Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Three new prints...testing N-1 development.
Aug 5, 2018 08:02:50   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
I printed three new 5x7's from my last batch of film. I was trying to shoehorn the dynamic range to the paper so I shot it at one stop over (200 instead of 400) and developed it at N-1 (normal processing time -1 stop (20%))

The negs came out very flat, I had to print these on grade 4 or 5 just to get this level of contrast into them. I am pleased however that the sky retained the cloud detail.

The next time I'm going to try and shoot at 200 and develop at box time to see if I can't bump my prints down to a grade 2 or 2.5 filter.

Shot at Deegan Lake with my Nikon FE2
20mm f/3.5 UD AI-S lens.
Ilford HP5+ @200
D76H developer at N-1 time.
Printed on Oriental Multigrade Satin Paper at 5x7
Scan of the prints.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Aug 5, 2018 10:02:52   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
rpavich wrote:
I printed three new 5x7's from my last batch of film. I was trying to shoehorn the dynamic range to the paper so I shot it at one stop over (200 instead of 400) and developed it at N-1 (normal processing time -1 stop (20%))

The negs came out very flat, I had to print these on grade 4 or 5 just to get this level of contrast into them. I am pleased however that the sky retained the cloud detail.

The next time I'm going to try and shoot at 200 and develop at box time to see if I can't bump my prints down to a grade 2 or 2.5 filter.

Shot at Deegan Lake with my Nikon FE2
20mm f/3.5 UD AI-S lens.
Ilford HP5+ @200
D76H developer at N-1 time.
Printed on Oriental Multigrade Satin Paper at 5x7
Scan of the prints.
I printed three new 5x7's from my last batch of fi... (show quote)

Nice to see old technology in action. Great job.
I gave up my darkroom but still shoot film. Have it developed and scanned.

Reply
Aug 5, 2018 11:58:31   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
Thanks!
I don’t look forward to the day when I can’t shoot film

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2018 07:27:40   #
Rich2236 Loc: E. Hampstead, New Hampshire
 
When i was using film, (back in the oooold days, LOL) i used a two bath developer, Selectol Soft and Dectol. The selectol brought out the brilliant whites and the dectol brought out the blacks. If you can find both developers, you might want to try using both (first one and then the other.)
Rich...

Reply
Aug 6, 2018 07:43:53   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
Rich2236 wrote:
When i was using film, (back in the oooold days, LOL) i used a two bath developer, Selectol Soft and Dectol. The selectol brought out the brilliant whites and the dectol brought out the blacks. If you can find both developers, you might want to try using both (first one and then the other.)
Rich...


Thanks for the tip..I have never heard of using those.

Reply
Aug 6, 2018 17:06:58   #
JohnCl Loc: Central Arizona
 
Thanks for posting these pictures. I thoroughly enjoyed using the Zone System for about 50 years, before I switched to digital. The process of carefully metering the shadows to determine the correct exposure, and then metering the highlights to determine the appropriate developing time, resulted in many very printable negatives over the years, the "score" as Adams put it.

I see that the shadows in your pictures are quite dark. If that was what you wanted, you got it! If I photographed the log in the first picture, I would have wanted some detail in the cut end of the log. Does your negative show any detail there? I would like to hear your intent for that picture.

Reply
Aug 6, 2018 18:22:06   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
JohnCl wrote:
Thanks for posting these pictures. I thoroughly enjoyed using the Zone System for about 50 years, before I switched to digital. The process of carefully metering the shadows to determine the correct exposure, and then metering the highlights to determine the appropriate developing time, resulted in many very printable negatives over the years, the "score" as Adams put it.

I see that the shadows in your pictures are quite dark. If that was what you wanted, you got it! If I photographed the log in the first picture, I would have wanted some detail in the cut end of the log. Does your negative show any detail there? I would like to hear your intent for that picture.
Thanks for posting these pictures. I thoroughly e... (show quote)


The actual prints show more detail, the scans aren't very good.

Because of my crappy developing job, it was hard to get all of the tones where I wanted them and also have as much shadow detail as I wanted.

Reply
 
 
Jun 29, 2019 19:13:28   #
Abo
 
Nice composition sir!

what do you think of a high res scan of the negs, just for
the computer display?

Those scans can be turned positive in MS paint; a program that always comes with windows.

Reply
Jun 29, 2019 21:15:48   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
Abo wrote:
Nice composition sir!

what do you think of a high res scan of the negs, just for
the computer display?

Those scans can be turned positive in MS paint; a program that always comes with windows.


Even one that’s not high res is fine in my opinion

Reply
Jun 29, 2019 23:20:17   #
Abo
 
rpavich wrote:
Even one that’s not high res is fine in my opinion


I know I'll be pleased to see more of your work.

Reply
Jun 30, 2019 00:03:22   #
frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ
 
rpavich wrote:
I printed three new 5x7's from my last batch of film. I was trying to shoehorn the dynamic range to the paper so I shot it at one stop over (200 instead of 400) and developed it at N-1 (normal processing time -1 stop (20%))

The negs came out very flat, I had to print these on grade 4 or 5 just to get this level of contrast into them. I am pleased however that the sky retained the cloud detail.

The next time I'm going to try and shoot at 200 and develop at box time to see if I can't bump my prints down to a grade 2 or 2.5 filter.

Shot at Deegan Lake with my Nikon FE2
20mm f/3.5 UD AI-S lens.
Ilford HP5+ @200
D76H developer at N-1 time.
Printed on Oriental Multigrade Satin Paper at 5x7
Scan of the prints.
I printed three new 5x7's from my last batch of fi... (show quote)


Nice job.... back to the old days there was no reason to cut your development time based on exposure especially if you intentionally overexposed. You use full process rules to achieve what you were doing with exposure. If you had accidently under exposed you could over process to recover some of the loss. Old rule of thumb was always overexpose negative film and under expose positive film. It was to do what you just did, also, film manufactures would sometimes exaggerate the ISO speed/or take to the upper limit of the test specifications. This was especially true when they all trying to achieve those higher film speeds of 1000 ISO. A way to further enhance detail would be to process the film in a 3 to 1 solution with 3 being water and 1 developer. Then increase your processing time 2.5x increasing tonal range and reducing noise/grain... Oh and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He's old and just trying to see how much he remembers :( thanks for sharing.. Have a great day :)

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.