Topic: Negative question : what's going on here?

[Nigel]

I developed this roll off Tri-x in Rodinal as always and I have this 'mottling' effect in the blacks. Do you know what's going on?  I think this is on the negative rather than an effect of the scanning. The cropped section is at 100%.

I've been thinking for a while of trying something other than Rodinal, still with Tri-X. I'm looking for another liquid one-shot, for convenience sake, and I know Aculux is well thought of in these parts, does anyone else use this combination? Or can you recommend another?

[gothamtomato]

Was there a jump in temperture (between the chemicals and the water)?

[Nigel]

No I don't think so. If there was no more than a couple of degrees. Would that cause that sort of effect?

[LT]

this isn't reticulation I don't think - that has a definite pattern to it, and it's really hard to get modern films to reticulate.

Are the negs quite thin Nigel?

[Nigel]

Hi Leon - no they're not at all. If anything they might be a smidgen on the dark side.

[LT]

how about the shadow areas? Are they quite thin or full of detail?

The reason I ask is that scanned negs can tend to show quite a lot of noise in thin areas, and what you show definitely looks like some kind of digital artefact rather than a physical property of the film.

Are you able to make silver prints of these?  If not, feel free to send me a neg and I'll have a look.

[Francois]

Are you scanning with Digital ICE on?
If so, turn it off for all B&W negatives (except the chromogenic types). Also, I turn off the sharpening.

[Mojave]

Nigel, I have no idea what is going on with the negative but thought I would suggest HC110 as your developer. I use it with Tri-x and like it a lot. But feel free to completely ignore this advice if you've already tried and dont like it. 

[Nigel]

Leon - looking at it again I think you're right, they are a bit thin in the dark areas. I will take you up on your offer though, thank you. I'll put them in the post, I'm sure I have your address somewhere from the postcard exchange. It'll be good to know for sure.

Francois - No Digital Ice, I did have sharpening on. I'll try it without.

Mojave - I appreciate the suggestion, I've never tried HC110, although I thought I might. Maybe I'll but that one up the list.

Thanks all.

[Francois]

HC110 is very nice. I think it was made for tri-X...
It's a fast developer... my average times are 5½ minutes for 400 films. You can also use it for push processing quite easily. Only thing is don't follow the Kodak directions exactly. I use a big turkey butter injection syringe to measure out the concentrate for each film instead of doing their stock dilution thing. Dilution B comes down to a 1:31 ratio. Cheap. Keeps forever.

[Mojave]

Yeah, I always use solution B too, though I did have to use a different solution for an odd film I had once. Cant remember the brand now.

[astrobeck]

It looks like scanner noise to me.

This is kinda far out, but have you tried scanning it in another row of the negative carrier?
When I scan negs in the upper row, (the row nearest the hinge edge of the scanner) I have noticed I get more artifacts and noise there. I have no idea why this happens, and it will most likely remain a mystery.

It might help and it might be in vain, but it will only take a few minutes to see if it helps at all.

[choppert]

I use HC-110 because it lasts for ages, is very cheap and quite environmentally friendly (especially when used for stand developing).

Dunno whether it's the best or worst it's just damn convenient!

Buy the 1 litre bottle and it will last for ages (Ag Photographic or by ordering from your local Calumet).

If not stand developing (which I don't do so much now) I use dilution H.  Half the amount of dev and twice the development time.

7.5ml in 500ml of water - job done! 

[Nigel]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I took up Leon's kind offer and posted the negs to him.

His response was "On first impressions - They could definitely do with a bit more exposure, probably about 2/3 or 1 stop more - so if the XA lets you, try to set the iso a bit slower. Or alternatively, use a developer that gives you more film speed.

They also look a bit over developed - the highlights (blacks on the negs) look quite dense.

So the scanner is having to cope with eking out as much detail from both virtually clear shadows and seemingly bullet proof highlights - no wonder something is having to give.  I suspect that explains the noise."

So I cocked up basically! I'm joking, it's really interesting to get a second opinion. I'm hoping to follow it up by buying Leon a pint and getting the diagnosis man-to-man.

I've got a meeting in London on Wednesday, so I'm going to pop into Silverprint (I've never been before) and pick up some HC110.

Thanks for all the advice.

[Terry]

What Leon says makes sense to me.  Electronic imaging devices have always been plagued by a lack of latitude.  It's still true: digitizing the information didn't fix it (GIGO).  When you're shooting motion, latitude is hugely important because you can't alter the exposure time (frame rate)--your only exposure tool is f-stops.  Kodak's new 5219 motion picture stock gives a useable range of a dozen stops or more from deep shadow to highlight--most imaging chips will give you six or so.  Where current practice fails and the image really begins to lose quality is in the digital intermediate stage.  Why the movie industry likes DI is that it allows the introduction of CGI effects and some artifact correction but mostly it introduces the possibility of radically cheaper distribution and copying. 

So I'm going to guess that if you enlarged and printed this neg in the traditional way it would work fine.  The problem is, as Leon thinks, in the weak link of the chain: the point at which the analog/photographic image is converted to electronic/digital.

[Francois]

What Leon says makes sense to me.  Electronic imaging devices have always been plagued by a lack of latitude.  It's still true: digitizing the information didn't fix it (GIGO).  When you're shooting motion, latitude is hugely important because you can't alter the exposure time (frame rate)--your only exposure tool is f-stops.  Kodak's new 5219 motion picture stock gives a useable range of a dozen stops or more from deep shadow to highlight--most imaging chips will give you six or so.  Where current practice fails and the image really begins to lose quality is in the digital intermediate stage.  Why the movie industry likes DI is that it allows the introduction of CGI effects and some artifact correction but mostly it introduces the possibility of radically cheaper distribution and copying. 

So I'm going to guess that if you enlarged and printed this neg in the traditional way it would work fine.  The problem is, as Leon thinks, in the weak link of the chain: the point at which the analog/photographic image is converted to electronic/digital.

Just to break your heart a little Terry, the Technicolor Lab in Mirabel (Quebec) closed down last week... I know, sad thing...

[Terry]

I heard rumours that was going to happen.  It's sad when we lose real assets like that.  On the positive side, I was dropping off some film at Deluxe in New York last week and saw that they have eight feature productions on the board in the film lab.  Phil, the lab manager, said they were swamped with work.  I'm not giving up yet!!

[Ed Wenn]

Francois: Several months ago you used the words "mom" and "nipple clamp" in the same sentence. Now you hit us with "big turkey butter injection syringe".....should I be concerned?
 

Nigel: I have no idea what they're all talking about, but I'm sure they're right.

Yes, I'm drunk.

[Francois]

Francois: Several months ago you used the words "mom" and "nipple clamp" in the same sentence. Now you hit us with "big turkey butter injection syringe".....should I be concerned?
 

No... but thinking about it you make it sound so kinky...
Is there a way I could make something with pantyhose? That would pretty much complete the list