Steve M.
Veteran
This is a comedy of unfortunate errors, all my own making I think, but what do you folks suppose went wrong? I shot some Neopan 400 for the first time in a camera that always exposes perfectly, and I set my ISO to 250 w/ a yellow filter. My camera's meter always takes care of the filter factor correctly. So far, so good.
When I went to mix up my developer (TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary) I saw that they had sent me the 8 liter kit, not the 4 liter one that I had ordered. It's a simple kit of 2 packages of powdered chemicals. Figuring I wasn't going to be doing much film developing for a spell as I have a lot of printing to do, I halved the packages of chemicals as best I could and mixed up one of the halves. I had once asked the folks at P.F. if I needed to wait a day before using the TD-16 like you would w/ fresh D76, and they had said no, I shouldn't have to do that.
Well, here it is, and it's strange. I went w/ the same developing times that I use for Tri-X, so could that be the problem? Shooting the Neopan at 250 wouldn't do this, right? Or maybe I didn't half the chemicals correctly? Or maybe the TD-16 really needs to calm down for a day like the D76? I'm going to shoot another roll of Tri-X tomorrow and use this same developer, but any ideas? There sure are a lot of possibilities as to why it didn't go right, that's for sure. The first two shots look fine, but look at the following two! That's the crazy thing, why do just some of the shots look over amped or something?
When I saw the first 2 shots I thought, woo woo, this Neopan is fantastic. Tight, tiny grain, really sharp, good tones. But the other shots....from ecstasy to despair, all on one roll. That goose is ducked.
When I went to mix up my developer (TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary) I saw that they had sent me the 8 liter kit, not the 4 liter one that I had ordered. It's a simple kit of 2 packages of powdered chemicals. Figuring I wasn't going to be doing much film developing for a spell as I have a lot of printing to do, I halved the packages of chemicals as best I could and mixed up one of the halves. I had once asked the folks at P.F. if I needed to wait a day before using the TD-16 like you would w/ fresh D76, and they had said no, I shouldn't have to do that.
Well, here it is, and it's strange. I went w/ the same developing times that I use for Tri-X, so could that be the problem? Shooting the Neopan at 250 wouldn't do this, right? Or maybe I didn't half the chemicals correctly? Or maybe the TD-16 really needs to calm down for a day like the D76? I'm going to shoot another roll of Tri-X tomorrow and use this same developer, but any ideas? There sure are a lot of possibilities as to why it didn't go right, that's for sure. The first two shots look fine, but look at the following two! That's the crazy thing, why do just some of the shots look over amped or something?
When I saw the first 2 shots I thought, woo woo, this Neopan is fantastic. Tight, tiny grain, really sharp, good tones. But the other shots....from ecstasy to despair, all on one roll. That goose is ducked.
Murray Kelly
Well-known
A teensy bit contrasty for me but I don't know what you'd normally expect. They look good to me otherwise. Are you looking for criticism or praise? 
wells46
Member
It looks like the TD-16 is one package consisting of several different dry chemicals. Unless you mix the entire package, you cant be sure to get the correct balance of chemistry. When you split the package it's quite likely that you didn't get exactly half of each chemical.
I hope this helps.
Chuck
I hope this helps.
Chuck
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm sure that's what the problem is. Just mix the other half and then pour it all together. That should even things out.
Noll
Well-known
Really not seeing a problem in these scans either.
Steve M.
Veteran
Neither Murray. I was hoping someone would tell me what I did wrong, because the last 2 shots look wonked to me, and I can't figure out why some of the shots are that way, while others on the roll look OK like the first 2 shots? Where's the rest of my shot in the goose shot? It wasn't a blindingly sunny day, so I would expect to see some tones in the sidewalk around him. His feet totally washed out. Thing is, I've shot him before w/ Tri-X and he didn't look like that. But then I have never shot Fuji Neopan before, so I don't know what to expect. Maybe the Neopan just blows out some tones that Tri-X captures in bright sun (but not THAT bright). Maybe it doesn't have the tonal range of Tri-X (what does?)? I don't know.
I know, I know, one shouldn't mix up half of powered chemicals. But I just finished a roll of Tri-X in the same camera to see what was up, and souped it in the same developer. It worked great. No problems on any of the shots. So something is wrong w/ my metering or agitation protocols w/ the Neopan. Or the developer needed to cool down a day, ala D76. At least the variables are getting narrowed down now.
I know, I know, one shouldn't mix up half of powered chemicals. But I just finished a roll of Tri-X in the same camera to see what was up, and souped it in the same developer. It worked great. No problems on any of the shots. So something is wrong w/ my metering or agitation protocols w/ the Neopan. Or the developer needed to cool down a day, ala D76. At least the variables are getting narrowed down now.
znapper
Well-known
Neopan 400 and Tri-x is very similar to shoot and develop, IMO, so it isn't a film problem.
- Could be a metering issue though, but we'll never know because:
There are numerous discussions on XTol about why you should not partly mix powder developers, to save the rest and use later.
I would believe that the points made in those, is also valid for most other powder-based developers, consisting of "A" and "B".
Now A and B, can consist of several other chemical mixes, who are stable, as long as A and B isn't mixed. If you try and take 50% of A and 50% of B, you can never be sure that you actually have 50% of "everything" A and B consist of.
In the factories, they use very special machines, to be able to get an even mix of the various chemicals, before they fill up a bag of "A" and "B". This process is very complicated, simply because all "grain" would prefer to separate into their own "segments" if you shake the mix, the same is true for compounds that are similar in size, but different in weight.
- So, basically, when you pour out half of each bag, you will have no idea if you actually have 50% of "A"....or if you have "70% of one of the 10 different compounds A actually consist of, and only 30% of the rest".
I would mix the rest and pour that in with the already mixed developer, that's the only way to be sure that you have the full "A" and the full "B" mixed.
- Could be a metering issue though, but we'll never know because:
There are numerous discussions on XTol about why you should not partly mix powder developers, to save the rest and use later.
I would believe that the points made in those, is also valid for most other powder-based developers, consisting of "A" and "B".
Now A and B, can consist of several other chemical mixes, who are stable, as long as A and B isn't mixed. If you try and take 50% of A and 50% of B, you can never be sure that you actually have 50% of "everything" A and B consist of.
In the factories, they use very special machines, to be able to get an even mix of the various chemicals, before they fill up a bag of "A" and "B". This process is very complicated, simply because all "grain" would prefer to separate into their own "segments" if you shake the mix, the same is true for compounds that are similar in size, but different in weight.
- So, basically, when you pour out half of each bag, you will have no idea if you actually have 50% of "A"....or if you have "70% of one of the 10 different compounds A actually consist of, and only 30% of the rest".
I would mix the rest and pour that in with the already mixed developer, that's the only way to be sure that you have the full "A" and the full "B" mixed.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
No one call tell from these scans. Could be a scanning problem, could be a metering problem or it could be a developing problem. (They look fine to me )
A photo of the negatives would show us more
)A photo of the negatives would show us more
Steve M.
Veteran
OK, I finally read the Fuji info on developing this film, rather than going by what I read on forums (which said to basically develop it like Tri-X as a starting point) and it's obvious I over developed it quite a bit. While I gave it around 9 minutes in full strength D76, it calls for 6 1/2 minutes when shot at 250. I was inverting the developing tank twice every 30 seconds, the sheet says to invert it twice every minute. Way different protocol.
Just finished the second test roll and I'm sure it will be fine this time. I don't know what got into me, as I always get better results w/ a new film by simply following the manufacturers' recommendations, then adjust from there. The internet forums and massive development chart are places I should go to only if I have troubles later, like figuring out that Arista EDU 100 needs to be shot at ISO 50 or you're gonna get serious contrast issues. Inexpensive film, but really didn't like it no matter how or what I developed it in. Probably better for 120.
Just finished the second test roll and I'm sure it will be fine this time. I don't know what got into me, as I always get better results w/ a new film by simply following the manufacturers' recommendations, then adjust from there. The internet forums and massive development chart are places I should go to only if I have troubles later, like figuring out that Arista EDU 100 needs to be shot at ISO 50 or you're gonna get serious contrast issues. Inexpensive film, but really didn't like it no matter how or what I developed it in. Probably better for 120.
Steve M.
Veteran
The negs I developed today look fine. It apparently pays to follow the manufacturers recommendations for developing...who knew? Ha!
This is one sharp film, and I like it, but I have to say it lacks some of the tonal range of Tri-X. That seems to be the compromise. Sharpness at the expense of a very large tonal range. Not a huge difference at all, but a little noticeable to me. For the right type of shooting it might be just the ticket, but I think I'll stick to the Yellow Box. Here's a sample w/ the correct developing scheme. I may play around w/ my remaining rolls in Acufine and Rodinal, since that's what I have. The shots on this new roll were taken at high noon in Florida, and there's no sign of the contrast problems I had w/ the first roll. I went w/ the TD-16 again, developed it by the Fujifilm protocol, and gave it 7 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees at full strength, which is one more minute than they suggested for D-76. I find the TD-16 needs between 10% to 20% more time than the Kodak developer.
This is one sharp film, and I like it, but I have to say it lacks some of the tonal range of Tri-X. That seems to be the compromise. Sharpness at the expense of a very large tonal range. Not a huge difference at all, but a little noticeable to me. For the right type of shooting it might be just the ticket, but I think I'll stick to the Yellow Box. Here's a sample w/ the correct developing scheme. I may play around w/ my remaining rolls in Acufine and Rodinal, since that's what I have. The shots on this new roll were taken at high noon in Florida, and there's no sign of the contrast problems I had w/ the first roll. I went w/ the TD-16 again, developed it by the Fujifilm protocol, and gave it 7 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees at full strength, which is one more minute than they suggested for D-76. I find the TD-16 needs between 10% to 20% more time than the Kodak developer.