Light tones too dense

F

Fraser

Well-known
Local time
5:11 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
1,792
Decided to try stand dev with plus-x (movie stock) rodinal 1-100 1 hour agitate 30 secs and then 5secs at 30mins turned out quite nice except the light tones are very dense for my scanner (Nikon), and actually the more I look at the negs they are quite contrasty as there is not very much detail in the darker tones.
Do you think this is just because of the film i'm using as its movie stock or should I cut development time ?
Cheers........
18fbpicNegOver_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
18fbpicNegOver_02 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
 
To increase density in lower shadow values increase exposure slightly, add 1/2 stop to a full stop and evaluate.

Plus-X movie stock was EI 80. I have some myself.

To reduce contrast reduce dev time.

I have found 35mm Cine Plus-X to be more inherently contrasty than Eastman 5222 Double-X.
Beutler developer (easy to make) is wonderful with 35mm Cine Plus-X
This was recommended to me by TomA.
 
Hard to tell on a web image, but those look fine to me. The only downside I notice is an overall grayness to the photos. I guess it was not a sunny day when you took the shots? This may just be how that particular film looks, because other images that were made by others using that film looked gray to me too.
 
I don't know if other shots on the roll are more obviously problematic, but in these frames I don't see overcooked highlights nor shadows that are obviously under-exposed. Perhaps frames with harsher light would show the "problem" more clearly, but given the soft(er) light in these, I'd say the exposure and development were very much in the ballpark. (Do you really want to be able to see detail in the shadows under the cars? More exposure to get that would be possible, but would likely look "worse" to me than this does now.) Like Steve, I don't see these particular frames as being overly contrasty at all. EDIT: These frames have very rich grays; on the "dark" end of the spectrum, to my eye at least, but not obviously or seriously under-exposed given the soft light. I quite like this rich gray look.
 
Maybe as suggested I need to increase exposure for the shadows ie shoot at 80iso and decrease exposure to save the highlights?
 
Ahh, that's a clearer picture of the problem then! The unedited scan is helpful. Yes, I would cut development first and see whether that brings the hot highlights down. If it brings everything down too far (i.e., shadows get overwhelming), then I'd try increasing exposure AND cutting development.
 
I like these suggestions, I do feel that you should if you are going to be using a great deal of this film you should get a repeatable development scheme rather than stand development. The purpose of stand development is to hold back the highlights in high contrast scenes. With modern films this doesn't work but Plus-X isn't modern. So you will maybe hold back the highlights with stand but it will have little if any effect of shadow detail. For that you need more exposure which will increase the chance of highlight blow out.

Get a real scheme and adjust one variable at a time: exposure, development time, agitation, etc. Then zero in on what YOU want: lots of shadow detail, more or less contrast, and reasonable highlights.

edit: This is John Sexton's treatment of high contrast scenes: by the way, the massive chart recommends 10 minutes for 1+100 Rodinal.

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
 
Fraser said:
Maybe as suggested I need to increase exposure for the shadows ie shoot at 80iso and decrease exposure to save the highlights?
Click to expand...

Like original Plus-X (when very first introduced) way, way back, this 35mm cine film is EI 80 in daylight. EI 64 in tungsten light.

Increase exposure to raise shadow detail, cut back on development to decrease highlight contrast. I am guessing that stand is approaching what Adams called "gamma infinity". The film is cooked, developed as much as it will ever be? Just a guess.

Willi Beutler (Leica Developer) is easy to make, just basically some Sulphite and Metol. TomA was running some of this stuff over on my 5222 XX thread, and he preferred the results with the Beutler. Delicate high values are the result, highly compensating. This is inherently contrasty film, I have found. Much more so than XX 5222 35mm Cine stock. Eastman never changed the original emulsion formulation, and I'm glad of that. Like using a film from the 1950s.

XX thread is long but it's in here somewhere:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52426&highlight=eastman+5222
 
By the way, you are lucky guy to have this stuff! It's been discontinued by Eastman for years, people are searching hard to find any. GREAT SCORE!
 
I have been developing this film in rodinal for a good few years normally I just expose at 100iso and process at 1+50 12mins. I used to use tmax dev and xtol but rodinal is just so handy!
Nokton48 I bought this film a good few years ago on ebay before film started getting expensive from memory I think I only paid £40 including postage for 1200feet and I still have about 2 1/4 left.
I know I asked Tom a good few years ago and he always recommended a dev like d76/ID11.
 
I am against Rodinal, except if you want that typical look or when you use document film.

For normal tonal photography it is better to try a hydrochinon/metol developer like D76. If the result is too harsh, develope shorter, if it is too soft, develope longer.

Erik.
 
When I was in college in the mid 1980's I tested rodinal with t max 400. I found that 1:50, 68degrees and the right agitation, first 30 secs and 5 envisions every 30 secs for for 11min 30 sec, was a really good dilution if you want nice detail in the toe. The toe or shadows come up more like a straight line than a traditional curved toe on a graph. With t-max emulsions because the base is so thick you need more agitation than you would with a thinner base film like say tri-x so you get even dev in large even tones areas. Because it comes up more in a straight line in the toe there is a lot of stuff in the shadows that is not there with other developers and t-max 400. Don't know what it is like with plus x movie stock. With regular plus x I always like d 76 or HC 110.
 
The developer I most prefer with 5222 XX is ADOX Borax MQ, a D76 type derivative. So it makes sense also to use it with Cine Plus-X. Beutler contains the same ingredients as D76, in a more dilute form. Whatever works for you and what you like.

Actually most everything looks good (just different looks) with different developers and XX.

I have plenty of free time up ahead and I intend to shoot a lot of this +X film. I really like it!
 
They look good on my iMac. Black car top has detail. There is no good white except perhaps edge of license plate on van. Hard to evaluate whites.

Cardinal rule is exposure controls black detail, more exposure = more detail.
Time in developer controls highlight detail. If whites are blown out and without texture showing where there should be texture, cut time. If whites are grey, increase time. Specular lites do not count.

Changing time 10% will not change blacks if exposure is near correct.

It is difficult to set this up with scanned images. Print on #2 paper, no burn or dodge. Some films with scan and print with same exposure & development. Plus X still film is one . IMHO it is one of the most beautiful films ever made. I cried when it went away. I tried some other films then and never could get a neg that scanned AND printed well. Wish I could remember all the tests I did. I settled on TMax 100 & 400 with home mixed from raw chemicals D76.

Bergger 400 @ ei 200 works well also.
 
Ronald M said:
Changing time 10% will not change blacks if exposure is near correct.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it seems that the shadow areas are completely or almost completely developed after just 1/3 of the development time. That is probably why you can't change shadow detail with stand development (you have to use film exposure).
 
Shadows are not really affected by dev times as long as 50% of the normal time is reached. What is affected are the upper tones or zones. Way over simplified zone system. Expose for shadows and process for highlights.
 
D.F. Cardwell put it the best way I've ever read: Expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, and agitate for the highlights. So, if your shadows are where you want them you have your exposure correct, if you have your mid-tones where you want them then you have correct development time, if you don't like the highlights then adjust your agitation.

Sounds simple, but it takes much experimentation at least for the sloppy way I do things.
 
If you really want to be precise the zone system and the tests that are involved will make all of it extremely consistent. And with the zone system you control highlights thus contrast through development times. So say you place your shadows at zone III and your meter the scene and you want your highlight to be zone IX and it the highlight meters to be zone XI then you would need to process the negative at N-2 which will bring your highlights back to zone IX. The only way to know for sure is to do the tests. Find where the proper ISO is to finding the first perceivable density over film base + fog for the camera and lens being used. Agitation should remain consistent for consistent results.

To much agitation can cause to much dev and on 135 roll him will show up as higher density and thus brighter areas around the sprocket holes. Not enough agitation can show up as more development at the very edges so large areas of consistent tone will not show up that way.

The zone system is usually more than most really need or should use. I would say to only use it if you are doing large format and exposing one sheet at a time. But I used some of the principles even with roll film. If it were really flat light I would expose for the shadow and increase my development time to increase contrast. If it were really contrasty, again I would exposed for the shadow and if I knew the highlights would go off the scale I would decrease my dev time to hold the detail.

I think that in this case the OP should pull back on my dev time. Test it a bit to see where he likes it best and fine tune with paper grade, burning and dodging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom