|
Post by andys93integra on Jan 26, 2012 23:27:44 GMT -5
Hello all, today I developed my first roll of Tri-X at my school's darkroom, and scanned them as well. Exposing film I have done, but never developed myself. Not bad for the first time I'd say. Next week is enlarging. I noticed a slight dark band across the top of many of the frames, I bet that was caused by the developer not totally covering the film in the tank (I think mine was on top of the other in the tank). Shot with Kodak Tri-X film Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p371864762Andy
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 27, 2012 3:47:54 GMT -5
Excellent pictures, sharp and clear. Nice work with the DOF as well. An inspiration for shooting in B/W again. Thanks for sharing !!!
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jan 27, 2012 4:37:58 GMT -5
Excellent pictures. I used to lust after a Pentax Spotmatic in my youth - they cost about six weeks wages so were completely out of my league.
On the dark band, is the dark band on the film or on the scanned positives? Dark on the film means too much development or light leakage, dark on the positives could be the scanner.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 27, 2012 11:55:00 GMT -5
You have got some nice photos and that Tak is performing well too. Never developed any film so it looks pretty good to me for a first attempt. The only thing with scanning negs is that it is hard to get them clean enough and a scanner with ICE will not help much with traditional B&W.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 13:23:16 GMT -5
Nice job! I spend a good share of my life shooting the many Tri-X variations and they never stopped improving it. It has a wide latitude. If I could only have one film for the rest of my life it would be Tri-X.
W.
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Jan 27, 2012 20:14:15 GMT -5
I agree. For example, picture number 24 in the set, I accidentally overexposed it by seven stops. I forgot to change the aperture down to f/11, and exposed it wide open at f/1.4, I realized it was wrong and exposed another frame, picture 26 is the correctly exposed image. I thought it was going to be pure white, but it actually held up. If I tried overexposing an image by seven stops with my digital camera it would not have been pretty. Today I shot and developed a roll of HP5+ (35mm) and a roll of Delta 100 (120), but did not get a chance to scan them, will do next week. 35mm is pretty easy to load on to the reels, but today when I tried the 120 roll, I think it took me about 10 minutes until I successfully loaded it on the reel, frustrating. And the dark bands across the top of the first roll was definitely the developer, the two rolls I developed today had none. Andy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 23:26:26 GMT -5
Don't know what kind of reels you use. Just about the only type of reel I have just since the '70s is stainless steel. I found it almost impossible to load 120 on a plastic or nylon reel. Just the slightest hit of moisture on the reel will cause 120 to buckle. You'll find plenty of folks who don't like stainless steel. The learning cure is steeper but once you get it down you don't ever forget. It's a lot like loading film through the bottom of an early Leica. Some people never can do it while others thing it's as easy and threading film in a camera with a hinged back.
W.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 28, 2012 0:05:57 GMT -5
I too preferred stainless steel (Kindermann) reels.
I had a loader for it but found that once I learned how to load them it was faster and easier without than with the loader. It loaded from the center out. And the film never kinked or touched itself.
Since the film did not have to slide into the reel it could even be loaded when wet although I would always give it a cursory wipe with a cloth. Actually an old diaper because it was lintless. The kids never complained.
It used less chemicals than the plastic tanks and it could be inverted for agitation.
Its one drawback was that it required a rubber 'garter' to make a waterproof seal between the metal lid and tank. But that only took a second to slip on. The newer ones have a plastic cap that do not need the 'garter'.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 28, 2012 4:37:35 GMT -5
Andy, excellent - how to make ordinary subjects look good. (Andy, a little bit of constructive criticism: Some of the photos do have dust and spots. If you scanned the negatives it's a simple job to spot out using photoshop post scanning.. If it's during enlargement (and it's on the prints which you then scanned) there used to be kits for spotting out prints. Colour work was a bit more difficult than B&W. For the latter a soft lead pencil would often do the trick - though I don't know how that would then scan. Sometimes even with colour spotting out with a shade of grey made it 'invisible'. Photoshop CS5, with its content aware spot healing brush is a doddle for B&W or colour. Spotting out prints isn't so easy.)
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 28, 2012 4:54:11 GMT -5
Just a note of developing tanks:
Loading: I never really found a problem with plastic reels, but if the auto-load type were anything other than bone dry the film would stick, which would often prevent it loading fully. I found even with that type it was easier to centre-load. The film just (automatically almost) finds the next part of the spiral. The best thing is to practise with a gash film to get the technique right.
Agitation: early tanks just had a rod to twist the reel in the tank for agitation. Later tanks, with sealing tops, could be inverted (and as Mickey says, easier still once they did away with the sealing gasket). This was a big improvement. Whatever way is used the main thing is to be consistent in the amount of agitation (and obviously temperature too).
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Jan 28, 2012 12:04:05 GMT -5
I left the pictures as they were, just to leave them in their original form to show the imperfections of my first roll. From here on out I will be doing the dust removal and other things like that.
We are using the Paterson black plastic tanks and white plastic ratcheting reels, and another brand just like it, although I did snoop around and I saw some steel tanks and reels in a cabinet, might have to ask about those.
The second picture of the fence was really underexposed, not sure why, I set my camera to the meters suggestion, maybe something just went funny.
I will be borrowing my Uncle's 50mm f/1.4D, so I can use my Nikon film bodies, currently I only have a 28mm f/3.5 between four bodies.
Andy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jan 29, 2012 3:12:24 GMT -5
Andy, fair enough but one thing that the difficulty (or at least time taken) in spotting out on enlargements does teach us is do be diligent in keeping dust off off the negative.
As regards the exposure on the fence: I presume the exposure meter was "averaging" or possibly "centre-weighted averaging". Both systems would be fooled by the brightness in the top and left of the frame. I bet if you averaged out all the tones, the result would be 'spot on'. Conversely, if you used a spot meter the result would have been significantly overexposure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2012 11:39:26 GMT -5
Mickey:
With the stainless reels, when I was in the military making slide duplicates, we sometimes would roll two rolls, emulsion side out, onto the same reel. You could process eight rolls in a four roll tank. When developing color (E6) it stretched the chemicals to the limit but worked OK for dupes.
One of the development keys is to vary agitation--don't do it exaction the same each time you agitate. Otherwise it can create solution patterns on the film. That's on reason the plastic tanks with stirring rods that couldn't be inverted could create development problems.
Wayne
|
|
jayd
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by jayd on Jan 29, 2012 13:08:56 GMT -5
Good Job ! the beauty of Tri X never ceases to amaze me.
Jay
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Jan 29, 2012 13:31:16 GMT -5
Actually the light meter in the Pentax is broken, I tried putting a new battery in but the needle did not respond. For film, I am using my hand held light meter from Sekonic (L-358).
I also found out the name of the developer that we are using, it is called Sprint Standard black and white developer, must be a generic brand.
And this is our development process:
1-9 dilution of developer
For example, at 68 degrees, Tri-X develops for 9:45
So while developing, agitation for the first 30 seconds, then 5 on 25 off for the remainder of the time.
Followed by a one minute wash with 15 seconds of agitation.
Then five minute fixer with same agitation as developer.
Then another one minute wash.
Then one minute in a solution called Permawash.
Followed by a five minute thorough wash in one of those swirling washers.
Then one minute in Photo Flo.
Dry.
Andy
|
|