[rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
- From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:24:48 +0100
It might be interesting to crank up the contrast setting to un-natural
levels in Photoshop (or whatever) and check the sky shots on the earlier
rolls too. I occasionally see this too (on sky shots) but it has tended to
start closer to the edges rather than the gradual from-centre progression
as shown in your second shot. I use a 1-reel plastic patterson tank and fill
to 510ml (500 is their recommended level for 120 ) - this is a convenient
number for 1:50 rodinal mix, and clears the reels with a little slack.
rgds
Chat
On 10/4/07, Richard Sintchak <rich815@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the nice comment on my photos Dennis, and for the good
> suggestions. I may try your proposed methodology.
>
> I'm now off early tomorrow AM to the Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White
> Mountains for a few days. Wish me luck!
>
> Richard S.
>
>
> On 10/3/07, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the reply Dennis. Ok, so assuming it may be due to
> > agitation
> > > what technique do people recommend? I try to invert and twist at
> > about
> > > the
> > > same time, about 4-5 times every 30 seconds, sometimes every
> > minute. Am I
> > > over-agitating perhaps and creating too much flow on the edges of the
> > > reels?
> > > Should I not invert and instead just sort of twirl?
> > >
> > > Richard S.
> >
> > First I should tell you that I am a fan of your work and have your Flikr
> > stream bookmarked to check up on your new work now and then. I have
> > never
> > noticed that you have a processing problem. Perhaps you are going to
> > great lengths to get rid of it in the jpegs. I do see it in the Albany
> > shore sea scape.
> >
> > I have processed an awful lot of film and do to this day process for
> > several other photographers beside myself. I spent an uncounted ungodly
> >
> > amount of time trying to figure out how to get even processing in a
> > stainless steel tank. I was never able to do it. It is worse on some
> > films than others and probably worse with some developers than
> > others. I
> > would get weired non lateral streaks and edge surge and bubbles and
> > everything else. I tried ever possible way of twisting and turning and
> > bumping and grinding and anything else you could think of and never was
> > able completely get rid of it. It was even worse for me with 35mm film.
> > I process in a dark room anyway so I went with a larger open top tank
> > and
> > made a stainless steel rod to hold the stainless steel reels and even
> > then
> > I could not get rid of the processing marks as long as I was trying to
> > spin and bump and slosh with the film in the developer. It finally
> > occured to me that if I could completely empty the film reels of
> > developer
> > by taking them out of the developer entirely and then reimmersing them,
> > I
> > would have equal fresh developer throughout the reel. So for agitation
> > I
> > started just lifting the rod full of reels completely out of the
> > developer
> > tank and then putting it back in. Finally it worked. I have done it
> > that
> > way now for several years and I get the most even development I have
> > seen.
> > It is perfect edge to edge even if it is a frame of all sky.
> >
> > So with that experience I would say that if I was commited to using a
> > stainless tank with the lid on in the light, I would always put just 3
> > or
> > less rolls of 120 in a 4 roll tank and I would not fill the can clear up
> >
> > with developer, I would leave a large air space that when I inverted the
> > can would go through the film reels so they empty of developer for a
> > second. I would not bother with twisting and turning, I would go just
> > staight over and back over with a bump for air bells. I have not done
> > it
> > that way but that is what I would try.
> >
> > I also should say that my surge mark problem was not more than what I
> > saw
> > with other people. Because I have processed for a lot of other
> > photographers I was very demanding of perfection. it is one thing to
> > process your own film and get processing marks. You forgive yourself
> > readily. It is another thing to hire someone to process your film for
> > you
> > and then get processing marks. Then you get pissed off and complain.
> >
> > Just last week I was in a photo place that does my color film and on the
> > way out a guy from the lab came running out to catch me. They use
> > stainless steel tanks and process B&W film by hand and the lab guy was
> > frustrated using XTOL and he was getting surge and weird marks on
> > peoples
> > film. I told him the same thing, if you want perfect film you have to
> > process in the dark.
> >
> > Now I am sure that 20 people will respond with how they do get perfect
> > film in a can, and I don't doubt it but I could never do it myself.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/3/07, dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <dpurdy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What I saw on eroustam's image was even plus density coming in from
> > both
> > >> sides. I have seen this many times from development on reels when
> > there
> > >> is not even developer exchange across the film. There is more fresh
> > >> developer on the outside of the reels after agitation than on the
> > inside
> > >> of the reels. It is a very consistant progression of density from
> > >> outside
> > >> to inside. Light leaks would be actually light streaking across the
> > >> film
> > >> and would be very inconsistant due to all the variables. It should
> > be
> > >> more on one side than another and you probably could see some paper
> > >> texture. Also light leaking in loose rolls is generally located
> > right
> > >> at
> > >> the edges and then falls off really quickly where as on eroustams
> > >> it
> > >> was a gradual even fall off from edge to center.
> > >> But you never know for sure till you fix it.
> > >> Dennis
> > >> > So it seems from comments in this thread that I may be completely
> > >> wrong
> > >> > about light leaks from a loose roll or from the camera's edges
> > >> allowing
> > >> > light leaking in? That's what I always thought it was since I got
> > this
> > >> > problem on negs with my 2.8E Planar and 3.5E3 Xenotar (both real
> > ugly
> > >> > users)
> > >> > but negs from my pristine 2.8C Xenotar and my Hasselblads do not
> > have
> > >> > this....thus I thought it must be a camera issue and not processing
> >
> > >> since
> > >> > I
> > >> > often process negs from a mix of cameras and do not see this across
> > >> all
> > >> > the
> > >> > negs. But people seem pretty set that it's a processing
> > issue. But
> > >> my
> > >> > facts seem to fly in the face of that.....
> > >> >
> > >> > Comment anyone? Is there a reason it's NOT a loose roll or edge
> > light
> > >> > leaks
> > >> > in the camera?
> > >> >
> > >> > Richard S.
> > >> > San Francisco
> > >> >
> > >> > See my Commute Photo Blog!
> > >> > http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/
> > >> >
> > >> > My Flickr Page
> > >> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 10/3/07, Richard Knoppow < dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> >> From: "ERoustom" < eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:05 AM
> > >> >> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Planar 2.8 coverage
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Thanks! This was my first roll in Rodinal, and since
> > >> >> > Ilford's spec sheet gave one time, and Rodinal gave
> > >> >> > another, I split the difference, so maybe not enough
> > >> >> > time. and maybe back to 5 seconds every 10 minutes. I use
> > >> >> > a stainless steel tank, agitating for the first 10
> > >> >> > seconds of each minute. Ilftoec HC never gave me this
> > >> >> > problem, but the grain is much much finer with Rodinal.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I wonder though about how tightly the camera is holding
> > >> >> > the film. This is the same roll that gave me the strange
> > >> >> > light leak across frames.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks again all.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Elias
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> Curious about the grain. I've never used Ilfotec HC,
> > >> >> which is similar to Kodak HC-110 but would expect it to have
> > >> >> somewhat finer grain than Rodinal. I've used Rodinal mostly
> > >> >> for sheet film and have never had any problems with it but I
> > >> >> generally use finer grain developers in tanks. I think the
> > >> >> main thing with tanks is to have a long enough development
> > >> >> time to average out irregularities in agitation. However, if
> > >> >> there are surge effects in the tank they are likely to be
> > >> >> the same even if the time is increased. The most common
> > >> >> surge marks in inversion type tanks are increased
> > >> >> development at the edges of the film due to turbulent flow
> > >> >> in the interstices of the reels, and sprocket hole marks due
> > >> >> to turbulent flow through these holes, also causing a
> > >> >> localized increase in development.
> > >> >> If you find the problem _is_ due to surging I can only
> > >> >> suggest using a different type of reel or rotating the tank
> > >> >> along with inverting it. I was taught this trick long ago
> > >> >> and its become a habit.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> Richard Knoppow
> > >> >> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > >> >> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> Rollei List
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > >> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > >> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> > >> www.freelists.org
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > >> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Rollei List
> > >>
> > >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>
> > >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> > >>
> > >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> > www.freelists.org
> > >>
> > >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
>
Other related posts:
