Trio of J-12 Photos

[Stephanie Brim]

Oh yeah - if you do want to show the differences on the web, I think what you need to do is:

1 - 100% crops from multiple locations on each negative, both smooth tones and areas of high detail
2 - some method of examining shadow detail differences between the combinations.

allan

Yep, that would be the way.

It may be interesting to see what kind of small differences I get with each developer. I'm also thinking of cutting the negative in three pieces and doing some of it in D76 stock...I haven't used D76 stock since I first started developing.

 

[kaiyen]

Cutting the _negative_ or the roll? So you'd take a single roll and cut it into 4 parts - Rodinal 1+50, 1+100, D76 1+0 and D76 1+1?

I think that would be an excellent test, though I would recommend shooting 2 whole rolls and splitting them in two. You should also consider shooting at different EIs to figure that out.

The grain difference between D76 1+0 and Rodinal 1+50 should be quite dramatic. The change in sharpness should be, as well.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I figure shooting at metered speed and then + and - 1 would be interesting...and I also agree about shooting two rolls, now that I think about it.

Finally, an experiment that people are encouraging me to do. 😉

 

[kaiyen]

Hm. It's always worthwhile doing complete testing, but going +1 and -1 from box speed would be both pretty big jumps and not that useful. I don't know if you can expose this discretely but...ideally, you'd want to expose at about 400, 320, 250 and 200. Going past 400 might be useful, but the films are unlikely to gain any speed at all in those developers.

And, FWIW, I am all in favor or testing and doing experiments. However, it is important to have some logic to them. I think you got a very sound approach on this one.

allan

 

[tetrisattack]

You know, when I process my tri-x at 1:50, I often find that I don't have enough solution in my tank to give me any proper density. Can I ask: when you do your tri-x at 1:100, how many ml's of solution are you using, total?

When I do 400TX in rollfilm, and I use 400ml of Rodinal 1:50, the negatives have crummy contrast and, while they scan well, they're bastards to print. I only get usable results at grades 3 1/2 and higher. :/

 

[kaiyen]

Conor,
So you have 8ml of Rodinal for a roll of film? That's _more_ than enough, unless you're shooting into the sun and want solid density all around.

I get by just fine at about 5-6ml of developer per 35mm roll-equivalent. I try to get closer to the 10ml that Agfa recommends, but I often cannot. Are you sure it's not just because of insufficient soup time? Have you tried leaving it in there for longer? Is there really no density change?

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm using 500ml of Rodinal 1:100. Most common advice is to use 3ml per roll. I use 5 as a minimum. I plan on eventually printing the reflection negative on all counts, at least at 5x7...so we'll see how they print as well.

(Note: I've started on book 2 of the Ansel Adams Photography Series...excellent advice. Hoping to get to book three and put it into practice with my contact prints from the 5x7 before I get my enlarger.)

 

[kaiyen]

Well, Agfa recommends 10ml per 35mm-roll-equivalent, actually. But you're right that most people don't get all that close to that. I've even heard that it's all a marketing ploy from Agfa to get us to buy more Rodinal.

Are you finding the Adams' books that useful all at once like this? I have read the Negative like 3 times, and it's only really hit home at various stages as I've progressed as a photographer and, in a way, a technician. One word of caution - don't get too caught up in it. The stuff in the books are merely tools for getting what you want. They are not the only tools, or the only way to get there.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Yeah, I know. I think one of the most useful things in the books when I'm just starting out is his printing test method. Making a few test exposures before I expose the final print *should* knock down the ratio of bad to good prints for me...hopefully. Doing the same thing with film (roughly) has sure helped the ratio of badly exposed to well exposed shots. 🙂

Oh, and if you're wondering...I skimmed them all before starting on the second book...that's how I know about that printing method. 😉

 

[tetrisattack]

Stephanie, ignore me, I'm not hijacking your thread, I swear. 🙂

Allan,

In the past couple weeks I've shot a ton of film for my documentary class, and it's really shaking out a lot of technical problems with my usual workflow. My negs are thin, and I'm trying to determine why.

10ml per 35mm roll equiv - that's an interesting number, and sort of in line with what I've suspected. 8ml for a roll of 120 really might not be enough chemistry to fully develop it, and that would explain why everything looks great when I change things up and use 1:25, but familiarly anemic at 1:50.

The other thing that I'm starting to suspect is that I'm not agitating as violently or as frequently as I ought to be. 5 or 6 gentle inversions every minute makes for perfectly scannable negatives, but now that I'm wet-printing the majority of my work for class, I'm finding that my stuff's out of whack, with insufficient shadow detail and wimpy highlight separation.

So anyway, thanks for the food for thought. 🙂

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Stephanie, ignore me, I'm not hijacking your thread, I swear. 🙂

Allan,

In the past couple weeks I've shot a ton of film for my documentary class, and it's really shaking out a lot of technical problems with my usual workflow. My negs are thin, and I'm trying to determine why.

10ml per 35mm roll equiv - that's an interesting number, and sort of in line with what I've suspected. 8ml for a roll of 120 really might not be enough chemistry to fully develop it, and that would explain why everything looks great when I change things up and use 1:25, but familiarly anemic at 1:50.

The other thing that I'm starting to suspect is that I'm not agitating as violently or as frequently as I ought to be. 5 or 6 gentle inversions every minute makes for perfectly scannable negatives, but now that I'm wet-printing the majority of my work for class, I'm finding that my stuff's out of whack, with insufficient shadow detail and wimpy highlight separation.

So anyway, thanks for the food for thought. 🙂

My process is as follows for Tri-X in Rodinal 1:100.

20 minutes with three inversions every other minute (yes, that's minimal agitation...kinda). Water stop (fill the tank and agitate for thirty seconds twice). Fixer for 6 minutes. Water rinse for 5 minutes with continuous agitation. PhotoFlo for 30 seconds. Water rinse with distilled water (fill the tank twice, agitate for 30 seconds each time). I then hang to dry.

When I do this, negatives like I have here come out: good contrast, even development.

Also, note that this is for 35mm.

I agree that 8ml may not be enough chemistry, but it *should* be. Considering the results I'm getting with 5ml per 35mm roll, though, you may want to try 10 for 120 and see how that comes out.

 

[HansDerHase]

Of the three (all of which appear properly exposed and developed) only the first has any appeal to me but none of them reach out and grab me. If you don't get all huffy on me I'll tell you why.

...BLAHBLAH left out...

I would suggest looking at lots of books on art with copies of the masters as well as the masters of photography. I think you will find that those images which "grab" the eye are the ones where the artist took care to guide his viewers through their journey through the image. It is rarely done by accident.

Stephanie, I wouldn't care to much about S-Curves in composition, care about them in the digital darkroom 😎.

Actually the first of your pics is very appealling to me. It doesn't reach out an grab me; but I have seen very view that actually did. It's nontheless very much more appealing to me than the weather-pics I see at West Views. But maybe I'm not visually literate enough 😀.

I second the suggestion to look at many good photographs though. The Day in Photos at Camera Works is always a source of inspiration to me. Also check out the "geometry" in HCBs pictures. If you are more into static landscapes with hour-long composition while waiting for the right light, check out Reichmanns The Luminous Landscape. Has some nice street-photos too. And remember, that photography is about seeing and feeling, not about thinking.

 

[gbb]

Conor,

It sounds like an exposure problem. Rodinal is known for losing about a stop of speed, so try exposing at 200, or try a different developer. Agitation won't affect speed much, as will exposure and a truer to speed developer. It may also just be your metering. You might try spot-metering a scenes shadows and shooting at different EI to see what you're actually getting from your equipment/chemicals/film combination. Good luck,

GBB

 

[kaiyen]

Conor,
GBB's questions are the key ones.

-how are you metering?
-what EI are you using?

If one thing you're losing is _shadow_ detail, it's not the amount of developer that is the issue. At even 3ml of Rodinal (which was what Agfa _used_ to say was the minimum) you should still have enough in there to give you whatever shadow detail you got via exposure.

The highlight separation issue is weird. I apologize for asking this but...you are increasing dev time from 1+25 to 1+50, right? What are your dev times? Getting sufficient highlight separation should not be an issue _unless_ you exhaust the developer. Are you shooting _at_ the sun or in really, really bright situations? I guess if there is enough exposure you could exhaust even 5-6ml per developer, but I have _never_ done that.

I souped 2 rolls of 120 at a time in 600ml of 1+50. So that's 6ml per roll, and no problems. And those were contrasty rolls.

Hm.
allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I was going to mention the exposure thing as well...but I wanted someone else to say it first so I didn't sound like a dumbarse if no one else thought that would be it. I agree with both people here that it very well does sound like an exposure issue.

Judging from how I've shot (directly into bright sun, no less) 5ml per roll seems more than enough for 35mm. I would go 8 for 120 if I could....and most likely will. Means I'll need a bigger tank if I plan to do 120 film 1:100...blah.

 

[kaiyen]

Wait - why would you use more developer per roll for 120 than 35mm? It's the same amount of film between the two. If it's enough for one, it's enough for the other.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

It takes more solution, not more developer, to do 120 film. One roll of 135 takes 400ml of solution to develop in my tanks, so I use 500 to make it easy to mix the Rodinal. One roll of 120 takes 600ml of water to develop, so I'd use 750ml of water because, once again, it's easy to mix the Rodinal. I use a medicine cup that came with a bottle of NyQuil...I haven't been able to get an eye dropper yet.

So it isn't that I use more, it just takes more of the finished solution.

 

[kaiyen]

Well, what you said is that you're going to go for 8ml for the roll of 120 if you can. My point is that if 5ml is enough for 35mm, it's enough for a roll of 120. If you happen to get 8ml for the roll because you need more total solution, then fine. But you don't need more than the 5ml that you needed for 35mm.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Well yeah...I wasn't quite clear enough in that.

 

[kvanderlaag]

Great, thanks a lot! Now I want a J-12, Steph! =P

I really like the grain on those, too. The Rodinal does the Tri-X very well! The pictures are marvellously sharp, too, so kudos to the lens, but they're also excellently composed. Nice matter of choice, too. I'm a big fan!

Cheers