venchka
Veteran
Good for you, Steph!
Try a bit of each in Rodinal. Rodinal is non-fogging so it won't add anything to what fog may be present. Shoot, with 100', you can experiment with 5', hey?
GOOGLE Rodinal development times and sources. It's out there. YMMV.
Try a bit of each in Rodinal. Rodinal is non-fogging so it won't add anything to what fog may be present. Shoot, with 100', you can experiment with 5', hey?
GOOGLE Rodinal development times and sources. It's out there. YMMV.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Microphen is also a low fog developer, plus it'll give you some speed. But then you're down at 200 or 250 anyway. With Rodinal, which I shoot at 250 to begin with, you're now down at like 80 if you add 2 stops.
allan
allan
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
kaiyen said:
Really? What about the Tri-X at 12,800 in Rodinal at 1:50 for 51 minutes formula? We have seen those results here and they are quite good.
If I were experimenting, I would make a few controlled exposures at 200, 400 and 800 on a single strip of film. Double the normal time for Rodinal at 1:50 and Tri-X. Evaluate and adjust from there.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Wayne,
I've seen merciful's work, too. Or at least that one image. And my first, honest response is - I don't know the exact shooting conditions, metering pattern or method used.
ALSO - there is a difference between getting acceptable (and perhaps extraordinary) results when pushing like mad, and actual film speed. One must basically remember this whenever one reads my posts
.
For instance, let's assume merciful metered and shot such that he was actually using an EI of 12,800. Which he probably did not - he probably set his meter to 12,800 and shot away. Doesn't really matter. It was a crazy push.
What actually happened is that his dev technique led to proper midtones with an acceptable (and actually amazing) control of highlights. That's the definition of pushing - you pull the midtones up at the cost of highlights. It's just that he really, really controlled those highlights through the use of serious compensation.
HOWEVER...the numbers I've been giving Stephanie are actual film speed based on shadow density. The shot that merciful showed didn't have areas of significant shadow area that required density - it actually was a fairly low contrast shot (as in everything was close to the same tone, not that the image was flat. But the neg was flat). But if you are concerned about sufficient density in shadow areas, then TXT has a speed of about 250 in Rodinal 1+50. Because it's so old, you'll need to add at least 2 stops exposure to get the same shadow density over base fog, meaning shooting at 80 or so.
HOWEVER^2, perhaps getting that amount of density in the shadow area isn't important to you (general "you," not specifically you, Wayne). In which case you have a lot more flexibility.
As I said, I almost always speak in terms of film speed in terms of density in shadow areas, which is a very Zone System style definition. I deviate from that only if I explicitly talk about pushing.
allan
I've seen merciful's work, too. Or at least that one image. And my first, honest response is - I don't know the exact shooting conditions, metering pattern or method used.
ALSO - there is a difference between getting acceptable (and perhaps extraordinary) results when pushing like mad, and actual film speed. One must basically remember this whenever one reads my posts
.For instance, let's assume merciful metered and shot such that he was actually using an EI of 12,800. Which he probably did not - he probably set his meter to 12,800 and shot away. Doesn't really matter. It was a crazy push.
What actually happened is that his dev technique led to proper midtones with an acceptable (and actually amazing) control of highlights. That's the definition of pushing - you pull the midtones up at the cost of highlights. It's just that he really, really controlled those highlights through the use of serious compensation.
HOWEVER...the numbers I've been giving Stephanie are actual film speed based on shadow density. The shot that merciful showed didn't have areas of significant shadow area that required density - it actually was a fairly low contrast shot (as in everything was close to the same tone, not that the image was flat. But the neg was flat). But if you are concerned about sufficient density in shadow areas, then TXT has a speed of about 250 in Rodinal 1+50. Because it's so old, you'll need to add at least 2 stops exposure to get the same shadow density over base fog, meaning shooting at 80 or so.
HOWEVER^2, perhaps getting that amount of density in the shadow area isn't important to you (general "you," not specifically you, Wayne). In which case you have a lot more flexibility.
As I said, I almost always speak in terms of film speed in terms of density in shadow areas, which is a very Zone System style definition. I deviate from that only if I explicitly talk about pushing.
allan
willie_901
Veteran
Well, the TriX will have cosmic-ray fogging if it is ~ 25 years old. Freezing doesn't stop cosmic rays. But so what, you will be able to get some interesting results.
It will be fun for you to play with it.
Check here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29426883@N00/263489425/
and here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/inajamaica/tags/expiredfilm/
There's probably more examples in the expired film group as well.
willie
It will be fun for you to play with it.
Check here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29426883@N00/263489425/
and here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/inajamaica/tags/expiredfilm/
There's probably more examples in the expired film group as well.
willie
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Well, the first set on flickr just needs some PS adjustments
BTW - I am not saying don't try it. Just giving tips.
allan
BTW - I am not saying don't try it. Just giving tips.
allan
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Sorry, sorry...I stand corrected about the Plus-X thing. I read wrong. I'm tired...was sick all night long. Never eat at Taco Tico...
But anyway, I do believe I have all the film I'm ever going to need. I should take a count of how many rolls I have of everything just to find out.
But anyway, I do believe I have all the film I'm ever going to need. I should take a count of how many rolls I have of everything just to find out.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
You might want to consider adding a splash of benzatriazole, although I don't know how well it works with Diafine.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Stephanie Brim said:
I certainly hope NOT! Aren't you only about 23? At your age, you should be looking forward to needing thousands of rolls of film to cover all the wonderful pictures you're going to make in your lifetime.
After all, if those bulk rolls are hundred-footers, you'll be lucky to get about eighteen 36-exposure rolls out of each one. And if next week you run across a subject that deserves eighteen rolls' worth of shots, I strongly advise you to shoot them all! It'll be a good investment.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
jlw said:
What he said
I'm reminded of a quote of Erasmus: "When I get a little money, I buy books. If I have any left over, I buy food." Substitute film for books and you have your correct priorities...
Always get as much as you can by any means. Have you filled out the form for the free 4 rolls of Portra? ( http://www.kodak.com/global/mul/professional/support/wrt/campaigns/GC00369/entry.jhtml ) If not, do so. I prefer Fuji for my color film but free is free
I could have, literally, a thousand miles of 100' bulk film rolls in freezers in my basement and I'd still be buying film. Because you never can really know... :angel: (edit: just for giggles, I grabbed a calculator. That's roughly 950,400 rolls of film ...
) William
Last edited by a moderator:
Bryce
Well-known
Well, whatever comes from this, I'd like to hear a report on the results. Please post, Stephanie.
Got a working darkroom yet?
Got a working darkroom yet?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
wlewisiii said:I could have, literally, a thousand miles of 100' bulk film rolls in freezers in my basement and I'd still be buying film. Because you never can really know... :angel: (edit: just for giggles, I grabbed a calculator. That's roughly 950,400 rolls of film ...
Just for more giggles, a thousand miles of film would be 52,800 100-foot bulk rolls. Assuming that a box of bulk film is 1-3/4 inches thick (I've still got one of the nice resealable black-plastic boxes that Kodalith Ortho bulk rolls used to come in, and measured it) then your film stash would form a stack 1.46 miles high!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
OK, so what is opaque to cosmic rays? Besides Superman's cape, of course. Anybody know?
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Okay, okay...so not all the film I'm ever going to need...but at least enough to get me through the winter. Black and white, anyway. Color...not so much. Still looking for a bit, including some super fast stuff for the Halloween party that Adam and I will be attending on the night of the 27th. Watching everyone get drunk and taking photos of them will be too much fun.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Opaque to cosmic rays? Seriously, like 10 feet of lead might do the trick. Maybe.
allan
allan
Xmas
Veteran
You need to derate film speed from normal for the fogging as the image shadows need to be denser than the fog, I'm told to use +1 stop, as a starter.
The cosmic rays are detectable in deep mines indeed some of the bubble chambers (particle detectors) are in deep mines, the film is pre-contaminated from atmospheric tests, shielding material tends to be contaminsted, if it was smelted post '45.
The cosmic rays are detectable in deep mines indeed some of the bubble chambers (particle detectors) are in deep mines, the film is pre-contaminated from atmospheric tests, shielding material tends to be contaminsted, if it was smelted post '45.
jano
Evil Bokeh
kaiyen said:
The government-funded scientists use giant (huuuge) jugs of heavy water deep underground to capture the rays and study them... I think...
back alley
IMAGES
Still looking for a bit, including some super fast stuff for the Halloween party that Adam and I will be attending on the night of the 27th. Watching everyone get drunk and taking photos of them will be too much fun.
what happened to the colorado trip?
did i miss something?
joe
what happened to the colorado trip?
did i miss something?
joe
Bryce
Well-known
Jano-
Those are neutrinos, different particles. Gamma radiation (cosmic rays) have a lot of penetrating power, but the tanks you're talking about are deep enough to be free of them.
In practical terms, there is no place we can store film where it won't eventually be fogged by gamma radiation... Sad but true.
Those are neutrinos, different particles. Gamma radiation (cosmic rays) have a lot of penetrating power, but the tanks you're talking about are deep enough to be free of them.
In practical terms, there is no place we can store film where it won't eventually be fogged by gamma radiation... Sad but true.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
Steph,
Your milage with the Tri-X and diafine will likely vary...as many have said. I would start testing it at a far lower than box ISO, however. Here's the results from my master diafine list, completed a while ago. Notice the 1990 and 1992 vary quite radically...I believe there was a formula change then, but can't prove it.
Tri-X (1996-fresh)…1250-1600 (maybe 1000 for 120)
Tri-X 1992…800-1000
Tri-X 1990…320 (or lower inside/flat light…maybe 200 or 180?)
Just shoot the same scene at every ISO from 180 up and see what happens. Luckily you're only dealing with one vintage and not three, like I was. What a pain! And then I have to remember which is which when they are out of their boxes. 1990 Tri-X is mostly yellow, 1992 has large green bars on the paper....arghh! Have to start writing it down on each roll wrapper. good luck!
doug
Your milage with the Tri-X and diafine will likely vary...as many have said. I would start testing it at a far lower than box ISO, however. Here's the results from my master diafine list, completed a while ago. Notice the 1990 and 1992 vary quite radically...I believe there was a formula change then, but can't prove it.
Tri-X (1996-fresh)…1250-1600 (maybe 1000 for 120)
Tri-X 1992…800-1000
Tri-X 1990…320 (or lower inside/flat light…maybe 200 or 180?)
Just shoot the same scene at every ISO from 180 up and see what happens. Luckily you're only dealing with one vintage and not three, like I was. What a pain! And then I have to remember which is which when they are out of their boxes. 1990 Tri-X is mostly yellow, 1992 has large green bars on the paper....arghh! Have to start writing it down on each roll wrapper. good luck!
doug