Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
Where can you get cheap polaroid cameras in australia?
Q. Does anyone know?
A. Why do you want 1950's technology?. Polaroids stink, I sold this cameras when they were first introduced and it went like this: Sell 3 cameras and two are returned. The third is/was up in the attic just waiting for gullible people to come along and think Polaroid instant print is the cat's meow. Well I guess 2013 is the year of gullible people. PLEASE don't waste your money! Two dollars a print equals 16 dollars expensive. BUT what if all 8 prints do not come out? The entire 8 prints never came out when I sold the cameras. I can't figure where all the Polaroid cameras are coming from. Polaroid must have stock piled them and then sold them this year. Stick to regular 4x6 prints priced at (here in the USA) from 13 cents to 20 cents a piece. Plus your can get reprints from the digtal file. Never mind that Polaroid prints fade in a few years while digital prints last a least one lifetime, more if stored in an album. Please don't buy.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar