things a bit.
Since Rodinal is a compensating developer and you were at 1:50, over-extended development is not as bad a thing as with other types of developers. That said, I think you'd be able to dial it back to 15 minutes and reduce agitation and improve things a bit.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Trius,
Your point about compensation is well made, but even 60 second intervals isn't going to give you must compensating effect. A bit, but probably not noticeable. My point wasn't that shadow detail loss isn't just basic physics, but rather than the highlights were fine (meaning development was pretty good) and that the increased contrast is actually from the intense black from lack of shadow detail. The shot looks contrasty, and it is. But not because of development, IMO. It's because of exposure.
allan
Your point about compensation is well made, but even 60 second intervals isn't going to give you must compensating effect. A bit, but probably not noticeable. My point wasn't that shadow detail loss isn't just basic physics, but rather than the highlights were fine (meaning development was pretty good) and that the increased contrast is actually from the intense black from lack of shadow detail. The shot looks contrasty, and it is. But not because of development, IMO. It's because of exposure.
allan
Max Power
Well-known
kaiyen said:
Stupid me, I didn't think of that either...That's a really good point Allan.
Oh well, at least I'm still learning!!!
Kent
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I have a Push/Pull time chart I copied from a lab I used to work in. It indicates a +1 push to be 13 minutes assuming a normal dev starting time of 11 minutes.
This chart has always given me very good results. I've attached it as a Word Document here, incase anyone wants to download it. Like any dev. time chart, I suggest you use the times as a starting point, as you may want to tweak things a bit here and there, bit I've always found it to be pretty accurate and useful.
This chart has always given me very good results. I've attached it as a Word Document here, incase anyone wants to download it. Like any dev. time chart, I suggest you use the times as a starting point, as you may want to tweak things a bit here and there, bit I've always found it to be pretty accurate and useful.
Attachments
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I basically agree. My thinking, which I didn't express well, was that pulling back a bit won't cost anything but wet-time will be reduced, which is always a good thing. You might see a very slight but welcome improvement. Yeah, 60 seconds is fairly minimal; 90-120 might even be possible. But we're picking at nits.kaiyen said:
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Another point worth mentioning is that I wonder how much detail reamins in the shadows in the original negative, vs. what shows up in the web pic posted from a scan? Personally, I have never had a scan show all the detail across the whole range compared to what is there in the negative. Then again, I'm not a wizard with digital technology by any stretch.
It's also likely that another developer, or even a higher dilution of Rodinal, would have yeilded a better negative. In any case, there's no reason why Neopan should not give decent results at 800, as long as it's processed accordingly. Wintoid's problem here was not exposure- it was processing, and if he had known what E.I. he was using from the start, his negs would probably be fine.
It's also likely that another developer, or even a higher dilution of Rodinal, would have yeilded a better negative. In any case, there's no reason why Neopan should not give decent results at 800, as long as it's processed accordingly. Wintoid's problem here was not exposure- it was processing, and if he had known what E.I. he was using from the start, his negs would probably be fine.
Nachkebia
Well-known
nice shot, btw what lens is that? I don`t think any modern lens can give that kind of flare in any conditions
kaiyen
local man of mystery
drewbarb said:
First, there isn't really a "problem" at all. Highlights look okay, certainly controlled, so dev time is fine. Sure, as Trius said, you can cut time a bit for convenience, but dev time is fine.
When I talked about exposure, I again was not talking about a problem, just a result of something. comments have been made that it's contrasty, primarily in relation to dev time being too long. My response that since the highlights look okay, the _perceived_ high contrast is probably due to the intense and dominant blacks, which is from a lack of shadow detail, which is _absolutely_ the result of underexposure.
Furthermore, even if the EI was known at the time the film was put in the dev, it wouldn't have somehow increased the shadow detail, unless a totally different developer was used (one that increased speed).
So it is about exposure, not development. In this case.
allan
wintoid
Back to film
Again, thank you all for your input (Allan has helped me so many times I've lost count).
The camera is an Olympus 35SP, so the lens is the built-in lens with that camera, circa 1969. Not modern, I suppose (hey I was born in 1967 and I consider myself modern!)
So Allan, suppose I had developed it for a shorter period of time, wouldn't I be right in thinking that less silver would be on the emulsion, which would then mean that the highlights would be less bright, which would then mean that if I adjust in my scanning software so that the brightest highlight is white, the dark greys would get brighter, giving me more detail in the shadows? Sorry I'm having difficulty articulating what I mean. I hope you understand.
The camera is an Olympus 35SP, so the lens is the built-in lens with that camera, circa 1969. Not modern, I suppose (hey I was born in 1967 and I consider myself modern!)
So Allan, suppose I had developed it for a shorter period of time, wouldn't I be right in thinking that less silver would be on the emulsion, which would then mean that the highlights would be less bright, which would then mean that if I adjust in my scanning software so that the brightest highlight is white, the dark greys would get brighter, giving me more detail in the shadows? Sorry I'm having difficulty articulating what I mean. I hope you understand.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
kaiyen said:
Kaiyen- I'm not suggesting that if he'd known his E.I., it would have somehow magically increased shadow detail- rather, that if he had known his E.I. from the outset, he probably would have used a developer better suited to pushing than Rodinal.
I maintain, it's not about exposure. Shooting this film at 800 is not in itself a problem. It's about the combination of exposure given and developing regimen used. With a science like this, it's all about variables in relation to one another, not one variable on it's own.