[pure-silver] Re: under-developed?
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:55:11 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Cull" <jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: under-developed?
There is shadow detail and the edge markings are very dark
gray. Maybe almost black. The edge/base is the same
sort of light gray as parts in the image. The negatives
just look sort of blah, though they print ok. Maybe it's
slightly fogged?
On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
If we are talking about 35mm film the base color is
normal. 35mm Black and White still film has a pigment in the
support to prevent the conduction of light through the base.
This is because one end of the film is exposed to light when
loading the camera. It also reduces halation. Roll films and
sheet films do not have this pigment, nor do color films of
any size. The support density can make negatives look weak
or fogged but they print fine. This may have been what
happened here. Also, some films seem to print with higher
contrast than visual inspection suggests they will. 400T-Max
is an example, quite thin looking negatives print normally.
I don't know what exactly causes this but I use that film
all the time and the effect is consistent.
If this is other than 35mm film its fogged. Fogging has
the effect of raising alll the densities by the same amount.
It also has the effect of lowering the effective film speed.
If the film was fully exposed and appears to have shadow
detail it will probably print fine despite some fogging.
The dark gray or black edge markings indicate full
development so we can disregard the developer (and my last
post, sent just before receiving this one).
The main virtue of HC-110 (as with Rodinal) is
convenience. Its easy to make up a suitable developer for
most films with it and the shelf life of the concentrate is
very long. However, its not an _optimum_ developer for
anything. Other developers will give you greater film speed
or finer grain or increased acutance, but they are not as
convenient especially for low volume work.
Development time can be a problem. Kodak does not
recommend tank development times of less than 5 minutes
because it is hard to get uniform development. I generally
use developers which can be adjusted (by dilution) for times
of around 8 to 12 minutes for tank work and for about 5
minutes minimum for tray development. This also allows a
larger fudge factor for agitation.
After experimenting around I have settled on D-76
diluted 1:1 for most films. I would prefer to use Xtol but
had an experience with the sudden death syndrome so I went
back to the old stuff. I use Perceptol or Microdol-X (they
are indentical) full strength for 100T-Max in 35mm because
it yields extrmemely fine grain and begins to show the sort
of smooth tone rendition I associate with larger negatives.
The disadvantages are a loss of speed (I shoot at about
EI-50) and no acutance effect (sharpness). A lot of 35mm
users want lots of acutance to make up for low lens
sharpness.
The last word is: if the negatives print well they are
OK and not to worry.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
