imush
Well-known
After a few rolls, it seems that I get a dull hazy look with my films.
Here is APX100 in Rodinal 1:50:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0003.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0010.jpeg
or Tri-X 400 in same Rodinal 1:50:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/rapoport/tx1004.jpeg
and Neopan 1600 in DD-X
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0008.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0023.jpeg
All films shot at nominal box speeds, developed at recommended times at 20C.
The Neopan and Tri-X films look a bit overexposed or overdeveloped (I had to increase the scanner exposure, and shadow detail is lost on many shots). The APX negatives do not look too thick, but shouldn't they have better contrast?
I scan film on Coolscan IV, in full color, then invert in gimp.
Why this dull look? Maybe I am not fixing correctly? I have the "rapid fixer" from Adorama which is advertised to fix film in 1 minute. I fix for a bit more than 1 minute.
Here is APX100 in Rodinal 1:50:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0003.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/agfa_rodinal/ag0010.jpeg
or Tri-X 400 in same Rodinal 1:50:
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/rapoport/tx1004.jpeg
and Neopan 1600 in DD-X
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0008.jpeg
http://www.mushinsky.net/photo/yasha/np0023.jpeg
All films shot at nominal box speeds, developed at recommended times at 20C.
The Neopan and Tri-X films look a bit overexposed or overdeveloped (I had to increase the scanner exposure, and shadow detail is lost on many shots). The APX negatives do not look too thick, but shouldn't they have better contrast?
I scan film on Coolscan IV, in full color, then invert in gimp.
Why this dull look? Maybe I am not fixing correctly? I have the "rapid fixer" from Adorama which is advertised to fix film in 1 minute. I fix for a bit more than 1 minute.
jbf
||||||
Yeah they indeed look over developed. How often are you agitating? Agitation definately has a huge impact on grain and contrast of your negatives.
Tri-X in rodinal is extremely susceptible to agitation, etc.
You might try reducing the time you develop at least by 30 seconds or even a full minute.
As far as them being hazy, i think you also have issues with your post-work leveling/adjustmenst (that is, adjustments after scanned, etc).
I never have a straight scan with my images. I have to always do some contrast and exposure adjustments in photoshop afterwards.
Tri-X in rodinal is extremely susceptible to agitation, etc.
You might try reducing the time you develop at least by 30 seconds or even a full minute.
As far as them being hazy, i think you also have issues with your post-work leveling/adjustmenst (that is, adjustments after scanned, etc).
I never have a straight scan with my images. I have to always do some contrast and exposure adjustments in photoshop afterwards.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
They do look overdeveloped, and if you're having to bump up the scanner gain then they are underexposed. Rodinal is a speed-decreasing developer so you'll likely need to shoot at 320 or 250.
I have to admit - and this is in no way a criticism of your post, jbf, as it's been appearing a lot lately - but I'm flummoxed by this recent "rodinal and tri-x requires very careful agitation" and discussions about the impact of agitation on grain.
Unless everyone out there is trying to make martinis then I have never found rodinal to be more sensitive to agitation than other developers. Now, maybe everyone is trying to make martinis. But one should never agitate like that with any developer. I use the exact same technique with all my developers (Rodinal, ID-11, Perceptol, Microphen, FX-39, FX-50, F76...I think that's it) and I've never had some weird problem of agitation sensitivity.
Also, yes, over agitation can increase grain, but it's not like it's the major factor or anything. I would not say it's huge unless you are making martini's. Think of it this way - overdevelop in general increases grain. Or, rather, too much flow of fresh developer over the silver grains increases grain. And you get that through too long development with normal agitation (ie - not stand) or with too much agitation. But that's not the fundamental issue that is causing the increase in grain. It's the exposure (sorry, but that's the right word) of fresh developer over the silver at too frequent a rate.
For me...if you get your process right, I can get the contrast right on a scan with a single, 5 second curve adjustment in PS or lightroom. You can get pretty close...
allan
I have to admit - and this is in no way a criticism of your post, jbf, as it's been appearing a lot lately - but I'm flummoxed by this recent "rodinal and tri-x requires very careful agitation" and discussions about the impact of agitation on grain.
Unless everyone out there is trying to make martinis then I have never found rodinal to be more sensitive to agitation than other developers. Now, maybe everyone is trying to make martinis. But one should never agitate like that with any developer. I use the exact same technique with all my developers (Rodinal, ID-11, Perceptol, Microphen, FX-39, FX-50, F76...I think that's it) and I've never had some weird problem of agitation sensitivity.
Also, yes, over agitation can increase grain, but it's not like it's the major factor or anything. I would not say it's huge unless you are making martini's. Think of it this way - overdevelop in general increases grain. Or, rather, too much flow of fresh developer over the silver grains increases grain. And you get that through too long development with normal agitation (ie - not stand) or with too much agitation. But that's not the fundamental issue that is causing the increase in grain. It's the exposure (sorry, but that's the right word) of fresh developer over the silver at too frequent a rate.
For me...if you get your process right, I can get the contrast right on a scan with a single, 5 second curve adjustment in PS or lightroom. You can get pretty close...
allan
imush
Well-known
The Tri-X and Neopan negatives do look overdeveloped, but APX ones seem to be of the "right" density.
All 3 combinations with recommended dev time resulted in this... Just had an idea to check my thermometer
seems correct. The room temperature is about 23C, I cool down the developer before use. Perhaps it warms up by the end of my processing.
Nobody so far seems to think there is a fixing problem, though. I read somewhere that underfixed negatives can produce haze like this.
Anyway, thanks for suggestions. The resolutions are to increase exposure and decrease dev time gradually to see if it gets any better.
All 3 combinations with recommended dev time resulted in this... Just had an idea to check my thermometer
seems correct. The room temperature is about 23C, I cool down the developer before use. Perhaps it warms up by the end of my processing.Nobody so far seems to think there is a fixing problem, though. I read somewhere that underfixed negatives can produce haze like this.
Anyway, thanks for suggestions. The resolutions are to increase exposure and decrease dev time gradually to see if it gets any better.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
good point - underfixed can produce a _milky_ look. usually not consistent, though.
You might also be dealing with base fog. Was the film in heat or anything like that?
You might also be dealing with base fog. Was the film in heat or anything like that?
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Under fixed film usually has a 'glazed' look that is very obvious by holding the negative up to a light source and getting reflected light off the emulsion side.
Many folks fix film for upwards of 5 minutes; it's not like fixing paper, where you're concerned about excessive fixer absorbing into the paper fibers, or through the edge of RC and into the paper base.
If it is caused by inadequate fixing you can refix. Just load the negs on a reel (or, if they're already cut in strips, just use a tray), prewet in distilled water for a minute or two, then refix, and do the usual rinse and dry.
~Joe
Many folks fix film for upwards of 5 minutes; it's not like fixing paper, where you're concerned about excessive fixer absorbing into the paper fibers, or through the edge of RC and into the paper base.
If it is caused by inadequate fixing you can refix. Just load the negs on a reel (or, if they're already cut in strips, just use a tray), prewet in distilled water for a minute or two, then refix, and do the usual rinse and dry.
~Joe
charjohncarter
Veteran
You should, if you have on, put the negatives on a light box, and photograph it with a digital camera and keep 'playing' with it (the digital camera) until you get an image that is like the negatives. The final scanned image just has too many variables for us to guess. I agree with kaiyen, a fixing problem is not consistent.
skibeerr
Well-known
If the film looks hazy, do you mean the actual negatives? If so exhausted fixer can be the problem. To test this take a little piece of undevelloped film, exposed or not does not matter, and submerge it in your fixer. Slightly aggitate and after about one minute you should have a transparrant base layer. No silver left.
If the film has a haze, sometimes kind of mauve, your fixer is exhausted.
Kind regards,
Wim
If the film has a haze, sometimes kind of mauve, your fixer is exhausted.
Kind regards,
Wim