Need help on 'pulling' some film.

Johnmcd

Johnmcd

Well-known
Local time
6:29 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
1,749
So I load the new R8 with some Kodak Hawkeye Surveillance 400 B/W from the bulk loader. The problem being I used an old Acros 100 cassette (I tape the film from the loader to the last inch of film from the old cassette then wind the new film back in). The DX coding was picked up by the R8 (my only camera that does this) as 100 iso and I forgot to manually change it back to 400.

So to cut a long story short, I now have Hawkeye 400 exposed at 100. I am tossing up how to develop it as there is not much around except for the recommendations from Kodak but nothing about pulling it 2 stops.

I have Rodinal, Tmax, Ilfosol 3, some very old Microdol (unmixed) and some old D-76 (unmixed) to choose from.

I have read that Hawkeye is similar to TMax 400 and the Massive Dev Chart does have an entry for Tmax 400 at 100 iso in 1:50 Rodinal for 3.45 min. I was going to go with this but it seems a little short.

Any suggestions would be gratefully received. So much for my first test of the new film and new 60/2.8.

Cheers - John
 
BTW, I did notice at the time that the exposure readings seemed a little slow for 400, but I was banging away using aperture perferred and was rushing along while doing a couple of other things. When I got home, I had a moment of clarity as I was thinking back, and knew instantly what had happened. Chalk it up to experience :)

Cheers - John
 
Two stops shouldn't be a cause for real concern. Lots of latitude with most B&W films! At least it wouldn't be for me. I like negs a little overdeveloped as I find it's easier in the darkroom for me. Too light negs I get challenged.

I see Massive dev. chart for D-76:

TMax 400 @ 50 for 8 min. 1+1

TMax 400 @ 200 for 12 min 1+3

Would Rodinal stand development work? I like it when I have the hour of time!

Take a look at this article:

http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/

Hope this helps you.
 
If you shot in bright light, develop normally.
I just tested HP5 exposed according to sunny 16 between ei 2000 and ei32, and developed normally in D76 1+1. The best neg was the one at ei 32, and the histogram was perfect, without blocking.
 
I've never used D-76 (but plenty of ID11 in the past) but inherited some with some old gear. If the powder doesn't 'go off', it might be worth using. The stand article is very persuasive and also looks worth a try as I have some Rodinal. Thanks Bill.

mfogiel, your post certainly makes a rosier picture of my predicament and another vote for D-76. Thanks.

Cheers - John
 
ID-11 is, for the most part, the same as D-76.

I use both. Used to be that ID-11 was less expensive than D-76 as to make 5 (powder) liter box was about the same as powder to make 1 gallon (3.8 liters) D-76.
 
I read someplace, year's back, that you can lose a stop of speed when you develop film in Microdol-X. You may want to consider using that.

Jim B.
 
Mackinaw said:
I read someplace, year's back, that you can lose a stop of speed when you develop film in Microdol-X. You may want to consider using that.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, I'll look into that. I'm pretty sure I have an old tin of Microdol-X sitting in the cupboard.
 
Mackinaw said:
I read someplace, year's back, that you can lose a stop of speed when you develop film in Microdol-X. You may want to consider using that.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

You also lose speed with HC-110 and Rodinal. When I 'pull' and I'm not even sure what that means. And I generally use HC-110h I cut the film the speed in half, and develop normally (Kodak tech sheets), then I look and the negatives if they have shadow detail that I like: fine. But if they have shadow detail and the highlights are blown then I reduce development time.
 
charjohncarter said:
You also lose speed with HC-110 and Rodinal. When I 'pull' and I'm not even sure what that means. And I generally use HC-110h I cut the film the speed in half, and develop normally (Kodak tech sheets), then I look and the negatives if they have shadow detail that I like: fine. But if they have shadow detail and the highlights are blown then I reduce development time.
Click to expand...

I think 'pull' is just the opposite to 'push' :) Though on its own it doesn't exactly make much sense.

Some perhaps Rodinal (which I have) with less development time is an option.
 
The other issue is what suits Hawkeye Surveillance film? Is it really similar to Tmax?? Is it an old style film or new (Tmax, Delta etc.)?
 
Decided on 1:50 Rodinal for 5 min 30 sec. Was going to use the D76 but the powder was more like brown granules rather than powder.

Could have done with another 2 minutes as they are fairly thin negs. Grain is quite pronounced so I don't think it TMax on a different base. Though that could also be the result of the 'rescue' job. Quite happy with the results considering the stuff up. So much in fact I bought another two cans :)

All taken with the 60/2.8 R Macro

p342988450.jpg


p398008025.jpg


p205457330.jpg


p187902994.jpg
 
Johnmcd said:
Decided on 1:50 Rodinal for 5 min 30 sec. Was going to use the D76 but the powder was more like brown granules rather than powder. Could have done with another 2 minutes as they are fairly thin negs. Grain is quite pronounced so I don't think it TMax on a different base. Though that could also be the result of the 'rescue' job. Quite happy with the results considering the stuff up. So much in fact I bought another two cans :) All taken with the 60/2.8 R Macro
Click to expand...
Nice. Re the grain, I get quite different grain from Hawkeye depending on the scanner. I recently bought a Plustek to get better 35mm scans than my Canon 8800f. End result is slightly better resolution but much coarser grain. I haven't done, or had done, any optical enlargements so can't speak to what it is really like on the neg.
 
Scrambler said:
Nice. Re the grain, I get quite different grain from Hawkeye depending on the scanner. I recently bought a Plustek to get better 35mm scans than my Canon 8800f. End result is slightly better resolution but much coarser grain. I haven't done, or had done, any optical enlargements so can't speak to what it is really like on the neg.
Click to expand...

I'm going to try a print this weekend to compare. I use a Minolta Scan Multi Pro which is excellent but how it picks up grain is different from film to film and not always representative of what I think it would be in a wet print.

How have you found the Hawkeye? How do you develop it under 'normal' conditions.

Cheers - John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom