John Bragg
Well-known
Sorry Kaiyen.
Not a personal thing, believe me.. simply stating that different is not nescessarily wrong.. Apologies if it sounded that way..
Regards, John.
Not a personal thing, believe me.. simply stating that different is not nescessarily wrong.. Apologies if it sounded that way..
Regards, John.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
No offense taken, just a realization. Everyone has their own experiences. I just share my own experiences, which is often done with a decent amount of testing involved. We find a starting point. Decide if we are happy or not with the results, and modify. Perhaps some can help steer in the right direction. Perhaps we can't.
eh. it's just an online forum. I'll just out and shoot for a while, I guess.
allan
eh. it's just an online forum. I'll just out and shoot for a while, I guess.
allan
jfserejo
Established
Hi allan, as I said I'm developing my own film for a very short time (about a year) and I don't have experience to talk about technical issues, but the other day I step with this thread:
http://www.apug.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3985&d=1138509704
and this was the main reason to try rodinal.
Perhaps I should described my approach to contrast better - I was comparing to the developer I used before, and not the dilution of rodinal.
What I can say is that I love the contrast that I'm getting, plus I am also getting really sharp edges and a grain that is pleasing.
About overexposing the film, i think it was here at RFF that the other day someone mentioned that with rodinal overexposure or overdevelop would be the main reason for showing out the grain. I think this was mentioned referring to the highlights in a shot and not specially about the film speed... maybe this is wrong, I don't know!
I'm totally agree with you and I thank you your comments. This way I can read again about the subject and see what I misunderstood.
My best regards,
Joao
http://www.apug.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3985&d=1138509704
and this was the main reason to try rodinal.
Perhaps I should described my approach to contrast better - I was comparing to the developer I used before, and not the dilution of rodinal.
What I can say is that I love the contrast that I'm getting, plus I am also getting really sharp edges and a grain that is pleasing.
About overexposing the film, i think it was here at RFF that the other day someone mentioned that with rodinal overexposure or overdevelop would be the main reason for showing out the grain. I think this was mentioned referring to the highlights in a shot and not specially about the film speed... maybe this is wrong, I don't know!
kaiyen said:
I'm totally agree with you and I thank you your comments. This way I can read again about the subject and see what I misunderstood.
My best regards,
Joao
jfserejo
Established
@thomasw_, In these shots what I did was pre-soak for 1 min. and give the "normal" first 30s agitation. then did one gentle inversion at 15 mni. and other at 35 min.
like2fiddle
Curious
thomasw_ said:trix 400 + rodinal 13mins has tones that quickly fade to black....i love that look, too.
i am curious how others agitate the combo, though?
For Rodinal, 1:25 or 1:50, I agitate for first 30 seconds, then 10 seconds per minute.
fbf
Well-known
Anyone know where to find new 135 Trix 400 in states? I tried many places and no luck.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Joao,
That link to apug was to an image but if I remember that's from the semi-stand testing thread, right? Heh. I read online forums too much.
Grain will increase with overexposure and overdevelopment, however...first, grain is determined by the film itself. That's like 99% of it. Then overexposure and overdevelopment can add to that.
BUT - "over" exposure is relative. If I find that I am not getting proper speed/shadow detail (same thing) at 400, then exposing at 400 is not the proper exposure. So I find that I need 320 with Rodinal. _That_ is the correct EI for TXT for me in Rodinal. If I were to expose at 250 or 200, _then_ it's overexposure. Shooting at 400 would be 1/3 stop _under_ exposure, which increases contrast due to lost shadow detail.
Does that make sense? Box speed is not the same as actual film speed.
fbf - has yet another version of TXT come out? It's been the same for...2+ years now?
allan
That link to apug was to an image but if I remember that's from the semi-stand testing thread, right? Heh. I read online forums too much.
Grain will increase with overexposure and overdevelopment, however...first, grain is determined by the film itself. That's like 99% of it. Then overexposure and overdevelopment can add to that.
BUT - "over" exposure is relative. If I find that I am not getting proper speed/shadow detail (same thing) at 400, then exposing at 400 is not the proper exposure. So I find that I need 320 with Rodinal. _That_ is the correct EI for TXT for me in Rodinal. If I were to expose at 250 or 200, _then_ it's overexposure. Shooting at 400 would be 1/3 stop _under_ exposure, which increases contrast due to lost shadow detail.
Does that make sense? Box speed is not the same as actual film speed.
fbf - has yet another version of TXT come out? It's been the same for...2+ years now?
allan
jfserejo
Established
Yes Allan, that was exactly the discussion I was referring. The link is this one:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/24023-semi-stand-description-illustratvie-photo.html
Sorry! I put the image of the 'Manhattan Bridge' instead of the thread itself.
That makes absolute sense Allan. And it's not easy to put things that simple!
I will try rating Tri-X at 320.
Meanwhile I scanned another film and I feel very happy with the image results.
Like John said, it is very personal the results / satisfaction relation. But, even so, I do believe that are major elements that aren't subjective, that bring a sense of structure and an aesthetics boundary to the art of photography... Well i think I'm drifting a little !
My best regards,
Joao
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/24023-semi-stand-description-illustratvie-photo.html
Sorry! I put the image of the 'Manhattan Bridge' instead of the thread itself.
That makes absolute sense Allan. And it's not easy to put things that simple!
I will try rating Tri-X at 320.Meanwhile I scanned another film and I feel very happy with the image results.
Like John said, it is very personal the results / satisfaction relation. But, even so, I do believe that are major elements that aren't subjective, that bring a sense of structure and an aesthetics boundary to the art of photography... Well i think I'm drifting a little
!My best regards,
Joao
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
fbf: I think maybe you are referring to the new T-Max 400, not new Tri-X. AFAIK, the Tri-X emulsion has not been changed recently. The new T-Max is not widely shipping yet. I'll call Kodak tomorrow and see what the status is.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
FWIW, there are as many ways to process in Rodinal as there are photographers on the planet, I suppose. Partially it depends on what kind of "look" you are seeking. In general terms, however, grain and acutance are "improved" at lower dilutions, less wet time and less agitation.
I rate Tri-X @ 250 and process in Rodinal 1:100, 20 minutes, 30 sec initial agitation and 3 gentle inversions every 3 minutes thereafter. This gives me negatives I really like in all but low contrast situations. Plus, the time is the same for APX 100, so that is a real convenience.
I am gradually switching to the Rodinal/X-Tol combination, however.
I rate Tri-X @ 250 and process in Rodinal 1:100, 20 minutes, 30 sec initial agitation and 3 gentle inversions every 3 minutes thereafter. This gives me negatives I really like in all but low contrast situations. Plus, the time is the same for APX 100, so that is a real convenience.
I am gradually switching to the Rodinal/X-Tol combination, however.