beedubs
Member
Hey all,
I just pushed my first roll of tri-x to 1600.
Unfortunately the results were less than impressive.
I shot the roll on my M2 and used an external incident light meter set to 1600.
Having no experience with pushing film, maybe it was my fault but as I have never done it before I can't tell if the pushed negatives should have come out like they did.
My main question is should the boarders be so dark?
I fell like they didn't cook it for long enough.
I've also included a photo of some tri-x shot and developed at 400 by the same lab as a comparison.
Thanks for your time,
Dan.
I just pushed my first roll of tri-x to 1600.
Unfortunately the results were less than impressive.
I shot the roll on my M2 and used an external incident light meter set to 1600.
Having no experience with pushing film, maybe it was my fault but as I have never done it before I can't tell if the pushed negatives should have come out like they did.
My main question is should the boarders be so dark?
I fell like they didn't cook it for long enough.
I've also included a photo of some tri-x shot and developed at 400 by the same lab as a comparison.
Thanks for your time,
Dan.
Attachments
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I assume they knew the film had been pushed two stops?
beedubs
Member
Yep, the lady at the lab marked the roll as (Push/1600) on the order sheet.
AndersG
Well-known
It looks like the out-of-frame area is dark too, so as far as I can guess either the whole film has been exposed to light or it has been insufficiently fixed.
I'd be inclined to suspect the latter, and that would be the good case as you could then refix it with fresh fixer. OTOH, it doesn't speak well of the lab if they would i) use expired fixer and ii) not even notice it before returning the negatives.
I'd be inclined to suspect the latter, and that would be the good case as you could then refix it with fresh fixer. OTOH, it doesn't speak well of the lab if they would i) use expired fixer and ii) not even notice it before returning the negatives.
beedubs
Member
Thanks for the reply Anders, I didn't know that was possible.
I will take them back tomorrow and see what they can do :]
I will take them back tomorrow and see what they can do :]
leicapixie
Well-known
I am not sure about the negs..so dark and contrasty.
I had to go thru my files many years ago, tossing old pro work.
In about 4,000 rolls only 2 over a few decades, had faded and stained.
These were 2 rolls done by a pro lab.
BW is so easy. Do your own.
Very few chemicals, a change bag, scissors, measuring beaker,tank and 2 reels if steel, thermometer.
You can process in bathroom or kitchen.
Keep everything the same.
I used Rodinal for over 40 years till I changed to Kodak HC-110.
Good luck with lab.
I have never pushed to 1600 ISO.
One tends to get more contrast unless a developer like Diafine.
I had to go thru my files many years ago, tossing old pro work.
In about 4,000 rolls only 2 over a few decades, had faded and stained.
These were 2 rolls done by a pro lab.
BW is so easy. Do your own.
Very few chemicals, a change bag, scissors, measuring beaker,tank and 2 reels if steel, thermometer.
You can process in bathroom or kitchen.
Keep everything the same.
I used Rodinal for over 40 years till I changed to Kodak HC-110.
Good luck with lab.
I have never pushed to 1600 ISO.
One tends to get more contrast unless a developer like Diafine.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
Looks like heavy fog from being light struck. Was it factory loaded tx or did you spool it yourself?
beedubs
Member
The other point is that although incident metering can be a very reliable and accurate way to determine exposure, it is ideal for transparency for instance, because it is keyed to highlights, and film speed for transparency is determined on the basis of highlights. For black and white it is based on shadows, and you would normally find that some additional exposure over and above what the meter reading shows will be desirable, start with a stop and see how you go.
Many film photographers prefer to use alternative metering methods for black and white for this reason, Eg. a centre-weighted in camera meter or a spot meter. Despite what some people will tell you to the contrary, you can certainly use incident metering for black and white, if you want to--I often do, because I spent so much time using it for transparency before I began using black and white, so I'm quite comfortable with it and what I'm going to get from my readings--however you do need to understand how it works, what it is you are metering, and how to interpret the shadow and highlight areas in your scene and the dynamic range (overcast, even lighting: or full sun and deep shadows, etc?) and then make the appropriate adjustments as required. An alternative is to take multiple incident readings at various parts of the scene according to their brightness, and then (usually) to bias towards the shadow readings so you can retain usable detail in them.
None of this is to suggest you shouldn't experiment with alternative reflective-based metering techniques to see what works for you of course. But on the basis that the best meter is the one you have with you, the above suggestions may help you ensure you get the exposure you want with your current meter, giving your lab (or, even better, if possible, yourself) the best chance of producing good, printable negs.
Cheers,
Brett
Many film photographers prefer to use alternative metering methods for black and white for this reason, Eg. a centre-weighted in camera meter or a spot meter. Despite what some people will tell you to the contrary, you can certainly use incident metering for black and white, if you want to--I often do, because I spent so much time using it for transparency before I began using black and white, so I'm quite comfortable with it and what I'm going to get from my readings--however you do need to understand how it works, what it is you are metering, and how to interpret the shadow and highlight areas in your scene and the dynamic range (overcast, even lighting: or full sun and deep shadows, etc?) and then make the appropriate adjustments as required. An alternative is to take multiple incident readings at various parts of the scene according to their brightness, and then (usually) to bias towards the shadow readings so you can retain usable detail in them.
None of this is to suggest you shouldn't experiment with alternative reflective-based metering techniques to see what works for you of course. But on the basis that the best meter is the one you have with you, the above suggestions may help you ensure you get the exposure you want with your current meter, giving your lab (or, even better, if possible, yourself) the best chance of producing good, printable negs.
Cheers,
Brett
beedubs
Member
Thanks for the reply mate but it doesn't really relate to my problem.
I only used the meter for the indoor shots while I used the sunny 16 rule for the outside shots, yet all seem underexposed.
On a side note, can anyone provide a picture of negatives that were pushed from 400 to 1600, as I want to see if your sprocket areas are as black as mine, cheers!
Laviolette
Established
The film looks fogged. The vertical dark brown bands that I see at regular intervals tells me that the film was rolled when it was exposed to light. Looks like the back of the camera was accidentally open...but I don't know if the back door of an M2 can do that kind of pattern. The fact that the film on the first row is less fogged that the other rows also points to an open back, since the first frames of the film are under and will likely be less exposed to light and therefor less fogged.
Another possibility would be that the film was fogged on the developing reel since the first frames would also be under. But in that case I think the dark brown bands would be larger, unless the source light that fogged the film was small.
Another possibility would be that the film was fogged on the developing reel since the first frames would also be under. But in that case I think the dark brown bands would be larger, unless the source light that fogged the film was small.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
x 4 on film fog. If it were improperly fixed you should see some sort of a milky effect on the film's translucency.
Perhaps they accidently flashed the film when they were loading it into the tank. If the whole roll is like this then its clearly their fault.
Shame that a lab would return results like this without thinking twice. Just goes to show that these days there aren't enough film competent people out there.
Perhaps they accidently flashed the film when they were loading it into the tank. If the whole roll is like this then its clearly their fault.
Shame that a lab would return results like this without thinking twice. Just goes to show that these days there aren't enough film competent people out there.
beedubs
Member
The dark brown bands are from the fluro light box underneath the negs that my iphone picked up, they're not there in real life :/
Huss
Veteran
Yup, the lab fogged the film. Which is why (as others have surmised) everything - film sprocket strips, borders - is dark.
beedubs
Member
Maybe I jumped the gun but the black sprocket areas threw me.
(Can anyone look at their pushed negs to see if its the same?)
Here's a scan of one of the images, taken in the shade, f/16 @ 1/250
if I remember correctly.
Again, I've never pushed to 1600 before so is this just what I should have expected?
(Can anyone look at their pushed negs to see if its the same?)
Here's a scan of one of the images, taken in the shade, f/16 @ 1/250
if I remember correctly.
Again, I've never pushed to 1600 before so is this just what I should have expected?
beedubs
Member
Just added high res shots of the negs in the first post.
Does anyone else's pushed negatives look the same?
Does anyone else's pushed negatives look the same?
AndersG
Well-known
The sprocket area and any other area outside the film gate certainly should not be black so something is not right with that film.
My pushed Tri-X basically look like your EI400 Tri-X (more or less, the difference will be in the finer details of tones and contrast).
Example in my RFF gallery.
Can you compare the colour of the emulsion in these areas with that of unexposed Tri-X?
For developed unfixed Tri-X heavily light exposed film would be black, i.e., darker than unexposed Tri-X (I see that every time I test my developer on a piece of film).
OTOH I have never looked at unfixed unexposed developed Tri-X so I don't know what colour to expect there.
My pushed Tri-X basically look like your EI400 Tri-X (more or less, the difference will be in the finer details of tones and contrast).
Example in my RFF gallery.
Can you compare the colour of the emulsion in these areas with that of unexposed Tri-X?
For developed unfixed Tri-X heavily light exposed film would be black, i.e., darker than unexposed Tri-X (I see that every time I test my developer on a piece of film).
OTOH I have never looked at unfixed unexposed developed Tri-X so I don't know what colour to expect there.
Corran
Well-known
That's not what pushed negatives look like. While you've got an image there, the film has clearly been fogged somewhere, as others have told you. This has nothing to do with pushing - whether or not you pushed, there should be nothing but fb+f density on the sprocket area.
Either the camera has a major light leak or the lab screwed up. Looks like some negatives that students I know had when they accidentally had the top light trap seal pushed out of the tank top.
I would be asking for a refund of the development costs and film costs, and chalk it up to a learning experience - that is, that you should develop your own film. At least b&w.
Either the camera has a major light leak or the lab screwed up. Looks like some negatives that students I know had when they accidentally had the top light trap seal pushed out of the tank top.
I would be asking for a refund of the development costs and film costs, and chalk it up to a learning experience - that is, that you should develop your own film. At least b&w.
Dwig
Well-known
The film was fogged when it was out of the camera and most likely when out of the cassette. Heat/age fog can be this even despite the film being wound in a cassette, but only if applied very slowly over significant time. This was probably fogged in the lab (improperly closed machine cover, less than "dark" changing room, ...).
Pushing film will increase the D-min (the "clear" base density), but only by a small amount, what most people would call a trivial amount.
mfogiel
Veteran
I would wrap up this discussion with the following conclusions:
- the film has been fogged, most likely by someone who pulled out the roll from the cartridge not in complete dark
- giving your films to a lab is not a good idea, developing yourself is a must, the faster you get there, the better for you
- pushing film will give you ugly negatives, take my advice and get a faster lens and/or a tripod. Tri X can work acceptably around EI 1000 in Acufine or Diafine, but it looks much better exposed at EI 200, which is where you should be exposing it
- the film has been fogged, most likely by someone who pulled out the roll from the cartridge not in complete dark
- giving your films to a lab is not a good idea, developing yourself is a must, the faster you get there, the better for you
- pushing film will give you ugly negatives, take my advice and get a faster lens and/or a tripod. Tri X can work acceptably around EI 1000 in Acufine or Diafine, but it looks much better exposed at EI 200, which is where you should be exposing it