Do you really believe in exposing at iso 320?

[Roger Hicks]

. . . There is still controversy about the change as it seemed to inflate film speed without changing emulsions

Well, that and (as I understand it) they significantly reduced the safety factor. And of course ASA/later ISO also dropped the standard developer requirement.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnTF]

Well, that and (as I understand it) they significantly reduced the safety factor. And of course ASA/later ISO also dropped the standard developer requirement.

Cheers,

R.

The term thrown about at the time was "safety factor", as I recall all the ASAs doubled "over night" or so it seemed. I believe it was about the time I saved enough to buy my Gossen Pilot. I had saved one summer for my Federal Enlarger, and another for a Time-o-lite.

I empathize with your former feelings of "sticking by the book", I believe many of us felt it was like following a recipe carefully. It may have been a bit due to the culture of strictly following what we thought were the precise methods prescribed and the acceptance of the authority publishing them.

Information was certainly not as common as it is today, and I did "discover" push developing of Tri-X on my own, -- radically shooting available light with my blazing f 2.8 Kodak lens on my miniature (35mm) camera. I captured many candid expressions because few thought you could take photographs indoors without flash bulbs or strobe. It quite changed the look of the school paper and yearbook as they used much of my work.

My viewpoint was U.S. and Kodak, it was too radical for me at first to use materials other than Kodak, though I broke away and used a bit of Agfa, as the store I later worked at carried German cameras, film, and paper. Really, paper was sold in Yellow or Red/Orange packaging only. (I did use some Ansco and Dupont as it was given to me)

I still have a roll of unexposed (via camera), and taped shut, IFF that was rated ASA 10, though it is promised to my friend Jan in Berlin

Comfort in procedure and material choices was quite different as I recall.

The memo regarding published film data not arriving on stone tablets was not conveyed to, nor accepted by all at the same time, --am quite sure many kept on shooting Tri-X at 200 for some time.

I recall the other B&W films were likewise re-rated.

The goal of predictable and pleasing results remains, the road may have different apparent turns and twists.

Regards, John

 

[alistair.o]

...

In other words, if I set the meter on my MP at 125 when shooting Fomapan 200 (true ISO about 180 in the developer I use), then even after allowing for cumulative errors and my own metering technique, preferences, etc., I will get better pictures, on average, than if I set it at 160 and significantly more good pictures than if I set 200. I could equally well set 100 but then I'd be losing more sharpness than I need to and I'd be getting more grain.

Cheers,

Roger

Good Morning Roger.

Forgive me if I have overlooked a direct reference to the developer your use for Fomapan 200 but, would you mind telling me what is your preferred developer and ratio and timing(s) with it etc (for exposure @160)

Thanks you

Alistair

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Alistair,

DD-X 1+4, 7 minutes at 20C, 30 sec. initial inversion agitation, then 10 sec/min. This is slightly more than the Massive Dev Chart recommends, i.e. a slight push, but it gives me negs that wet print well on grades 2-3 with my Meopta Magnifax + Meograde head. You might be happy with anything from 6 to 8 minutes (or more, or less). For even better tonality and slightly lower speed, I liked FX 39 but (to be brutal), DD-X has better keeping qualities.

I'm hesitant to share all this because what works for you is EXTREMELY personal, but I hope you may find it a good starting point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alistair.o]

Dear Alistair,

DD-X 1+4, 7 minutes at 20C, 30 sec. initial inversion agitation, then 10 sec/min. This is slightly more than the Massive Dev Chart recommends, i.e. a slight push, but it gives me negs that wet print well on grades 2-3 with my Meopta Magnifax + Meograde head. You might be happy with anything from 6 to 8 minutes (or more, or less). For even better tonality and slightly lower speed, I liked FX 39 but (to be brutal), DD-X has better keeping qualities.

I'm hesitant to share all this because what works for you is EXTREMELY personal, but I hope you may find it a good starting point.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger.

Thank you for your input (exactly as requested) I fully understand and appreciate your 'hesitancy' as pointed out in B&I above - here I go - onwards and onwards.

Best Wishes

Alistair

 

[sepiareverb]

I expose at ISO 320 when I set the M9 to 320. Otherwise no I don't.

...DD-X has better keeping qualities...

I've discovered Bloxygen, a wonderful can of Argon gas which extends almost indefinitely the life of stock developers in opened containers. I've been using it for one year now and have never had any opened developer- DD-X, HC-110 syrup, Rodinal or even Studionol lose potency. Wonderful stuff which pays for itself very quickly.

 

[BlackXList]

here's my considerably less scientific take on it.

With cheap colour film for general purpose shooting I usually over expose by about 1/3 because it seems to lessen the appearance of grain a little (which is helpful with some cheap emulsions such as colorplus look frankly crap at box speed a lot of the time, especially in the shadows, which become very grainy very quickly). I suppose I consider it as somewhat similar to the approach to shooting with expired film.

Also there's that little extra leeway from underexposure, which is always handy.

I'm much more likely to shoot good film at box speed, but I'm not burning the good stuff on a daily basis simply because of the cost

 

[JohnTF]

I expose at ISO 320 when I set the M9 to 320. Otherwise no I don't.




I've discovered Bloxygen, a wonderful can of Argon gas which extends almost indefinitely the life of stock developers in opened containers. I've been using it for one year now and have never had any opened developer- DD-X, HC-110 syrup, Rodinal or even Studionol lose potency. Wonderful stuff which pays for itself very quickly.

Interesting, I still use Saran wrap under the cap, make a big difference, it does seem every cap, save the fitted ground glass stoppers, I have used leak a bit of air. I used to sell caps, and had a number to check out at one time long ago.

Perhaps the Argon is dense enough to change the dynamics on the tops as well as layering the fluids. Am too lazy to check in the CRC manual and probably too old to do a search. ;-)

It might be of use to keep that nice Bordeaux fresh as well, though I suspect Roger has other means to dispose of that.

I wonder how long it will be before balances start to appear in the classifieds as we eventually mix from dry?

I see Roger has matched the nationality of his film to his enlarger. The Foma 200 by any of its various names, was a favorite of mine.


Regards, John

 

[sepiareverb]

Perhaps the Argon is dense enough to change the dynamics on the tops as well as layering the fluids.

I'm told that the Argon creates a gaseous layer atop the chems, preventing oxidation. Whatever the reason it works.

 

[loquax ludens]

Nitrogen works too. Butane works too. I've been told that plain old "canned air", which is either difluoroethane, trifluoroethane, or tetrafluoroethane, works fine too. I've still got some canned CFCs (Beseler XDL Spray) that I use, but I'll switch to butane or canned air once that is gone.

The point of using any gas that doesn't contain oxygen is to displace or greatly dilute the oxygen, thus preventing oxidation of the developer. I recently tested some print developer (Dektol) mixed years ago that is still active, unoxidized, and working just fine. I stored it in a half full glass jug, topped with Beseler XDL Spray and a tight cap.

 

[NickTrop]

John Chars photos are wonderful, but I doubt shooting at box speed would have mattered. They'd still be wonderful but look a tad different. -And it certainly doesn't matter the difference between 320-400. Really, it's all nonsense. You really realize the nonsense it is when you work digitally in Photoshop and understand that these stop differences are a tick or two in a contrast slider. Marginal difference, slight variation. Nonsense on the whole. Photographic mythology.

 

[varjag]

No amount of Photoshop sliders will help you gain back the shadow or highlight detail that's not there on the neg. So yeah there is a difference.

 

[______]

Ned, I assume you mean exposing 400-rated film at 320? And then developing at the recommended times for 400. Right?

I have been vaguely aware that some posters here seem to advocate such processing. I'm not sure what the point is. To me that's the same as shooting a frame at 1/3 overexposure, except you're doing it to the entire roll. To me, underexposure, or overexposure is a decision I make for an individual shot. I'm not sure what the point is for an entire roll, unless you're using autoexposure (which most folks here wouldn't be caught dead doing), and you think the particular film is rated incorrectly by the manufacturer.

Unless you're correcting a "faulty" rating, it seems like a game you're playing, the point of which I don't get.

Have you determined a personal EI for the film and developer combination you use (which most folks here wouldn't be caught dead not doing)? If not, how do you know if you are underexposing or overexposing, and by how much?

 

[telenous]

I believe in exposing at ISO 315.

.

 

[kb244]

Unless it's like slide film, I don't think it's going to make any real noticeable difference with a consistent third of a stop exposure change.

That's just my unscientific, limited experienced, opinion.

(Though E-6, like C-41 is a machine process, there's a bit of consistency expected, where as with B&W as others have pointed out, it's going to depend upon your own development standards. What exposing at one ISO does for one person may not be what it does for others.)

 

[michaelwj]

I love the old threads, so much information in there that gets a fresh audience. A great read. 😀

 

[giganova]

I shoot HP5+ at 200, but I develop it for the recommended time for 400.

So you get the worst of two worlds: more grain than FP4 and less sensitivity than HP5 at box speed. Doesn't make much sense to me, but that might be me.

Edit: I just realized that this is a resurrection of an ancient thread, my bad!

 

[Roger Hicks]

So you get the worst of two worlds: more grain than FP4 and less sensitivity than HP5 at box speed. Doesn't make much sense to me, but that might be me.
. . .

Yes, it is just you. ISO speeds vary widely with developer. The ISO speed of FP4+ in DD-X is about 160. In Perceptol it's around half that.

Also, you're completely ignoring tonality. The best looking 35mm FP4+ negs I've ever seen were developed in PMK. I don't know what the ISO speed of FP4 may be in PMK, but nor do I care very much. I'd probably rate the film at around EI 80 to begin with: +1/3 stop over box speed because I (from all I've ever heard) suspect that PMK doesn't give box speed, then +1/3 stop because I generally prefer tonality with +1/3 stop over the ISO speed.

I normally develop HP5+ in DD-X (ISO about 650) but if I'm using broad-area metering I expose it as EI 400 or even (yes) 320: 2/3 stop to 1 stop over. I just like the shadow detail and tonality that I get from doing so. With a 1 degree spot meter, metering the darkest shadows in which I want texture, I normally use EI 500: just 1/3 stop over. This is another illustration of the point that many people look for more precision than exists in a system, without even considering the variables in their own equipment and technique: there is no "one size fits all", though ISO speeds and manufacturers' recommended developing times fit most people quite well. The point is that film speeds and development times are STARTING POINTS, both to be modified to give the results YOU want.

An intriguing point, if you don't really care much about tonality, is that a slower film in a speed increasing developer (e.g. FP4+ in DD-X, ISO 160) is finer grained than a faster film in a fine grain developer (e.g. HP5+ in Perceptol, ISO maybe 200), and cheaper. The 1/3 stop difference in film speed is usually of little consequence.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MIkhail]

Tmax400 (new):

This one is pretty cool exactly BECAUSE it's OVERexposed. I would correct the perspective here though, but it's just me...

I pay no attention to 1/3 steps, etc., and try to overexpose most of a time.
You have to work hard to actually blow the highlights on film so I am not worried about it...

 

[Rob-F]

So you get the worst of two worlds: more grain than FP4 and less sensitivity than HP5 at box speed. Doesn't make much sense to me, but that might be me.

Edit: I just realized that this is a resurrection of an ancient thread, my bad!

I agree with this. I shoot at a lower index when I intend to reduce the developing time, to control contrast. Staying with the same developing time as for EI 400, when shooting at only 200, would give me hopelessly blocked highlights.