Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Just a quick sanity check. I just developed my first test rolls of Freestyle LegacyPro 100 (consensus candidate: Fuji Acros). My Jobo is on the fritz, so I developed by hand.
One roll: M6, 35 Summicron/75 Summicron.
One roll: R5 90 Summicron/50 Summicron.
Exposure was set at ISO 100, half metered with a Sekonic hand meter and half with internal camera meter. XTol 1:1 68 degrees 9.5 minutes. 10 inversions every 30 seconds. XTol solution made distilled/dehumidifier water.
Midtones look good, shadows look OK, but I had trouble holding on to the highlights. Sounds like the nominal speed of the film is 80-100, but I need to pull back between 10-20% on development, or agitate less.
Any other Acros users users out there with their own tests?
Ben Marks
One roll: M6, 35 Summicron/75 Summicron.
One roll: R5 90 Summicron/50 Summicron.
Exposure was set at ISO 100, half metered with a Sekonic hand meter and half with internal camera meter. XTol 1:1 68 degrees 9.5 minutes. 10 inversions every 30 seconds. XTol solution made distilled/dehumidifier water.
Midtones look good, shadows look OK, but I had trouble holding on to the highlights. Sounds like the nominal speed of the film is 80-100, but I need to pull back between 10-20% on development, or agitate less.
Any other Acros users users out there with their own tests?
Ben Marks
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,
The nominal ISO speed is (by definition) 100.
The actual ISO speed can drop as low as 50, even in common developers, though in Xtol it should be at least 80. I'd not go for 100 except in speed increasing developers.
What do you mean by 'holding onto' the highlights? Except for very contrasty subjects, a modest amount of dodging/burning should be all you need.
Are you printing wet or using a scanner?
I found Acros VERY critical for exposure and development. and ended up using a very dilute developer.
Cheers,
R.
The nominal ISO speed is (by definition) 100.
The actual ISO speed can drop as low as 50, even in common developers, though in Xtol it should be at least 80. I'd not go for 100 except in speed increasing developers.
What do you mean by 'holding onto' the highlights? Except for very contrasty subjects, a modest amount of dodging/burning should be all you need.
Are you printing wet or using a scanner?
I found Acros VERY critical for exposure and development. and ended up using a very dilute developer.
Cheers,
R.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Thanks for your response Roger. Of course you are right about the nominal speed. What I mean is that I appear to have blown the highlight details, as far as my Nikon scanner is concerned (that is, adjustment of the analogue gain and exposure sliders in software does not appear to be able to recover highlights -- in this case texture of white fabric in open shade, details on the white painted side of a building in the sun and so on). I suppose I should have said in my original post that I was planning on scanning the negatives -- my wet darkroom has been 98% complete for four years in this house, but with two small kids I just can't get away for a printing session like I used to.
My own diagnosis is that the test rolls are modestly over-developed and that pulling back on the time and agitation a little may keep the highlights from blocking up. It is actually reminding me of TMax 100 so far.
Ben Marks
My own diagnosis is that the test rolls are modestly over-developed and that pulling back on the time and agitation a little may keep the highlights from blocking up. It is actually reminding me of TMax 100 so far.
Ben Marks
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,
Ah: scanner.
Yes. An even stronger argument for minimal development. My own inclination would be to cut agitation significantly: 10 inversions/30 seconds is quite vigorous: I'd try 10 inversions/minute in future. I might also go to 9 minutes. Yes, I know it's changing two variables at once, but at least they're in the same direction. If the new negs are too flat, you can always increase one or the other. If they're not...
Less agitation = less toe speed, so 64 sounds good to me; 80 at most.
(Edit: Soffits: just checked the OED. No link.)
Cheers,
R.
Ah: scanner.
Yes. An even stronger argument for minimal development. My own inclination would be to cut agitation significantly: 10 inversions/30 seconds is quite vigorous: I'd try 10 inversions/minute in future. I might also go to 9 minutes. Yes, I know it's changing two variables at once, but at least they're in the same direction. If the new negs are too flat, you can always increase one or the other. If they're not...
Less agitation = less toe speed, so 64 sounds good to me; 80 at most.
(Edit: Soffits: just checked the OED. No link.)
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Roger: tried 9 minutes with 3 inversions a minute at 68F as you suggested. I was going to go for a full 10% reduction in time (10% of 9.5 minutes = 57 seconds, or roughly a minute). But the mid-tones were ok at 9.5 minutes so your suggestion seemed like a good one. The film was exposed at ISO 100 weeks ago, so no changing that variable. The negatives seem like they have good density, but as you might expect not quite so much density in the highlights. I won't be able to run a direct comparison until the film dries and I can scan some images.
Thanks for your helpful suggestion.
Ben Marks
Thanks for your helpful suggestion.
Ben Marks
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Another thing about Acros: I had assumed that there would be functionally no grain in the scans (honestly, 90% of the film I have used over the last 20 years has been ISO 400 or higher). Not so with the Nikon 4000. It is not that the grain is objectionable. There is still less grain than, say, Tri-X in your developer of choice, but it is easily noticeable in the scans. Live and learn.
lawrence
Veteran
In my opinion a Nikon scanner and conventional monochrome film is not a match made in heaven. I have a Nikon but find I usually prefer the scans from my Epson V750, which has a diffuse light source. It's like the difference between a condenser and diffusion enlarger; with the former there's always the Callier effect to help screw things up for you and I believe another potential problem with the Nikon is 'grain aliasing', whatever that is! If you get a chance to try the Epson, take it -- you might like the difference.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Lawrence: couldn't agree more about the Nikon, but it is the solution I've got for the moment. I originally was using the LS-4000 and the roll film holder to make digital "contact" sheets of whole rolls of film Gradually, my work flow has become more and more digital. I have an older Epson flatbed, the Expression 1680 and the Nikon does a better job with 35mm film than it does.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks