results and opinions

J

jano

Evil Bokeh
Local time
11:22 PM
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
1,203
Hello,

You guys really went above and beyond to help me understand home developing. My first roll ended up, well.. probably a light leak or not enough solution. My second roll was a test roll, and I couldn't tell the results since I didn't have a scanner or dark room. With my third roll, I decided to take a gamble and process a "real" roll (not test) from a family outing several months ago (Kodak 400TX).

When I unwound the negatives from the reel, I was surprised to see "normal" looking ones! At least.. they did look normal. Two weeks later, my scanner finally arrived, and I scanned in the negs. With no adjustments at all, the output look "nice" to my eye. However, seeing as I have NO experience with b&w (except for a few color conversions in photoshop with digitals), I was hoping a few of you might take a moment and comment on the result.. does it look right, did I over/under develope, does the grain look okay, too clumpy, not enough, sharp, etc etc.

There was another thread here that linked to a neat matrix outlining what a neg will look like under various circumstances (over/under exposed with over/under developing). Trouble is, I can't really tell where mine land :)

So here are two shots from the roll, along with 100% crops. Scanned on nikon CS V at 4000 dpi.

http://portablehole.net/~jano/tmp/IMG003.jpg
http://portablehole.net/~jano/tmp/crop.jpg

http://portablehole.net/~jano/tmp/Image5.jpg
http://portablehole.net/~jano/tmp/crop2.jpg

Appreciate your thoughts! :)
 
Hi Pedro,

Kodak 400TX in Xtol, I used 200ml Xtol and 200ml tap water into my patterson 2 reel thingy. 8.5 minutes at 23C/73F (I'm too lazy and impatient to bring temp down to 20, tap water temp here is 23). I didn't write down agitation.. but from what I remember, after pouring in the developer, I spun the thing clockwise one good turn, then counter-clockwise and covered it up. Then every minute for next few minutes I fliped the thing around twice, which took somewhere between 5-10 seconds. I was not exact with this part, that's all I can actually remember.

Then let it sit, used water to stop, and poured in some non-fragrant fixer for about 5 minutes, then washed it all up.

Hope that helps :)

Jano
 
Thanks ray.. so the grain is okay and the balance between sharpness and grain is good? I'm trying to learn the "eye" for this.
 
Hi Jano,

congratulations on your first "real" home developed negs. They look good to me too.

Don't worry too much, if you like the results, the negative is okay. It's pretty hard to tell whether or not a negative looks okay. It depends (e.g. if using a condensor enlarger you usually want softer, less contrasty, negs; while if you're using a diffusor enlarger, you typically want a bit more contrast). The negative is just a means to get a photograph. If it serves that purpose well, then it's a "good" negative. A negative is never good just in and by itself, this can only be determined in conjunction with the eventual photograph. So, don't worry, these pics look good, go out and shoot some more and enjoy developing at home!
 
Hi, Jano, those look just fine, a lot better than my own Tri-x/Xtol (Fomadon Excel) disaster. :eek:

Also, second what Dirk said re good negatives. If you can get the print and/or scan you want it's a good neg. One person's "punchy" neg is another's "way too hard" and vice versa. There's no other criterion worth considering.

Mark
 
Thank you Mark and another Dirk. :)

In poking around, I learned that the nikonscan software produces grainy b&w's. I just tested a scan of the same shots as positive and converted over in PS, and yes, I lost a lot of the grain. But.. I also seemed to have lost some of the "tones" I prefer in the original not to mention the added time. Ugh :)

Mark, what happened in your triX/Xtol?
 
Part A of my Fomadon Excel, a Czech Xtol clone, was a little cakey and did not dissolve very well needing filtering. It also had a little colour left after adding part B, the results were uninspiring and I moved on to 1:100 Rodinal and/or Ilford DD-X which I use for other emulsions. If I can find a print from the experimental couple of rolls I'll post something but have used my upload limit for today. I am now happy with my Tri-x results. Yours, however look just fine, keep doing what you're doing :)

I still have a pack of Excel left and may try again one day as it's reasonably priced and it's handy to have a powder around for emergencies. On the whole though, I prefer liquids for convenience.

Mark
 
Hah, see, goes to show you about quality of czech products :p (this coming from a slovak, hehehe).

I see your picture therer has a guitar.. you play any classical stuff? I'm learning a couple darling Choros by an viking composer now :)
 
It is very good really.
Grain is very nice and tight, tonality is excellent and very sharp and well composed.

jano said:
Thanks ray.. so the grain is okay and the balance between sharpness and grain is good? I'm trying to learn the "eye" for this.
Click to expand...
 
jano said:
Thank you Mark and another Dirk. :)

In poking around, I learned that the nikonscan software produces grainy b&w's. I just tested a scan of the same shots as positive and converted over in PS, and yes, I lost a lot of the grain. But.. I also seemed to have lost some of the "tones" I prefer in the original not to mention the added time. Ugh :)

__________________________________________________


After inverting in PS you will probably always want to 1) adjust contrast/brightness 2) sharpen using Unsharp Masking...I find a reliable setting is 3/3/60. Play with it, noticing especially what happens if one of the 3s becomes a 5 (look at the edge where dark joins light...for "oversharpening')
Click to expand...
 
Nice results! If you don't like the results from using BW mode on your scanner, try using color mode at 48 bit, this works well for many folks and often produces less grain.

Obviously your developing skills worked, I would hasten to write them down so you can repeat the process on the next roll. I often use the info at Digitaltruth.com and adjust as I see fit (about 10% less time).

Keep shooting!

Todd
 
Thanks djon, titrisol, and Todd. I had given vuescan a shot, but the interface is not to my taste at all. Although the nikonscan interface has much to be desired, it provides tools I'm familiar with from PS, unlike vuescan.

I had tried scanning the b&w's as positives in nikonscan, then created an inverse gradient map in PS with a slight curve to produce a decent, far less grainy result. However, sharpness and detail are lost (as per norm, I found this on the web everywhere). Oh, well :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom