TXT EI Test in Rodinal, !+100, 3.5 Hour Stand

[kaiyen]

Hi all,
As many of you all saw in this thread, a long discussion occurred about actual film speed of TXT in stand development. Specifically, 4 hours at 1:100. I will not comment on the claim that "12500" EI was achieved (really 12800, I presume) other than what I have already stated in that thread.

Also, before reading farther down, please understand that I fully support anyone just shooting and being happy with whatever they get, however they got it. If you're happy with it, then that's what matters. If you ask about EI, then I can talk your ear off. But the bottom line is that you're happy with your results.

I conducted my own test this weekend. I apologize that the most I can give you right now is just my words. I don't have time to scan, and my work/class schedule is very heavy until Friday. That's just how things are. But..

-Development time was 3.5 hours (I just ran out of time, and the super bowl was way too exciting to keep paused on my tivo), fresh bottle of rodinal, 1+100, at 20C. 60s initial agitation, then literally just sat there.

-I set up a shot with a sweater and 2 towels on step ladder, roughly filling the frame.

-The sweater and darker towel were in the shade. The darker towel was exactly 2 stops darker in reflective value, using a spot meter, than the sweater. The other towel, in the sun, was exactly _3_ stops brighter. This represents zones III, V, and VIII.

-The importance of the zones is that III should be detailed shadow. The towel should show up as a clear, detailed shadow. Not a "suggestion of detail," but real detail. Texture, etc. V is middle grey. VIII is traditionally just a "hint of highlight detail." This is usually pulled back down towards VII, or detailed highlight, by a reduction in development time.

-III allowed me to test for EI. Question: At what point does the dark towel disappear into the film base? That point is well past III, of course, but it's easy to look for.

-VIII let me see if stand development really can pull a bright area down into a printable/scannable range all by itself.

Onto the next post...

 

[kaiyen]

First: Speed

First: Speed

This is by eyeball on a light box, with a loupe. I don't have a densitometer. If I did, I would have just used a grey card and done the whole basefog thing and .1 density.

Anyway. Just by eyeball, the III is all but gone at 1250. I can be convinced there is some difference between it and the film base. At 1600 is _gone_ gone. Nothing there but film base.

This means, of course, that "detailed" shadow is well before 1600. I'd be willing to concede 800-1000 as the EI of TXT in this development method.

 

[kaiyen]

Next: Preserving highlights

Next: Preserving highlights

There is no question here - in every shot, even at EI _200_, the VIII towel is brought easily into a printable density. I mean, it's dense at EI 200, but it's not solid, and it's fairly well-controlled.

Conclusion: stand development can definitely do N-1 all by itself. But I don't think that's a shocker. I should've thrown something in there that was IX or higher and see just how much contrast this method could control. Night time, after all, is way more than 6 stops from shadow to highlight.

 

[kaiyen]

Last step...the scans

Last step...the scans

I'll do these hopefully a bit tonight, but I might not have them done until the end of the week. I also shot a mix of some household objects of different tones, so you can see how the different speeds affect tonality.

However, scans are relative. You cannot use a scanner as an absolute densitometer. I can tweak out more shadow detail from the EI 1000 frame than is "really" there using a particular method. Or I can get more highlight and claim that I can probably do an N-2 or even N-3 no problem with this method. Just all settings, even if I lock them in - the starting point is still relative.

But I'll put up the scans anyway, don't worry.

 

[dpetrzelka]

We'll be interested to see your test results.

Just for clarification-, especially concerning the post referenced: EI is the Exposure Index, which is assigned by the photographer when shooting, and indicates a deviation from the film's ISO. ISO is the ideal film speed as indicated by the manufacturer, which is assigned after standardized testing. It was clearly stated in the previous thread that TXT @ 12500 EI, had far less latitude than TXT @ 400 ISO. No claim was made that stand development in Rodinal produced a true ISO of 12500.

 

[dpetrzelka]

Kaiyen- it is wonderful that you are sharing your film speed tests. It is great knowledge to share with everyone.

I just wanted to make sure everyone was using similar definitions for film speed, as there was an apparent language barrier in the previous post, and that post was referenced as that catalyst for this test.

Sitemistic - I agree with you that it was surprising to see such usable images at 12500 EI - very exciting if metered correctly.

My own experience, albeit with Xtol and incident metering, has shown Tri-X to still be usable for scans at about 1250 EI - the same as you and kaiyen.

 

[kaiyen]

dpetrzelka,
Actually, "ISO 12500" was used in the thread. It's likely just loose terminology, I know, but that was used. And it can be confusing if you read that thread, as it seems to say that ISO 12500 was "achieved."

Yes, EI is whatever one sets the dial to. It can be as fantastic a number as one wants, based on as little or as much logic as one wishes. ISO is set under strict standards that I could never achieve at home.

And I define film speed as that which produces a detailed shadow area. An area that is in shadow, 2 stops below middle grey, and with clearly defined detail. Not as bright as middle grey, but undeniably detailed. The last EI at which that can be attained is minimum required density, and that's the film speed for _me_.

And sitemistic, under a strict definition, it was EI 12500...it's just that the results we saw were not indicative, in our opinion (yours and mine, from the way the thread went), that the actual speed attained matched up with the EI chosen on the ISO dial.

You and I are saying that the results we saw did not indicate a speed of 12500. And I agree that, at the least, one can set the ISO dial wherever one wants and without careful metering the _meaning_ of the results can be all over the place.

allan

 

[Bryce]

Hey, I tried this a while back and got very similar results...
I "only" developed for 1 hour though, and agitated gently once per 5 minutes. My methods were a bit less well controlled I gather, though I did use a standard test scene and a reliable meter.
I figured you could JUST print "3200" negs, with no shadow detail to speak of. Nothing much past 800 was printable in the normal sense.
I ran the same tests with HP5+ and found the results very very similar.

 

[kaiyen]

Bryce,
I'm actually surprised you'd find similar results with HP5. I've always found that it blocks up in the shadows must faster than TXT. But perhaps 800 is right. I would've thought less but I have never tested it.

allan

 

[titrisol]

With Rodinal 1+100 stand 2 or 3h make little difference. I used to develop like this (but 1+200) during march-madness so 2h per film except for overtime games 😉

I always liked this technique for my guesstimate exposures in old cameras, shooting APX100, FP4 or EFKE/Adox100 and developing like this the contrast was kept in check and got lots of printable stuff.
It works for many other films of course, as you have found out.
I'm guessing htat for TriX or HP5 the 1+100 will be the limit while for the slower films 1+200 worked fine.

 

[ed1k]

Allan,
Thank you very much for the test. Looking forward to see some scans, it would be interesting to see some grain and bromide drag 🙂 As well as I'm very interested to see how stand dev worked on lowering contrast.
Yeah, no miracle. Thanks again,
Eduard

 

[40oz]

OK, in my mind there are more than a few misconceptions on this topic, and more than a few ways to look at pushing film.

I often expose at a setting that would render the scene "properly exposed" were I using a film with an ISO of 1600. If someone asks, I would say it was shot at 1600 EI. If I am shooting Tri-x at the time, I would develop it for a time I've found gives good results in D-76 1+1 (pretty close to Kodak times for a two-stop push).

I don't use an "ISO dial" on my cameras because most of my cameras don't have a meter. I don't use a meter except as a sanity check, and often not in the same time and location as the shots. I shoot based on my experience shooting and developing. The goal is to get the image I want, not capturing 8 or 11 stops. I don't much care if the film can't handle the top or bottom 3 zones in the shot, as long as the image I want gets on the film. If what I want fits into the range the film can handle given the development, I'm happy. I don't even particularly care to put the important part of the image in middle gray - I might try to do so when dealing with the limited range of pushed film, but when not pushing, I can feel free to place things wherever I want them to get the look I want in the final image.

I make no claims about detail in what some might call "Zone 3" according to their spot meter and pile of Zone system books. I actually look at the shadow areas on the negative to determine if I have "shadow detail." What a meter might say about a towel is irrelevant. Pushing film reduces the range of the film, so you certainly won't get the same number of "Zones."

If Ansel Adams et al had been shooting film that captured 22 stops, there would be 22 zones. If they had been writing about how to push film rather than how to capture as wide a range of stops as possible, they would have written about 5 or 3 zones. The zone system is useful, but it's not limited to shooting at some ideal ISO setting. Being aware of the concepts involved in the system can let you creatively explore the limitation of film, and it lets you capture images in circumstances that would shatter most people's confidence. I just don't get why people let Zone system thinking tie their hands when it comes to taking pictures.

For crying out loud, if you don't just know what shutter speed and aperture a white towel will require in your own living room without resorting to spot metering, what have you been doing with all the testing and metering and +N and -N rigamarole? And more importantly, why have you been doing it? What's the goal, if it isn't to take better pictures when they present themselves?

I use a term like "EI" simply to convey the exposure and development without having to list every detail every time. It is in no way some kind of claim of magic or whatever. I also mention the film and the push so people know what I've been doing. Pushed shots can still have a range of tones on the negative and on the print. The range as measured by a spot meter at the scene is just compressed compared to not pushing.

If one tries, one can easily take a picture with a full range of tones on the negative despite any push. It's in the lighting, not in the film and development. According to your spot meter and Zone system books, it's not a "full range," but according to the negative, which is the only authority in this realm, it most certainly is.

 

[charjohncarter]

Allan, very much thanks for your work. I, with all the rest, will wait for your scans. I still don't really understand the reason to push film, except for night photos. I guess that is the only reason, but I see many that could be done, just plain normally. Maybe, I'm too old, I don't go out at night to photograph.

 

[40oz]

"If one tries, one can easily take a picture with a full range of tones on the negative despite any push."

That's a nonsense statement. I can't find any other way to describe it.

define "full range."

Look, I know what you are saying. But when I push a film, I know I am not getting the same kind of image as shooting a film at a more ideal exposure and development. Sometimes I do it for effect, sometimes because I haven't got a film that will capture the scene without pushing. I use a different standard for pushing than for not, that's all.

I just don't see any reason to limit myself to shooting film at what might be ideal when I want to capture scenes that wouldn't be possible otherwise.