kaiyen
local man of mystery
gabrielma said:
Gabriel,
Well, the idea of that being a diagnostic tool in _this_ case still doesn't make sense. Being clear and distinct just means the film hit developer at all. The exposure of those labels is so high that almost any developer should get you nice, clear lettering. The only information from those markings that mean anything is if they are _not_ clear, in which case you didn't get enough development.
But I don't see how anyone can look at those scans and think there isn't enough development. The debate was overexposure vs. overdevelopment. Not whether it was developed at all.
And I did notice that backed me up early on. For a while, I thought my suggestion go lost there...
allan
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Another thing that would be interesting to know is how often this lab encounters traditionial B&W films; for instance do they have to mix up developer for each rare instance it's needed... maybe they got the dilution way off this time. If it's unusual, then it's easier to make other mistakes as to temperature and time as well. And have you ever used this lab for this kind of film before, and if so how did it go?raid amin said:
raid
Dad Photographer
Dougg said:
Doug: This lab is now the only full service lab for B&W film in Pensacola. They have been around for many years,and they have an excellent reputation for service. They use automated developing (no hand work) with an Ilford general developer. In the past, their B&W developing was OK.
Raid
ed1k
Well-known
Raid,
Do you have black parts of film, I mean leader and begin of roll that you exposed to light while loading film in the camera? If it's still there - look thru it. Compare with other normally developed film. Normally if you look thru black leader on electrical bulb aprox. 60W at about 5 meters away, you will see the thread, the bulb and some surrounding details. You may also use your monitor and try to read this page
Overdevelpment gives more dense leader. Also, significant overdevelopment gives manufacturer's marks (ISO speed, frame numbers, type of film) with grey shape around, they don't look sharp.
If you can see this page on your monitor thru leader and perforation marks on film looks very sharp without greyish cloud around, it's likely overexposure.
Eduard.
Do you have black parts of film, I mean leader and begin of roll that you exposed to light while loading film in the camera? If it's still there - look thru it. Compare with other normally developed film. Normally if you look thru black leader on electrical bulb aprox. 60W at about 5 meters away, you will see the thread, the bulb and some surrounding details. You may also use your monitor and try to read this page
Overdevelpment gives more dense leader. Also, significant overdevelopment gives manufacturer's marks (ISO speed, frame numbers, type of film) with grey shape around, they don't look sharp. If you can see this page on your monitor thru leader and perforation marks on film looks very sharp without greyish cloud around, it's likely overexposure.
Eduard.
raid
Dad Photographer
ed1k said:Raid,
Do you have black parts of film, I mean leader and begin of roll that you exposed to light while loading film in the camera? If it's still there - look thru it. Compare with other normally developed film. Normally if you look thru black leader on electrical bulb aprox. 60W at about 5 meters away, you will see the thread, the bulb and some surrounding details. You may also use your monitor and try to read this page
If you can see this page on your monitor thru leader and perforation marks on film looks very sharp without greyish cloud around, it's likely overexposure.
Eduard.
Eduard:Thanks for your specific instructions for checking out the negatives. I will inspect the rolls and follow your tips.
Regards,
Raid
ed1k
Well-known
I just tought it could be both. You said you set your meter to 200ASA, it's one step below 400 ISO. So, I'd expect one step overexposed negatives. Also, if you were unlucky and lab slightly overdeveloped pushing one step ahead - it is 2 steps above normal. Quite difficult to print but still possible. For scanning it probably could be saved by Farmer's reducer.
Eduard.
Eduard.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
If I recall correctly (this may be incorrect...), but EI200 is 2 stops below EI400, with EI 320 being the intermediate stop. Which could exacerbate any over-development by the lab.
I process all my silver-gelatin film at home by hand; I haven't used a lab in years, but when I did, the film would always look over-processed. Overprocessing should also increase the contrast of the image, not just elevate the overall base exposure. Think N+1, etc, in the Zone system.
Many folks downrate their EI (like Raid does), but it should be accompanied by a corresponding downrating in development time. This is the classic 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' method. Which compensates for the slight over-exposure by under-developing, to contract a high-contrast scenic brightness range into the film's narrower latitude range.
If Raid over-exposed by 2 stops (i.e. downrated from 400 to 200), and the lab even slightly over-developed from what a EI400 film exposure would require, this could mean 3 or more stops too much density. And then throw in just a bit of metering error (weak battery, etc), and you can see where a combination of factors can get out of hand quickly.
You may want to try shooting a roll at EI400, and see what one of the labs does with that.
Alternatively, it's not a big thing to start processing at home. If I can do it, anyone can. And you get better control of your process, for less money.
I process all my silver-gelatin film at home by hand; I haven't used a lab in years, but when I did, the film would always look over-processed. Overprocessing should also increase the contrast of the image, not just elevate the overall base exposure. Think N+1, etc, in the Zone system.
Many folks downrate their EI (like Raid does), but it should be accompanied by a corresponding downrating in development time. This is the classic 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' method. Which compensates for the slight over-exposure by under-developing, to contract a high-contrast scenic brightness range into the film's narrower latitude range.
If Raid over-exposed by 2 stops (i.e. downrated from 400 to 200), and the lab even slightly over-developed from what a EI400 film exposure would require, this could mean 3 or more stops too much density. And then throw in just a bit of metering error (weak battery, etc), and you can see where a combination of factors can get out of hand quickly.
You may want to try shooting a roll at EI400, and see what one of the labs does with that.
Alternatively, it's not a big thing to start processing at home. If I can do it, anyone can. And you get better control of your process, for less money.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
JoeV said:
Joe
most of what you say is right, but 200 is 1 stop from 400. not 2.
allan
raid
Dad Photographer
I often use the ASA400 setting for traditional ASA400 B&W film, and I use always the ASA200 setting for C-41 ASA400 B&W film. I have not had a badly exposed B&W film in several years. Considering that each of five rolls was overdeveloped/overexposed the same wayfor all frames, this make sit very unlikely that I consistently overexposed in five rolls of film even when sometimes using a meter and sometimes using the Sunny 16 Rule.
I took two rolls of film a few days ago, and each frame was well exposed. I used the same meter and same camera (M3) that was used in at least one roll of the five messed up rolls.
Raid
I took two rolls of film a few days ago, and each frame was well exposed. I used the same meter and same camera (M3) that was used in at least one roll of the five messed up rolls.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
This mystery movie seems to continue in its search for the truth.
Today, I dropped by that same lab to get their input on the five rolls of B&W film that may have been overdeveloped[or not?]. They assured me today that there was no overdeveloping. They now believe that the film is too old. Another suggestion was that my film scanner is the source of troubles here.
I had three rolls of Agfa400, one roll of Fuji400, and one roll or Ilford125 in that batch, so how can all three types of B&W film be damaged? I never had problems with slightly outdated B&W film in the past. The Agfa film is outdated, but the Ilford and the Fuji films are not.
This leaves the scanner theory; this is also a bad suggestion since the scanner works well with other negatives. Also, the negatives "look bad" from the start.
Today I picked up from this lab six rolls of developed B&W film. The developing looks better. I will post some pics when I have the negatives scanned.
I should add that the lab did not charge me this time anything for the six rolls of film developed.
Raid
Today, I dropped by that same lab to get their input on the five rolls of B&W film that may have been overdeveloped[or not?]. They assured me today that there was no overdeveloping. They now believe that the film is too old. Another suggestion was that my film scanner is the source of troubles here.
I had three rolls of Agfa400, one roll of Fuji400, and one roll or Ilford125 in that batch, so how can all three types of B&W film be damaged? I never had problems with slightly outdated B&W film in the past. The Agfa film is outdated, but the Ilford and the Fuji films are not.
This leaves the scanner theory; this is also a bad suggestion since the scanner works well with other negatives. Also, the negatives "look bad" from the start.
Today I picked up from this lab six rolls of developed B&W film. The developing looks better. I will post some pics when I have the negatives scanned.
I should add that the lab did not charge me this time anything for the six rolls of film developed.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
I need to make sure that the Agfa400 film is not the source of the problem. I just finished shooting another roll of this film, and now I need to get this roll developed "optimally" to see if I have to throw away my Agfa film or not. I need a volunteer ...who has experience with developing such a film?
Raid
Raid
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Scanner can't make the negs look overdeveloped. The rest of it is typical lab-talk to explain why it's the customer's fault, which it sometimes is. Camera error, set the wrong ISO, outdated film. Even an experienced photog like you or me can make an error or two, as I did just today when changing film I forgot to change the ISO so the first few shots will be 1 stop underexposed. But the lab can screw up too, especially I'd think these days with the minority non-C41 processing. They got the temperature of the soup wrong or left it in too long, something like that, is my guess. Sounds like they even suspect that too...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Agfa 400 --- ??
You mean APX, or Vista?
You mean APX, or Vista?
S
Socke
Guest
Sorry Raid, to far from you to be of any help with development accept shareing my experiences.
I've shot a lot of APX400 in the last two years, some slightly outdated some fresh from the plant, and developed in different developers.
I've tried Rodinal 1+50, Ilford ID11 1+4 and Tetenal Ultrafine plus 1+4 and I rate my film at box speed.
With Rodinal I get too much grain but stunning sharpness and with ID11 1+4 I had nice grays but some blown out highlights without too much loss in sharpness. Tetenal Ultrafine is my favourite so far, it has a pleasing compensating effect at 1+4 with 3 second inversions. I develope for lesser contrast, i.E. gamma 0.55 which is recomended for condensor enlargers and suits my scanner fine. I ad contrast in post processing and my Zeiss lenses don't lack in contrast so this is just fine for most applications.
With all that said back to your problem,
at box speed it is realy hard to mess up most B/W film, just recently I developed APX100 some 20% too long when I overheard the beep from my timer and it turned out fine
When I shoot my old FSU cameras I usualy don't care for a stop over or underesposure because APX400, APX100, HP5 and FP4 handle that very well and I get the rest out while scanning and postprocessing.
As far as I know many labs process B/W film at very high temperatures in a short time, ca. 38°C and far less than 5 minutes for most ISO400 films. Then half a minute makes much more of a difference than in handdevelopment at 20°C.
I've shot a lot of APX400 in the last two years, some slightly outdated some fresh from the plant, and developed in different developers.
I've tried Rodinal 1+50, Ilford ID11 1+4 and Tetenal Ultrafine plus 1+4 and I rate my film at box speed.
With Rodinal I get too much grain but stunning sharpness and with ID11 1+4 I had nice grays but some blown out highlights without too much loss in sharpness. Tetenal Ultrafine is my favourite so far, it has a pleasing compensating effect at 1+4 with 3 second inversions. I develope for lesser contrast, i.E. gamma 0.55 which is recomended for condensor enlargers and suits my scanner fine. I ad contrast in post processing and my Zeiss lenses don't lack in contrast so this is just fine for most applications.
With all that said back to your problem,
at box speed it is realy hard to mess up most B/W film, just recently I developed APX100 some 20% too long when I overheard the beep from my timer and it turned out fine
When I shoot my old FSU cameras I usualy don't care for a stop over or underesposure because APX400, APX100, HP5 and FP4 handle that very well and I get the rest out while scanning and postprocessing.
As far as I know many labs process B/W film at very high temperatures in a short time, ca. 38°C and far less than 5 minutes for most ISO400 films. Then half a minute makes much more of a difference than in handdevelopment at 20°C.
raid
Dad Photographer
gabrielma said:
Gabriel: It was Agfa APX 400 B&W film.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
Socke said:Sorry Raid, to far from you to be of any help with development accept shareing my experiences.
I've shot a lot of APX400 in the last two years, some slightly outdated some fresh from the plant, and developed in different developers.
I've tried Rodinal 1+50, Ilford ID11 1+4 and Tetenal Ultrafine plus 1+4 and I rate my film at box speed.
With Rodinal I get too much grain but stunning sharpness and with ID11 1+4 I had nice grays but some blown out highlights without too much loss in sharpness. Tetenal Ultrafine is my favourite so far, it has a pleasing compensating effect at 1+4 with 3 second inversions. I develope for lesser contrast, i.E. gamma 0.55 which is recomended for condensor enlargers and suits my scanner fine. I ad contrast in post processing and my Zeiss lenses don't lack in contrast so this is just fine for most applications.
With all that said back to your problem,
at box speed it is realy hard to mess up most B/W film, just recently I developed APX100 some 20% too long when I overheard the beep from my timer and it turned out fine
When I shoot my old FSU cameras I usualy don't care for a stop over or underesposure because APX400, APX100, HP5 and FP4 handle that very well and I get the rest out while scanning and postprocessing.
As far as I know many labs process B/W film at very high temperatures in a short time, ca. 38°C and far less than 5 minutes for most ISO400 films. Then half a minute makes much more of a difference than in handdevelopment at 20°C.
Socke: Thanks for your input and recommendations regarding the developing of Agfa APX 400 film. I am intrigued by the different possibilities that at home B&W developing allows. One day, I will be back at B&W developing as I used to many years ago. I agree with you regarding the flexibility of B&W film and the lack of sensitivity for slight over/under exposure.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
Dougg said:Scanner can't make the negs look overdeveloped. The rest of it is typical lab-talk to explain why it's the customer's fault, which it sometimes is. Camera error, set the wrong ISO, outdated film. Even an experienced photog like you or me can make an error or two, as I did just today when changing film I forgot to change the ISO so the first few shots will be 1 stop underexposed. But the lab can screw up too, especially I'd think these days with the minority non-C41 processing. They got the temperature of the soup wrong or left it in too long, something like that, is my guess. Sounds like they even suspect that too...
Doug: I kept my tone very diplomatic with the lab personnel, and I told them that members of the RFF with extensive experience in B&W developing are my advisers in this mystery case. I don't want to send to the lab another Agfa APX film before I figure out whether it was damaged film or it was lab error causing the unacceptable negatives.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
I got a roll of APX400 developed at Lab
I got a roll of APX400 developed at Lab
I picked up a roll of developed APX400 from the same lab, and just scanned the first strip of negatives. They look much better to my eyes than the first batch of five rolls on which this thread is based on.
The results are not fantastic, but it shows me that the reason for the inferior looking negatives is not my scanner or the film.
What do you think?
Raid
I got a roll of APX400 developed at Lab
I picked up a roll of developed APX400 from the same lab, and just scanned the first strip of negatives. They look much better to my eyes than the first batch of five rolls on which this thread is based on.
The results are not fantastic, but it shows me that the reason for the inferior looking negatives is not my scanner or the film.
What do you think?
Raid
Attachments
S
Socke
Guest
My monitor is not the brightest, I adjustet it to Adobe Gamma as good as I could.
I see no blown out highlights and the shaddows could be deeper for my liking, but that's easyly done in postprocessing, wet or ditigal.
I see no blown out highlights and the shaddows could be deeper for my liking, but that's easyly done in postprocessing, wet or ditigal.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am now getting information that maybe my scanning setting made results looks even worse than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, the negatives look terrible. Here are three negatives from the last roll without ICE and with factory settings for the scanner.
Raid
Raid
Attachments
Last edited: