First Time Developing!

[calebk]

Hi guys,

I'm new to RF photography and this forum, but I've been lurking around a long time, picking up advice and pointers from all the very knowledgeable people on this forum.

Yesterday I got back scans of my first roll of self-developed film, and I'm quite encouraged by the results, and I'd like to just share them and post a quick thank you note to all who've (unconsciously) helped in the learning journey.

I'm just wondering if there's a way to recover more shadow detail. I'm not sure if it's just 'cause of the way I meter and shoot, or the fact that I pushed this to EI 1600 (this is 400TX). Any pointers?

My dev timings and details are HC-110 dil. B, 20 degrees celsius, 15 min, 30s initial agitation followed by 10s every subsequent minute.

 

[photokalia]

Nice! Not sure about the rest, but the shadow detail you got is pretty much what I get when I push Tri-X to 1600 in HC110 too. Now I try not to push my film unless I have to.

 

[Fawley]

Welcome to RFF, but most of all, welcome to rangefinders and film. Yes your images are fairly contrasty and lacking in shadow detail, but they are also nice and crisp which is a good thing. It all depends on what you want, There is nothing wrong with your images if a higher contrast look is what you are going for.

You automatically lose shadow detail when you push film (less with some developers than others). When you push film you underexpose and overdevelop but the overdevelopment works mostly on the highlights and some on the midtones, but not so much on the shadows.

If you want shadow detail, try exposing at the rated speed or even at EI 200.

 

[calebk]

Would buying Delta 3200 and pulling one stop give me better results? Where I live (Singapore) we don't have many choices of developer, and we certainly cannot readily buy Neopan 1600.

 

[Fawley]

I have no experience with Delta 3200. Ilford says it has fine grain but I find that hard to believe. Given the exposure curve that Ilford publishes it should have good shadow detail, if fact it might be fairly low contrast stuff.

Your best bet to get shadow detail pushing to 1600 is to use a developer like Diafine; or if that isn't available Ilford's Microphen. Several RFF members use Diafine, maybe one of them can comment. Since you already have HC-110, useing it in a highly dilute state for long development times and reducing your agitation frequency to something like once every two minutes, should help develop more shadow detail. Do some tests before you shoot something that matters.

 

[Tim Gray]

If you want shadow detail, shoot at 400. Or shoot with T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200. They look best rated at 1600 in my opinion. If you want finer grain, you are probably better off shooting a 400 speed film pushed to 1600 than using one of the high speed films. Tri-X in Diafine is an option.

I can't see your photos, but yes, rating a 400 speed film at 1600 is going to cost you some shadow details. Using a developer more suited to pushing (XTOL 1:1, DD-X, Microphen) might give you a little extra bit of real speed, but at some point, underexposing film is going to cost you shadow detail.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Would buying Delta 3200 and pulling one stop give me better results? Where I live (Singapore) we don't have many choices of developer, and we certainly cannot readily buy Neopan 1600.

'Pulling' is largely an internet myth. Underdevelop and you'll get flat contrast. Far better to expose generously and develop normally: good shadow detail AND good tonality.

Delta 3200 @ 1600 is very good indeed. It's a long-toe film especially designed for pushing, with a true ISO of 1250 at most in a speed-increasing developer. At 1600, developed as for 3200, you're giving it a slight push with slightly boosted contrast -- a very attractive combination in my experience. Rate at the true ISO and underdevelop and it looks flat and nasty.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Stravinsky]

They seem very good results to me. I am planning the same move. Over the weekend I'll be on hunt for the materials and right now I'm tracking down the list of things to buy.
So that's another useful thread (!)

Andrea

 

[craygc]

Would buying Delta 3200 and pulling one stop give me better results? Where I live (Singapore) we don't have many choices of developer, and we certainly cannot readily buy Neopan 1600.

Whats happening, seem to be picking up new members in Singapore at a disproportionate rate lately 😱

 

[calebk]

'Pulling' is largely an internet myth. Underdevelop and you'll get flat contrast. Far better to expose generously and develop normally: good shadow detail AND good tonality.

Delta 3200 @ 1600 is very good indeed. It's a long-toe film especially designed for pushing, with a true ISO of 1250 at most in a speed-increasing developer. At 1600, developed as for 3200, you're giving it a slight push with slightly boosted contrast -- a very attractive combination in my experience. Rate at the true ISO and underdevelop and it looks flat and nasty.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks! Okay I'm not completely clear about what you're saying but let me try and decipher. What you're saying is that I should try Delta 3200 and shoot it at 1600 but develop for EI 3200?

Whats happening, seem to be picking up new members in Singapore at a disproportionate rate lately 😱

I have no idea! Haha. I joined because the Singapore forums (Clubsnap) has a relatively small RF/film community, and picking up advice from there is a lot slower than it is here, where everyone's much more active.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks! Okay I'm not completely clear about what you're saying but let me try and decipher. What you're saying is that I should try Delta 3200 and shoot it at 1600 but develop for EI 3200?

Exactly.

'Pulling' is overexposing and underdeveloping.

What I'm advocating is overexposure without reducing dev time, because cutting dev time also reduces contrast.

Cheers,

R.

 

[calebk]

Exactly.

'Pulling' is overexposing and underdeveloping.

What I'm advocating is overexposure without reducing dev time, because cutting dev time also reduces contrast.

Cheers,

R.

And that would, of course bring up shadow detail! Ahh this makes sense.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And that would, of course bring up shadow detail! Ahh this makes sense.

A lot of it is quite simple, once you learn to ignore the jargon and the gurus.

Cheers,

R.

 

[paulfish4570]

welcome caleb ...