charjohncarter
Veteran
a. I can't give you an answer: there are too many variables after development.
b. As you probably have guessed I don't do that.
You will have to ask my 'tocayo' Juan these questions.
BUT DIY is the best answer. I don't know about Juan but from his past attitude of giving; I would say he will be happy to help, as will I.
b. As you probably have guessed I don't do that.
You will have to ask my 'tocayo' Juan these questions.
BUT DIY is the best answer. I don't know about Juan but from his past attitude of giving; I would say he will be happy to help, as will I.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
More exposure will often give you better tonality, at the price of bigger grain and less sharpness: not usually enough to matter with rollfilm and RF, but possibly significant with big prints from 35mm.
More development also increases grain size and decreases sharpness, so it's always best to give the minimum required to get an average neg to print on grade 2 or 3. But very slight overdevelopment is irrelevant.
Why 30/30? I'd say those were not the best figures. Cutting has far more effect than increasing, so I always recommend 15/50 as a starting point. You may end up with -10% or -20% but I'd be surprised at 30%, while in the other direction, you might end up with anything from +30% to +60%.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I sure agree about grain, at least with TriX and 35mm. I still use TriX with 35mm but I don't like the grain. I don't adjust my development times, if I do anthing I change the EI/ISO. Once I get the time I want I stay with it.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi,
a. If you overexpose and overdevelop, your highlights will be gone on paper, and sometimes even on negative... A correct negative will print a lot better. Right ones are a bit overexposed for short development if it was a sunny scene, and a bit underexposed for long development if contrast was low.
b. Because with a 30% difference, when you print your strips from the same scene on a single contact print, you see a difference in their contrast that's big enough to take decisions depending on the kind of light the scene had... You'll see it. But if you want to use 50% for say 6-12-18 minutes, you'll get a good view too. I'd do it for 8-12-16 instead so I wouldn't have too wide time (contrast) gaps between each strip...
Cheers,
Juan
tlitody
Well-known
its much simpler than the apparently abitrary numbers banded around make you think.
imagine if standard development was 10mins. If you decrease by 30% you end up with 7 mins development. But if you want to increase from 7 minutes to 10 mins development, that means you have to increase 7 min by 42.857% to arrive at 10 min development time. So when reducing development you always have to reduce by a smaller percentage than when increasing development for a similar effect on contrast in the opposite direction.
As a rough guide, increase by 50% more than the reduction percentage for a similar effect on contrast in the opposite direction. It is only a rough guide as it varies with the percentages but the difference between 42.57% and 45%(30% + 15%) is very small in the effect on the negative so it works well enough.
Or looking at it from the other direction, the reduction percentage should be 66.6% of an increase percentage for a similar effect on contrast in the opposite direction.
Now I've written it it seems as clear as mud. It's much simpler in practice once you have an idea of how much effect a reduction or increase in time has on contrast in the negative.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Even simpler: to avoid mistakes or confusion, anytime I do it I just do it the same way... I use one third less minutes and one third more minutes, both from the main time.
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Juan,
Or 15/50, which is just as easy to remember and probably better related to the proportional effect.
All of which shows that it's possible to get too excited about looking for a precision that doesn't exist.
Cheers,
R.
Darshan
Well-known
This is one of the best threads ever, albeit, I don't do any developing/printing on my own (yes, you can call me a moron, but only once 
).
The reason I like such threads is that it satisfies my infinitely curious mind a little bit, but then it also raises tons of more questions, so keep going gentlemen...
). The reason I like such threads is that it satisfies my infinitely curious mind a little bit, but then it also raises tons of more questions, so keep going gentlemen...
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Guys,
thanks for the wealth of information here.
I found something interesting and not sure if i know the explanation:
when i push my Plus-X 125 2 stops to 400 iso (or even 3 stops to 800 iso), i find my night shots, indoor shots much nicer, smoother than outdoor shots.
I rationalize it by the lack of film latitude (due to pushing) and the width of contrast of the image to be recorded. In a low contrast environment (night, indoor), the pushed film can (or barely) record the range of contrast needed. But in a high contrast environment, the film can't record enough shadow information making the images look very flat.
Does this make sense ?
thanks
raytoei
thanks for the wealth of information here.
I found something interesting and not sure if i know the explanation:
when i push my Plus-X 125 2 stops to 400 iso (or even 3 stops to 800 iso), i find my night shots, indoor shots much nicer, smoother than outdoor shots.
I rationalize it by the lack of film latitude (due to pushing) and the width of contrast of the image to be recorded. In a low contrast environment (night, indoor), the pushed film can (or barely) record the range of contrast needed. But in a high contrast environment, the film can't record enough shadow information making the images look very flat.
Does this make sense ?
thanks
raytoei
erik
Established
Night shots tend to be very high in contrast actually. Inky shadows, bright lights. Graininess usually is more obvious in large areas of mid tone, which often are absent in night scenes. Hey, if it's workin', go with it.
ChrisN
Striving
Interesting! This might tie in with something I have read in a book by Gene Nocon "Photographic Printing" (Antler Books Ltd, 1987) p35.
"...Rating the film at the normal ASA when taking pictures at night will provide a set of exposures that will convey the impression of a grey day. Rate the film at four times its normal ASA (thus reducing the exposure -2 f/stops) to render night as night."
I think this relates to the fact that a meter reading is calibrated to 18% grey (or thereabouts). A meter reading of a very dark scene will render that scene as middle grey, unless the photographer knows this and adjusts the exposure (or their EI - exposure index) to take this into account.