Light tones too dense

[Fraser]

Shot another couple of rolls today of some random things!
Shot at 50iso and reduced dev time to 40 minutes, the negs still need a bit of editing with levels etc but seem far less extreme, less contrast more shadow and highlight detail with better looking grain.
First two random scans-
18fbpicsM4plusxwalkerburn_004 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicsM4plusxwalkerburn_001 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr

 

[ptpdprinter]

Why did you select stand development over traditional development? What were your trying to achieve?

 

[Ronald M]

Still too much contrast, but way better.

Stand development is not the easiest to control. I know one wedding photog who did it regularly with Plus X and D76. Competitors thought he used 4x5. He had 3 to 5 people working for him and developed 150 rolls every Sunday night. Neighborhood women came in and printed the work weekly. He was happy that was back in the day Chicago had no water meters but charged a flat rate.

Anyway I could never master stand myself. Always got streaks. Look at the exposed leader. No reason why they can not be on a regular frame. But if you are able to do it, more power to you. If stand works better, every film manufacturer would embrace it. None do.

Rodinal at 1 to 100 made great negs for me with Plus X. A little grainy, but I printed 11x14 all the time.

Look at the clouds in second pic. They are not acceptable to me.

 

[Fraser]

Why did you select stand development over traditional development? What were your trying to achieve?

Just fancied a change, and it does seem to give a bit of a nicer neg, probably what I should really do is just by some d76!

 

[Nokton48]

70mm Plus-X Pan Mic-X EI 125 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's some old expired Plus-X 70mm dated 1982 (the good stuff) processed in Freestyle Legacy Mic-X. You could also use old Microdol-X but I prefer to use fresh powder.

Film? Ehhh, somebody gave me twelve 100' rolls of this stuff, along with some darkroom stuff I bought. So like you I can be very frugal.

Anyway, just a thought. I like Microdol-X with old Plus-X.

 

[Fraser]

Still too much contrast, but way better.

Stand development is not the easiest to control. I know one wedding photog who did it regularly with Plus X and D76. Competitors thought he used 4x5. He had 3 to 5 people working for him and developed 150 rolls every Sunday night. Neighborhood women came in and printed the work weekly. He was happy that was back in the day Chicago had no water meters but charged a flat rate.

Anyway I could never master stand myself. Always got streaks. Look at the exposed leader. No reason why they can not be on a regular frame. But if you are able to do it, more power to you. If stand works better, every film manufacturer would embrace it. None do.

Rodinal at 1 to 100 made great negs for me with Plus X. A little grainy, but I printed 11x14 all the time.

Look at the clouds in second pic. They are not acceptable to me.

Thats maybe a bit better?
18fbpicsM4plusxwalkerburn_001b by f4saregreat!, on Flickr

 

[teddy]

I think it's just the film and developer type. The neg's look fine to me. Stand Development does not work the best for every film combination, but you will get an image. You may like the grain or not depending on the film. Expose the film less if you are going to continue with Rodinal and stand development. Acros 100 and Rodinal is heaven to me. Also Pan F 50. But some folks don't like this film and Rodinal - too fussy.

Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar, Plus X, Rodinal 1:100 @ 60 mins

 

[airfrogusmc]

I love Rodinal and was one of my fav developers for certain films and for when I wanted a grainy look. Rodinal is an acutance developer. What that means in practical terms is it will give you sharp but grainy negatives. Because it is a true acutance developer it doesn't have softeners to soften the edges of the silver halide crystals thus really sharp images but the most grain for the type of film you can get from a developer. When using larger formats grain is really not an issue.

I love grain so never an issue for me but some use fine grain developers to avoid grain especially in smaller film formats like 135. Fine grain dev have softeners that soften the edges of those silver halide crystals thus making a slightly softer image but less appearance of grain.

D76 is considered a very middle of the road developer. Good for most films and will give you sharp images with not a real grainy look.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Rodinal contains paraphenilendiamine, quite dangerous stuff. Be aware of that.


Erik.

 

[presspass]

If you're willing to give up stand development, try D-23 diluted 1:3. Sharp, good tonality, and a very compensating developer - no blown highlights. Works very well with the films I use - Kentmere, Tri-X, HP5+, and Tmax 400. I think it would be fine for lower ISO films as well. You could also try the Beutler high definition developer. Sharper, more grain, and also compensates to avoid blown highlights.

 

[Fraser]

So got hold of some ID-11 plus-x rated at 100iso ID-11 1+3 13mins, seems a bit better.
18fbpicM4PlusX100isoid11_012 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr

 

[olifaunt]

In some of the images I see what look like sharpening haloes. If there is sharpening in the scanner or in PP it may change the appearance of the grain.

 

[randy stewart]

Don't use stand development, for the reasons others have given. Also, consider the sharp but huge grain you have here from the world's grainiest developer.

 

[Nokton48]

0471775-R1-E016 by Nokton48, on Flickr

0471775-R1-E010 by Nokton48, on Flickr

These are very old. Eastman 5231 +X in D76 type developer. As you can see the film is inherently contrasty. I am looking forward to shooting more of it.
Contrast reduction and compensating development will be required.

This is what happens when you overexpose 5231.

 

[Rob-F]

Plus X still film is one . IMHO it is one of the most beautiful films ever made. I cried when it went away.

My feeling as well. It's nice Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome, but Plus-X is what I'm waiting for.