Topic: New at film developing + scanning.

[MiguelCampano]

Hello,

I'm new at this forum. In addition to that, I'm also new at film developing and scanning. Last Sunday I developed my first three rolls, ever! (Kodak Tri-X 400, Ilford HP5 Plus 400, Ilford Pan F 50), with Ilfosol-3 diluted at 1+14, Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer at 1+4. I have one Paterson Super System 4 tank with one 35mm reel. Today I developed a Fuji Neopan Acros 100 roll that I used this afternoon walking around the river after work.

I am not looking to be the next Ansel Adams, however, based on the pictures (I'm posting them below), what kind of advice could you give me in terms of developing/scanning. I have an Epson V370, scan the B&W film strips in color mode at 2400~3600DPI, dust removal on. I plan on using Rodinal once my Ilfosol-3 is over.

Also, I'll spend this Saturday walking around Philadelphia shooting street/alleys, so any tips are welcome!

Thank you in advance,
Miguel.


Kodak Tri-X 400.


Ilford HP5 Plus 400


Kodak Tri-X 400


Kodak Tri-X 400

Those are a few of the frames that I've scanned... Haven't have had much time this week due to work.

[Late Developer]

Welcome aboard, Miguel.

Well, you seem to have pretty-much nailed the exposure and all four of the photos are really good.  My favourites are the first one and the guy with the cat.  You won't go far wrong with Tri-X and HP5+ but Across and, particularly PanF+ could be a bit slow if the light's not really good.  That said, they can be useful if you want to limit depth of field and shoot more wide open.

I'm not sure what you're shooting with but I'm guessing it's medium format. If so, Bravo...!

I have a v750 and I don't think Digital Ice (dust removal) works on traditional B&W film.  Be prepared to do a fair bit of digital dusting via your post-processing software.  If you're only going to post on the 'net, scan size is less important and re-sizing and limiting to 72 DPI is wise to limit storage space and dissuade those who would steal your photos.  Higher res is essential for printing - bigger than necessary and then scale down seems to help preserve sharpness IMO, though I'm not as expert as many one here when it comes to the technology.

Anyway, have a good look round - not just the forum - have a look at the galleries and postcard exchanges, podcasts, etc. Enjoy.....

[Gimenosaiz]

Hi, Miguel!

Congratulations. I think that you have achieved very good results with your first development ;-)
Ummm, Philadelphia must be a wonderful city for street photography. The man and the shadowcat is cool!!! But I prefer the last one.

Ilfosol 3 was also my first developer ... and FP4 my first film.

I also guess that you shot with a medium format camera ... Great!

I'm afraid that the only advice I can give you is one that I'm unable to follow myself: don't try film+devs combinations forever :-)

I've got an Epson V500 and I always scan with Epson Scan. I'm happy with these. I apply a ICM profile just to add a bit of mask.
About the dust ... avoid air currents and dry air. Where I live this is nearly impossible :-(

More!!!

Cheers

[MiguelCampano]

Hello all,

Thank you for your input. I do not shoot with a medium format camera. I have a Canon EOS 650 and a Canon EF 35-70 kit lens that I picked up, all together, for 35$ with free shipping on eBay. The pictures were taken on 03/18, which was a particularly rainy day in Philly. Fog and completely overcast skies. I had no dedicated camera protector, so I had to improvise and used a CVS plastic bag to wrap the camera around, and set it up on AV mode, just so I didn't have to fiddle with it too much.

I will definitely keep in in mind the ICE/Dust Removal function on the B&W film. I'm not very well-versed in terms of post processing since I really haven't had the chance to play with it. I'm aware that most 25 years old guys who are into photography have more knowledge of Photoshop, and masks and filters... So far I've been happy with adjusting brightness/exposure, contrast and sharpness. Everything else I've done with the ambient light and a Hoya #25A red filter. I have a circular polarizer coming in today... I have never played with one of those.

This weekend, as aforementioned, I'll be going to Philly (I live 30 mins out of the city) and since it's going to be 75 degrees (Fahrenheit, that is  ), I'll walk around all day wasting film and then eating "buck-a-shuck" oysters by the Liberty Bell in the Old City section of Philly. Today I have 2 rolls of Fuji Provia 100F and 2 rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 coming in. Any advice/recommendations for those films?

Thank you again!
Miguel.

[Late Developer]

You'll need to be careful to get the exposure right on the Provia as slide film has a lot less latitude (forgiveness) than negative film.  Have you got a slide projector or are you just going to scan? If you get it right, it is stunningly good film with fine grain and neutral colours.  If you have to make a guess, go slightly under exposed as over exposed can mean burned out highlights and, if there's nothing there, there's nothing to pull back in post processing.

Ektar is a negative (print) film and has very saturated colours compared to many other colour negative films.  Again, it can be a little tricky with exposure but it's beautiful if you get it right. 

My personal preference is Kodak's "Portra" negative films in 160, 400 and 800 ISO.  Excellent latitude, relatively neutral colours (fantastic skin tones in daylight / studio), very sharp and about the easiest to scan colour film I've found (and I'm pretty rubbish as scanning colour film).

If you need help with post processing, there's loads of YouTube videos associated with most software.  just try to pick one that is produced by the software manufacturer as some of the home-made stuff can be useless / misleading.  If you use Adobe - there's a lot of stuff on their YouTube channel.

[MiguelCampano]

You'll need to be careful to get the exposure right on the Provia as slide film has a lot less latitude (forgiveness) than negative film.  Have you got a slide projector or are you just going to scan? If you get it right, it is stunningly good film with fine grain and neutral colours.  If you have to make a guess, go slightly under exposed as over exposed can mean burned out highlights and, if there's nothing there, there's nothing to pull back in post processing.

Ektar is a negative (print) film and has very saturated colours compared to many other colour negative films.  Again, it can be a little tricky with exposure but it's beautiful if you get it right. 

My personal preference is Kodak's "Portra" negative films in 160, 400 and 800 ISO.  Excellent latitude, relatively neutral colours (fantastic skin tones in daylight / studio), very sharp and about the easiest to scan colour film I've found (and I'm pretty rubbish as scanning colour film).

If you need help with post processing, there's loads of YouTube videos associated with most software.  just try to pick one that is produced by the software manufacturer as some of the home-made stuff can be useless / misleading.  If you use Adobe - there's a lot of stuff on their YouTube channel.

Thank you for the answer/advice.

I think that considering the weather forecast for tomorrow (partially overcast, but warm) I might use one roll of Provia to try color street photography, especially around Chinatown where there's plenty of color/street vendors, and the rest will be B&W. Perhaps the Ektar is better suited for landscapes and shots that require a higher saturation. Is Ektar the color negative (sort of) of Velvia? I will give Portra a try next time I buy film... In a few weeks, perhaps.

I don't have a projector, however I'm planning on scanning, then printing if it's worth it. I have Adobe PS+LR (Not bad for $10/month), and although my computer screen is not the best (I use a Windows laptop from a few years ago) since it has vertical streak from stepping over it a few months back, I can still see, for the most part, good colors and what not. I will definitely check the YouTube channel for Adobe as I'm very interested in learning more Photoshop techniques and post-processing.

[MacArron]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhances contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted and corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

[MiguelCampano]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

[gsgary]

Welcome there are lots of knowledgable people on here so stick around, i hope you don't mind me having a very quick play with one of your images, i have not done anything that i wouldn't do in my darkroom
Another good film to try is Foma 400 it's also cheaper than HP5

Here's your image


And one of my Foma 400 shots in 35mm


and another

[gsgary]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

There is a good lab in Canada called Canadian Film Lab it used to be just around the corner from me in the UK we can still send film there not sure how much it would cost you but they are not cheap but the results are wonderful for colour (i develope B+W at home)
http://canadianfilmlab.com/

[MiguelCampano]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

There is a good lab in Canada called Canadian Film Lab it used to be just around the corner from me in the UK we can still send film there not sure how much it would cost you but they are not cheap but the results are wonderful for colour (i develope B+W at home)
http://canadianfilmlab.com/

Thank you, Gary.

I have Philadelphia Photographics right there in Philly, as well as a couple of other labs, plus The Darkroom for mail-in developing. B&W I do it at home.. I actually enjoy it! Those shots with Foma 400 are nice. I'm definitely getting some rolls next time I purchase film.

Also, I am going to experiment adjusting levels and whatnot in Photoshop.

[gsgary]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

There is a good lab in Canada called Canadian Film Lab it used to be just around the corner from me in the UK we can still send film there not sure how much it would cost you but they are not cheap but the results are wonderful for colour (i develope B+W at home)
http://canadianfilmlab.com/

Thank you, Gary.

I have Philadelphia Photographics right there in Philly, as well as a couple of other labs, plus The Darkroom for mail-in developing. B&W I do it at home.. I actually enjoy it! Those shots with Foma 400 are nice. I'm definitely getting some rolls next time I purchase film.

Also, I am going to experiment adjusting levels and whatnot in Photoshop.

Foma 400 is even better in 120 film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[MiguelCampano]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

There is a good lab in Canada called Canadian Film Lab it used to be just around the corner from me in the UK we can still send film there not sure how much it would cost you but they are not cheap but the results are wonderful for colour (i develope B+W at home)
http://canadianfilmlab.com/

Thank you, Gary.

I have Philadelphia Photographics right there in Philly, as well as a couple of other labs, plus The Darkroom for mail-in developing. B&W I do it at home.. I actually enjoy it! Those shots with Foma 400 are nice. I'm definitely getting some rolls next time I purchase film.

Also, I am going to experiment adjusting levels and whatnot in Photoshop.

Foma 400 is even better in 120 film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Sounds very promising. I can't wait to finally own a medium format camera.

[gsgary]

Hi,

To me, Ektar is far (very) from Provia. Provia is a slide film that pops colours and enhance contrast in a beautiful way. Ektar also has saturated colours and strong contrast, but results are not of my liking. Bear in mind (I do) that when you look at a slide, you actually see the photo, the sharpness, the real colours, etc. However, when you look at a negative, you only see weird colours that need to be inverted an corrected...

I have seen some labs showing fantastic photos on Ektar, but I think they scan and manipulate the image in pp to reach those pastel colours.

See "Carmencita Lab" and search for 'Ektar', 'how to shoot Ektar' or something like this to see examples. I love the look of their Ektar; mine is completely different and kind of frustrating when compared.

Nevertheless, enjoy and please show the results

My dad, back in Venezuela, worked as a photojournalist for 15+ years and always shot (and developed+printed) Ektachrome instead of regular color film because of, basically, the same reasons you gave me. You can see the picture instead of the inverted colors. However, the reason why I bought it is because I can have it developed only for $5 as opposed to $14 per roll of Provia, mounted.

I am going to keep that detail about Ektar in mind, though.

There is a good lab in Canada called Canadian Film Lab it used to be just around the corner from me in the UK we can still send film there not sure how much it would cost you but they are not cheap but the results are wonderful for colour (i develope B+W at home)
http://canadianfilmlab.com/

Thank you, Gary.

I have Philadelphia Photographics right there in Philly, as well as a couple of other labs, plus The Darkroom for mail-in developing. B&W I do it at home.. I actually enjoy it! Those shots with Foma 400 are nice. I'm definitely getting some rolls next time I purchase film.

Also, I am going to experiment adjusting levels and whatnot in Photoshop.

Foma 400 is even better in 120 film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Sounds very promising. I can't wait to finally own a medium format camera.

This is from a 6x9 negative shot with a Fuji GW690III
Just look at the shadow detail under the arch and you can still see the clouds
https://gsgary.smugmug.com/Fuji-GW690/i-K352rHM

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[MiguelCampano]

That is beautiful. I'm definitely getting one this year!

[Mike (happyforest)]

Miguel.

That 1st one almost has a timeless quality to it.

It took me a little while to realise that the one side of the road was lined with rubbish bins.

Don't think the 1st film I developed had anything like these on them.

Nice Set.

Mike

[MiguelCampano]

Miguel.

That 1st one almost has a timeless quality to it.

It took me a little while to realise that the one side of the road was lined with rubbish bins.

Don't think the 1st film I developed had anything like these on them.

Nice Set.

Mike

Thank you, Mike. Unfortunately I had forgotten that my camera wasn't loaded and took me a while to load it as my hands were cold, and it was raining. There was a 1970s Chevy Nova parked in the alley which would have given the picture a Seventies look to it. Like an old corrupt cop movie.

Hopefully the ones I'll develop this weekend turn a little better, although I'm still going to play around with PS and see if I can correct a few of the ones from last weekend.

Miguel.

[Francois]

Hi Miguel
Just to get back shortly on dust reduction, Epson has two technologies that they use. The first one is Digital ICE that they licensed from Kodak. What it does is scan the image twice, one with regular light and the other using an infrared light. When using a color negative or slide film, the film transmits the IR light perfectly; but not the dust and scratches. So the software combines the two images using the IR scan as a mask to blur out the dust. But B&W film is opaque to IR where the image is located, that's why it doesn't work.

But they also use a dust and scratch detection technique that tries to detect the dust by its shape and direction. But that can create some weird artifacts.

So far, the easiest way to remove the dust that I have found and that works on any program is the following:
Duplicate the image layer. Make only the bottom visible and select it. Goto Filters/dust and scratches and set the filter to remove all the dust, you don't need to worry about image sharpness right now. Re-enable the top layer and select it. Using the eraser, just erase the scratches. Merge both layers together when you're done.

[gsgary]

Miguel.

That 1st one almost has a timeless quality to it.

It took me a little while to realise that the one side of the road was lined with rubbish bins.

Don't think the 1st film I developed had anything like these on them.

Nice Set.

Mike

Thank you, Mike. Unfortunately I had forgotten that my camera wasn't loaded and took me a while to load it as my hands were cold, and it was raining. There was a 1970s Chevy Nova parked in the alley which would have given the picture a Seventies look to it. Like an old corrupt cop movie.

Hopefully the ones I'll develop this weekend turn a little better, although I'm still going to play around with PS and see if I can correct a few of the ones from last weekend.

Miguel.

All I do with mine in PS is a curves adjustment and slight sharpening that's all I did with your shot

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[MiguelCampano]

Thank you! I'm going to play with the adjustment curves and all that this weekend!

[MiguelCampano]

Hello again,

Quick question. Today I developed two more rolls of B&W (so, my 6th and 7th rolls), and I noticed that in the last three frames of the rolls (Kentmere 100), a "stain", like the one on the attachment picture, appeared. This is the first time that this has happened.

What could be the cause? It's obviously user error. I had a bit of difficulty loading it into the reel of my Paterson Daylight tank. Perhaps wasn't tight enough and some light got into it?

Thanks,
Miguel.

[Indofunk]

On occasion I've had trouble loading my Peterson reel and the film has buckled, which causes a bit of the film to bow out and contact the film on the previous or following loop, so the developer doesn't contact that part of the film. Maybe that was the cause?

[MiguelCampano]

On occasion I've had trouble loading my Peterson reel and the film has buckled, which causes a bit of the film to bow out and contact the film on the previous or following loop, so the developer doesn't contact that part of the film. Maybe that was the cause?

It could very well be. This one actually started to unload after it was almost completely loaded into the reel. I had to push the last, maybe, 4 inches down because it wouldn't load more. This was the only roll that I've had any problems with.

[Francois]

Yep, that is two parts of film stuck together.
If the surface is mat brown, it's undeveloped emulsion.
That part of the film would need to be fixed and rinsed again in a small tray in order to be archival.

One of the best tips for using Paterson reels is to cut the corners of the film at a 45° angle before feeding it in.

Also making sure the reels are well rinsed after processing and bone dry before using them.

[MiguelCampano]

Yep, that is two parts of film stuck together.
If the surface is mat brown, it's undeveloped emulsion.
That part of the film would need to be fixed and rinsed again in a small tray in order to be archival.

One of the best tips for using Paterson reels is to cut the corners of the film at a 45° angle before feeding it in.

Also making sure the reels are well rinsed after processing and bone dry before using them.

Thank you!, Francois.

[Francois]

You're welcome.

[Jeff Warden]

Miguel, welcome to the forum.  Your scans look good!

I'd suggest taking a walk through Northern Liberties, Kensington and Fishtown as well - a good mix of old neighborhoods and an awful lot of gentrification.  And if you're walking in the morning in NoLibs, Honey's Sit and Eat is where you should be Sitting and Eating.

Enjoy!

[MiguelCampano]

Miguel, welcome to the forum.  Your scans look good!

I'd suggest taking a walk through Northern Liberties, Kensington and Fishtown as well - a good mix of old neighborhoods and an awful lot of gentrification.  And if you're walking in the morning in NoLibs, Honey's Sit and Eat is where you should be Sitting and Eating.

Enjoy!

Hi Jeff,

Thank you! I'm definitely trying to get a hang of the developing process, as well the scanning part. Right now it is a bit frustrating, between the always overcast sky that blows the light no matter what exposure compensation I use, to the fact that a Polaroid circular polarizer filter that I bought for my Canon 35-70 doesn't *fit* (it actually won't allow me to zoom because the ring is too thick/wide). Also, the water "stains" that end up on the film which I'm assuming that it's due to hard water from the sink... Or improper washing/drying.

I will try that place out. I'm always looking for a good, small place to eat in. There are a few here in Bucks County, but inner-city places are always best. I was at the Olde Bar in Old City on Saturday... 5 dozen raw oysters later.

Thanks again,
Miguel.

[Indofunk]

Also making sure the reels are well rinsed after processing and bone dry before using them.

+1 to the reels (specifically the two ball bearings) being BONE dry before loading. I had lots of hassles loading film until I figured that out. I bought extra reels so even if I just used 2 or 3 reels I'll still have a dry reel that I can use.

[Late Developer]

Hi Miguel.

Just seen your comment about overcast skies blowing the light.  That used to really get me down when I first started with film and a camera with a built-in meter. 

As a suggestion, select an aperture that gives you the depth of field you want then - in the direction you intend to shoot - take a reading from the sky (let's say it's 1/500 at f8).  Then take a reading from a shadow area that will be in the frame (let's say that comes out at 1/15 at f8).  That's a spread of 5 stops - well within the capabilities of most films, so somewhere in that range will be a combination that will render detail in the sky and the shadows.  Given those readings, I'd probably start at 1/125 at f8 and bracket a stop either side.

Another option is to buy a "grey card" fill the frame with it (in the lighting conditions you'll be shooting) and take a reading off that - then bracket a stop either side.

Neither of the above techniques are infallible and they're not particularly scientific but, assuming you develop fresh film in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, you should get a negative that allows you to produce prints with a good range of tones from sky to shadow.

Hope this helps.

[MiguelCampano]

Hi Miguel.

Just seen your comment about overcast skies blowing the light.  That used to really get me down when I first started with film and a camera with a built-in meter. 

As a suggestion, select an aperture that gives you the depth of field you want then - in the direction you intend to shoot - take a reading from the sky (let's say it's 1/500 at f8).  Then take a reading from a shadow area that will be in the frame (let's say that comes out at 1/15 at f8).  That's a spread of 5 stops - well within the capabilities of most films, so somewhere in that range will be a combination that will render detail in the sky and the shadows.  Given those readings, I'd probably start at 1/125 at f8 and bracket a stop either side.

Another option is to buy a "grey card" fill the frame with it (in the lighting conditions you'll be shooting) and take a reading off that - then bracket a stop either side.

Neither of the above techniques are infallible and they're not particularly scientific but, assuming you develop fresh film in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, you should get a negative that allows you to produce prints with a good range of tones from sky to shadow.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the advice! It definitely frustrates me having to adjust on the computer after developing and scanning. I understand that some post-processing is required in most cases, however, that's fine for the computer but as soon as I start printing at home with my enlarger, it's going to suck... A lot.

Is there also a difference between developers in terms of shadow/highlight details? I currently use Ilfosol-3, which seems to work fine for most things. So far I've developed Fuji Neopan Acros 100, Ilford Pan F 50, Kodak Tri-X 400, Ilford HP5+ 400 and Kentmere 100, and the best results I've gotten are from Tri-X 400, Pan F 50 and Neopan 100.

[Francois]

Developers can do all sort of things to the film.
Time affects contrast and density. Temperature can affect grain.
Then there are speed increasing developers, high contrast developers, fine grain developers, high accutance developers, general purpose developers...

[MiguelCampano]

Developers can do all sort of things to the film.
Time affects contrast and density. Temperature can affect grain.
Then there are speed increasing developers, high contrast developers, fine grain developers, high accutance developers, general purpose developers...

Thank you, Francois.

I think that for now I'll stick to Ilfosol-3 as it seems fairly cheap and easy to use for a beginner, and find a film that works for my needs/style and that developer. So far I really like the results I've gotten from Neopan 100 but it is also true that I should try the different films that I have on days that are not rainy/extremely overcast.

[gsgary]

Developers can do all sort of things to the film.
Time affects contrast and density. Temperature can affect grain.
Then there are speed increasing developers, high contrast developers, fine grain developers, high accutance developers, general purpose developers...

Thank you, Francois.

I think that for now I'll stick to Ilfosol-3 as it seems fairly cheap and easy to use for a beginner, and find a film that works for my needs/style and that developer. So far I really like the results I've gotten from Neopan 100 but it is also true that I should try the different films that I have on days that are not rainy/extremely overcast.

Ilfosol3 is best for slow films, I've used it a few times with HP5 but I use mostly Rodinal

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[MiguelCampano]

Developers can do all sort of things to the film.
Time affects contrast and density. Temperature can affect grain.
Then there are speed increasing developers, high contrast developers, fine grain developers, high accutance developers, general purpose developers...

Thank you, Francois.

I think that for now I'll stick to Ilfosol-3 as it seems fairly cheap and easy to use for a beginner, and find a film that works for my needs/style and that developer. So far I really like the results I've gotten from Neopan 100 but it is also true that I should try the different films that I have on days that are not rainy/extremely overcast.

Ilfosol3 is best for slow films, I've used it a few times with HP5 but I use mostly Rodinal

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Thank you, Gary.

So, should I use a different developer for faster film and keep Ilfosol-3 for 125 ISO and below? And use Rodinal for pretty much everything?

[gsgary]

Developers can do all sort of things to the film.
Time affects contrast and density. Temperature can affect grain.
Then there are speed increasing developers, high contrast developers, fine grain developers, high accutance developers, general purpose developers...

Thank you, Francois.

I think that for now I'll stick to Ilfosol-3 as it seems fairly cheap and easy to use for a beginner, and find a film that works for my needs/style and that developer. So far I really like the results I've gotten from Neopan 100 but it is also true that I should try the different films that I have on days that are not rainy/extremely overcast.

Ilfosol3 is best for slow films, I've used it a few times with HP5 but I use mostly Rodinal

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Thank you, Gary.

So, should I use a different developer for faster film and keep Ilfosol-3 for 125 ISO and below? And use Rodinal for pretty much everything?

Most film shooters  will find a developer and stick with it, Rodinal is very cheap and is one of the earliest developers but you need to find one you like

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Francois]

It depends a lot on whether you like grain or not and if you want smooth gradation or contrast. Grain sharpness also comes into the equation.

[02Pilot]

Look at this article I linked to a few weeks ago: http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=9053.0

You'll see just how much of a difference the developer/film combo can make.

[MiguelCampano]

Look at this article I linked to a few weeks ago: http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=9053.0

You'll see just how much of a difference the developer/film combo can make.

Wow. Very interesting. I'm surprised about the performance of Neopan 100 compared to the results that I've got from my (only) roll.

Seems like I've got more experimentin' to do!

[Francois]

Neopan is really nice.
The thing is sometimes we like a certain emulsion for some reason while others don't.
It's really a personal thing. Also, some films really need to be exposed quite differently from what the manufacturer says. It's the case with Fomapan 400 (arista.edu 400). At 400, contrast is really hard to handle and grays really go out the window. Latitude is a bit rubbish. But at EI250 with adjusted development you really begin to get something good.

[MiguelCampano]

So, yesterday I walked for 8 miles around a local state park, trying to get some good "nature" shots with a roll of Tri-X 400 and the new "Nifty-Fifty" from Canon... I got home and loaded the film into the reel, put in inside the tank and closed the lid as usual. However, I decided to use the stick agitator thingy that came with the tank, instead of inverting it as I have been doing since I started developing.

The results...


blue cast 1 by Miguel Campano, on Flickr

blue cast 2 by Miguel Campano, on Flickr

blue cast 4 by Miguel Campano, on Flickr

A blue cast/fringe across most of the frames.

Lesson learned, I guess.

[Mike (happyforest)]

I use a the little twiddle stick almost exclusively, with out having any problems.

This looks to me like, the film could do with a little more fixing!

Others may chime in with other opinions though.

Mike

[Francois]

I think fixing some more would help.
Did you fix for double the clearing time?

[Indofunk]

To slightly derail the thread, I recently found out that the 6min fix I'd been doing in Ilford Rapidfix 1:5 is way longer than necessary. The spec sheet recommends 2 min, and that jibes with my observation that a leader clears in about a minute. So I've been fixing for 3min now, because old habits die hard

[Francois]

Depending on the film and the freshness of the fixer, shortest I've seen was a 16 second clear...

[MiguelCampano]

I used Ilford Rapid Fixer for about 3:30 minutes, then rinsed it with running water for around... 8 minutes? 

[Francois]

What's the fixer dilution?

Ilford rapid fix can be quite speedy

[MiguelCampano]

What's the fixer dilution?

Ilford rapid fix can be quite speedy

1:4, as the bottle says 

[Indofunk]

What's the fixer dilution?

Ilford rapid fix can be quite speedy

1:4, as the bottle says 

Oh, right, I mistyped 1:5 instead of 1:4...

[jharr]

Depending on the film and the freshness of the fixer, shortest I've seen was a 16 second clear...

The Dacomatic and Aerecon films I use clear in under 10 seconds! Here's to thin emulsions!