Well I found the roll of 400 TX that I did this week was a bit higher in contrast than the 400 TMY from last week. I processed both in D76 for the recommended times, TX was 9.5 minutes at 70f, I forget the time for the TMY. Both exposed at 320. The histograms for the TX shots were all over the place. I had to play with the mid tone level often to get what I wanted.
Any ideas of how I may smooth these out a little? Is it just the difference between old school and T Grain films that I am seeing?
I am shooting my first roll of TX for Diafine today at 1200.
Question 2
How long do you hang your negatives for drying?
I have been processing in the evening, hanging over night, 10 to 12 hours and cutting the strip into 5s in the morning and sliding the negs into a sheet. I have Patterson clips, but am getting a little curl resulting in some newtonian rings (I thing that is what it is called when the negs touch the flat bed glass) on my scans. I am cutting the negs and laying them flat in the binder so I thought that would help.
Any suggestions?
Would a film scanner deal better with a slighty curled neg than a flat bed?
Thanks
Any ideas of how I may smooth these out a little? Is it just the difference between old school and T Grain films that I am seeing?
I am shooting my first roll of TX for Diafine today at 1200.
Question 2
How long do you hang your negatives for drying?
I have been processing in the evening, hanging over night, 10 to 12 hours and cutting the strip into 5s in the morning and sliding the negs into a sheet. I have Patterson clips, but am getting a little curl resulting in some newtonian rings (I thing that is what it is called when the negs touch the flat bed glass) on my scans. I am cutting the negs and laying them flat in the binder so I thought that would help.
Any suggestions?
Would a film scanner deal better with a slighty curled neg than a flat bed?
Thanks
Forgot the TX example...
S
Sean Reid
Guest
A good combination to try for Tri-X is to rate it at ISO 250 and develop for 8.5 mins in D76 1:1 at 68 degrees, rolling inversion agitation for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Consistent agitation is important. Are you using metal tanks? It's difficult to get consistent agitation out of those plastic paterson tanks.
Film drying: I always used to leave the strips hanging overnight.
Scanner: Yes, a film scanner would do better.
Cheers,
Sean
Film drying: I always used to leave the strips hanging overnight.
Scanner: Yes, a film scanner would do better.
Cheers,
Sean
FrankS
Registered User
Rover, the newer t-grain films are much more sensitive to development variables and are not as forgiving as the older B+W film types. The D76 developer is also aggressive and will give diff results with diff time/temp/agitation variations.
Please let us know about the Diafine developer results once you have them. Some of us in Canada are getting some too. (Thanks to Kin!) So you're not exposing your current film at the film box suggested iso like that one article on Diafine suggested to get good shadows and whites?
Please let us know about the Diafine developer results once you have them. Some of us in Canada are getting some too. (Thanks to Kin!) So you're not exposing your current film at the film box suggested iso like that one article on Diafine suggested to get good shadows and whites?
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
On Bright sunny days or when there are bright elements in the picture (windows) I will rate my Tri-x at 200, process for 8.5 min @ 68 deg. F. it seems to help control the highlights.
I hang my negatives for 2-3 hours before scanning then archiving, depends on the humidity, and I live in 98%.
Hang a clip from the bottom of your negs sometimes helps with curling, also sleeving them when dry and pressing the pages in a book helps to flatten them.
A film scanner would help with the Newton rings but if you can flatten the negs that would be the best bet anyway.
Do you meter with a handheld meter or in camera? A reflective meter probably would have adjusted for the highlights in the picture with the bright windows, just a thought!
Good Luck with the Diafine, everyone here has done really well with it, I haven't ussed any so post some examples!
Todd
I hang my negatives for 2-3 hours before scanning then archiving, depends on the humidity, and I live in 98%.
Hang a clip from the bottom of your negs sometimes helps with curling, also sleeving them when dry and pressing the pages in a book helps to flatten them.
A film scanner would help with the Newton rings but if you can flatten the negs that would be the best bet anyway.
Do you meter with a handheld meter or in camera? A reflective meter probably would have adjusted for the highlights in the picture with the bright windows, just a thought!
Good Luck with the Diafine, everyone here has done really well with it, I haven't ussed any so post some examples!
Todd
phototone
Well-known
Any suggestions?
Would a film scanner deal better with a slighty curled neg than a flat bed?
Thanks[/QUOTE]
A film scanner would eliminate the newton rings, however on most, if not all film scanners that use glassless negative carriers, the film curl will result in uneven sharpness of the grain across the face of the image. I have not found a good solution to this, as I do not have a glass carrier for any of my film scanners.
What I do, is to take the film down as soon as it is dry, cut it into strips and put into a page sleeve, and put it in a big book, and put a bunch of other big heavy books on top of it overnight. This helps to flatten the negatives out somewhat, and time will help also.
I have also taken to scanning twice, tweaking the scanner focus for center sharpness, and for edge sharpness, and combining in photoshop.
The old Time-Life Photography series of books are perfect size for slipping a page sleeve of 35mm negatives in for flattening.
Would a film scanner deal better with a slighty curled neg than a flat bed?
Thanks[/QUOTE]
A film scanner would eliminate the newton rings, however on most, if not all film scanners that use glassless negative carriers, the film curl will result in uneven sharpness of the grain across the face of the image. I have not found a good solution to this, as I do not have a glass carrier for any of my film scanners.
What I do, is to take the film down as soon as it is dry, cut it into strips and put into a page sleeve, and put it in a big book, and put a bunch of other big heavy books on top of it overnight. This helps to flatten the negatives out somewhat, and time will help also.
I have also taken to scanning twice, tweaking the scanner focus for center sharpness, and for edge sharpness, and combining in photoshop.
The old Time-Life Photography series of books are perfect size for slipping a page sleeve of 35mm negatives in for flattening.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
rover said:
I use a film dryer and can go from wash to scanning in about 30 minutes—if I'm really antsy. I watch the drying process carefully, switching the heat on and off to reduce the curl. Nevertheless, I've accidentally curled some film pretty good, but nothing that a good cool down hasn't been able to rectify. I also cut and sleeve as soon as the film is dry. I also frequently scan as soon as the film is dry. I use a flat bed scanner (Epson 4180) and the only time I've ever had Newton rings is when the negs weren't completely dry, and that was during my "hang dry in the bathroom" period.
FrankS said:
I should have my Diafine Tuesday so I will report in during the week. From what I read 1250 is a good speed for 400TX in Diafine. I needed the speed today, another 3 inches of rain falling, so I figured 1250 is a good place to start. Pretty even lighting too, so not too many deep shadows to worry about.
Sean Reid said:
I am using Patterson tanks. I have been aggitating for the first 30 seconds and then for 5 seconds every 30. I have been using the little handle thingy, not inverting if that makes a difference.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
It does make a difference. I used to teach photography at facilities that had both these types of tanks. You can use that cap on the Patterson for invert-and-rotate agitation but it's a pretty sloshy affair because the developer of course comes up into that large funnel area and then must slosh back into the deep hold of the tank. You'll get better and more consistent results using an ordinary metal tank with a plastic top. Do you know how to do the invert and rotate agitation?
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Sean Reid said:
Why of course not. I would love to know though.
Thanks Sean for the advise.
FrankS
Registered User
I just use the twirly thingy.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I use the Paterson tanks, but with the plastic top and inversion agitation. (I was told that the little plastic rod is just for giving the reels an initial spin to dislodge air bells, but I do this by whacking the base of the tank instead.)
The style of agitation you use seems to make a big difference with these tanks, and the way I do it is different from what most people use (although it's what Kodak now recommends, IIRC.) What you do is hold the tank out at arm's length, with your arm straight, and then twist your arm very sharply to invert it, then untwist sharply to bring it right side up again. Do this either three times or five times in a five-second period, depending on what's recommended for the film.
The key is that you do it sharply. Most people agitate the tank more gently, and with a plastic tank this causes uneven development because the developer trickles across the film at different rates. (The problem isn't actually the tank, but the reels; plastic reels are thicker and offer more obstruction to the developer flow than stainless-steel reels.) By agitating sharply, you cause all the developer to move at once.
This technique does whip more air into the developer, so it's important to do the tank-rapping routine after every agitation to dislodge any air bubbles that might want to settle on the film.
I know it sounds weird, but since changing to this agitation technique several years ago I've always gotten perfect results when using the plastic tanks and reels.
(You can't really do it with anything bigger than about a three-roll tank, though. Back when I used to shoot larger batches, I'd occasionally need to use a five-roll tank body via continuous agitation on one of those electric 'tank rollers' made for color print processing tubes. By running a five-roll tank on the roller and handing a three-roll tank by inversion agitation, I could process batches of eight rolls at a time. I felt like a one-armed paperhanger, though!)
The style of agitation you use seems to make a big difference with these tanks, and the way I do it is different from what most people use (although it's what Kodak now recommends, IIRC.) What you do is hold the tank out at arm's length, with your arm straight, and then twist your arm very sharply to invert it, then untwist sharply to bring it right side up again. Do this either three times or five times in a five-second period, depending on what's recommended for the film.
The key is that you do it sharply. Most people agitate the tank more gently, and with a plastic tank this causes uneven development because the developer trickles across the film at different rates. (The problem isn't actually the tank, but the reels; plastic reels are thicker and offer more obstruction to the developer flow than stainless-steel reels.) By agitating sharply, you cause all the developer to move at once.
This technique does whip more air into the developer, so it's important to do the tank-rapping routine after every agitation to dislodge any air bubbles that might want to settle on the film.
I know it sounds weird, but since changing to this agitation technique several years ago I've always gotten perfect results when using the plastic tanks and reels.
(You can't really do it with anything bigger than about a three-roll tank, though. Back when I used to shoot larger batches, I'd occasionally need to use a five-roll tank body via continuous agitation on one of those electric 'tank rollers' made for color print processing tubes. By running a five-roll tank on the roller and handing a three-roll tank by inversion agitation, I could process batches of eight rolls at a time. I felt like a one-armed paperhanger, though!)