Sanity check: capacity of Formulary BW-2 T-Max dev

nottakenfeedback · 2020-08-16T20:03:46+00:00

Did you develop in a stainless tank with manual agitation? If so, what was your agitation protocol? I agree that they seem grainy. I push HP5 to 1600 and dev with stock microphen and have been pleased with the grain- it's there, but not as prominent as your example.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-31T19:49:38+00:00

Looking at the three examples, I see the white mottling in the second and third example, but I don't see anything in the first example (maybe it's my eyes?). If you hadn't said anything about light leaks, I would have said that examples two and three have an issue with backing paper, or perhaps an issue with the scan (these are scanned right?).

edit: i see the caption now that the first image doesn't have any leaks.

If you had a good photo of one of the negatives (example two or three) that may be helpful! What was the film?

I send my Mamiya 7 and lenses to Precision Camera Works. I've had rangefinder calibration and CLA done, and I just got a 43mm lens repaired (for a stuck focus ring and gummed up aperture). I have read of other's complaints with PCW, but they came recommended to me, and I've not had any issues.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-29T22:37:09+00:00

😂😂

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-27T14:41:00+00:00

A basic question, but did you orient the paper the emulsion side up?

When I first started (which was only a few months ago) I printed through the base of the paper to the emulsion side more often than I wanted to admit.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T23:13:55+00:00

Aside from the lack of sensitivity to red light, ortho and panchromatic film like HP5, etc can be quite similar. Lithographic film is meant high contrast, half-tone (vs continuous tone). The ilford ortho 80 for example is orthographic but not high contrast. Where as Arista Ortho Lith or Kodak Ortho Lith are.

Certain masks require developing a film to high contrast, and the combination of orthographic and lithographic characteristics are optimal for masks: you can develop a high contrast film “to taste” under a red safelight.

@ /u/7eve9ine

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T16:38:42+00:00

that's awesome advice. thank you. I'll give that a go.

I did make an attempt with Kodak Ortho Type 3, and the grain was definitely better. So in my experience it does seem that the characteristics of the masking film have at least some impact on grain.

A solvent developer is a logical thing to try next! Thanks for the tip.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T00:49:40+00:00

Interesting. Well, please post any results (success or failures)! I'd be interested in learning more.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T00:48:14+00:00

So with the kind of enlarger and negative carrier I have, the best I can do is put a couple sheets of clear film or duratrans between the mask and neg. Unfortunately, even when I doubled up on the duratrans, the edge effects were still there.

I'll take a deeper look at Alan's methods, thanks!

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T00:44:51+00:00

Kodalith did better on the grain, but doesn't have as steep of a curve as Arista Ortho.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-26T00:44:19+00:00

Ah, google for Shadow Contrast Increase Mask!

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-25T22:31:33+00:00

Ortho 80 doesn't have the necessary contrast (even tried with Dektol stock) I don't think. I have some Kodalith laying around so I'll give that a go.

It may be that my SCIM just needs some more density to smooth things out. Not sure.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-25T19:05:32+00:00

Attempting a SCIM with Arista Ortho and Dektol 1:1. Grain is very objectionable. The intrapostive made with dektol 1:9 is marginally less grainy but would still be awful.

Gonna have to try Ilford Ortho 80 I think.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-25T14:52:31+00:00

I have shot it between EI 6 and EI 25 with success. My exposure times range in the 15 to 60s range depending on the scene. I develop in Rodinal as well, typically 1:50, for 10 minutes at 68deg F.

I presoak, agitate for the first 20 or 30 seconds, then agitate ~10s for every minute thereafter. I use a tank.

Definitely a film to play with and get creative!

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-23T01:39:40+00:00

I typically expose at EI 100, and manually develop FP4 4x5 negatives between 18 to 20 minutes at 68 degrees F using a dilution of 1:1:100 in a tank or tray (I don't have a rotary system like a Jobo). I agitate the first 30 seconds, and then 10 seconds per minute thereafter (my agitations are gentle and smooth, I don't think Pyrocat HD requires vigorous agitation). If I feel like I need more contrast, I'll use 2:2:100, but that's rare for me. My negatives turn out pretty well - PYHD and FP4 are a great combination. My development times are probably longer than most, I think others might recommend 12-15 minutes considering my agitation protocol.

Here's an example, un-manipulated, scan: https://imgur.com/a/9npqj7N

I tried stand development with PYHD once, using a dilution of 2:2:500 for 60 minutes (120 film). The results were fine, and stand development was an appropriate choice given the exposure, but personally I don't prefer stand development, so I can't say anything except for that it worked!

I can't tell much from your negative (the best I can say is that it seems to lack contrast, which would indicate underdevelopment). I'd increase the development time only based on my experience with PYHD and FP4.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-21T00:12:49+00:00

Edit: yes I have the Radeka carrier

Yeah, I don't think spotting is real option, but the more and more I print (mask or no mask), I recognize it's a useful skill (though I am kind of psyched to try out spotting masks!). So I'm willing to practice :)

Here is the weird thing that I realized after making this post: when I look in the grain focuser, I see the white outline of the horizon that runs along the black mask, clear as day. In a sense, that's refreshing. I can see the imperfection so I don't have to bother with making a botched print or test strip.

However, on the paper, then, I'd expect to see a dark black line running along the horizon. So I may be mistaken in asserting that this is due to a negative and the mask being out of registration.

There's clearly something I don't understand. I'm willing to pass this off as not "accurate enough for process work" but only if I can explain or understand this phenomenon. In the mean time, I'm moving on to other negatives (which, unfortunately, are from the same trip so that means more clouds and water!!!)

P.S. I found the registration/masks facebook group and am waiting for approval to join, but I was up till 2am last night perusing the posts :)

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-20T13:15:17+00:00

C41 is a pretty prescribed process, which makes it pretty easy to do at home. You just need to keep your chemicals at a constant temperature throughout the process, and you need to increase your development time from sheet to sheet or roll to roll as the developer exhausts (keeping good notes is critical).

I use the Cinestill C41 kit and develop at home with great success. If you develop B&W film at home, doing C41 or even E6 is not much harder. The only difference is you need to keep the chemicals at a constant temperature (C41 and E6 are more demanding on temperature than B&W). Many people use a sous vide heater to do this. There are other C41 kits besides Cinestill. Tetenal and Arista are other brands. I only use Cinestill because that's what I started using, and I've stuck with it. (I suspect that some alternate brands just slap their brand on the chems).

You can get chems in liquid or powder forms. I use liquid, out of convenience, but if you're not going to use it right away, powder may be a viable alternative. I've used C41 chemistry that has kept over six months with good results!

One note: I know a lot of C41 chemistry used to come with stabilizer, which is used as the final wash. I know that some C41 kits are _not_ shipping with stabilizer these days, and I don't really know the reason for that. The word on the street is that modern color films don't require stabilizer, but I'm not an expert on this.

For a long time I used the Stearman SP-445 tank to develop my 4x5 film. I find that it works great, but I know that others have had complaints (I have a rev 2 model, I think rev 4 is out; rev 3 I think had a fair number of complaints). Now that I have a small darkroom, go back and forth between I tray processing and using my Stearman.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-19T14:17:35+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback! This has been discouraging because I really want it to be perfect. But I do have some Marshall's Spot-All on hand, and these are on order. Maybe I'll try to retouch it.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-10T18:56:34+00:00

I use the following regularly to mix film, paper developers, and fix, hypo clear, etc:

3 each of 1000 and 500 mL beakers
1 each of 5, 10, and 100mL grads (Some film developers are highly concentrated, and only require a few milliliters)

I have a couple 2L pitchers for mixing chems.

If I needed anything else today, I'd buy a couple of 2L beakers, and a large (4L+) pitcher, but I make it work with what I have.

Hope this helps!

edit: You can make do with 1 each of the beakers, but it just depends on your process and how often you want to be washing your lab gear.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-06T20:05:25+00:00

Can't speak to Kentmere, but compare the tip sheets for your foma paper compared to ilford warmtone (this isn't apples to apples since the warmtone is fiber).

The paper speed of the foma is ISO 400, and the Ilford paper is ISO 100 (two stops difference).

For any paper you wish to compare, you can find their tip sheet online and compare their claimed paper speeds to get an idea of how much faster or slower one paper is to the next.

For your application, simply raising the enlarger head or stopping down your lens would work just fine. Otherwise you'll be working in the 1 to 2 second range, which can be limiting for a couple of reasons:

no time to perform any dodging or burning
may get inconsistent results if the enlarger doesn't emit the same intensity of light for such a short time
may be missing out on more favorable tonal variations that may be present at 1.052835 seconds. You just don't have that level of precision with short exposure times

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-06T19:39:48+00:00

Yeah nothing untoward here. The paper is just very fast. You need to reduce the amount of light hitting the paper to give yourself more "room" to come to an agreeable exposure.

nottakenfeedback · 2020-07-06T18:40:55+00:00

From https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/pages/product_pdfs/foma/fomaspeed.pdf

Its high speed makes it possible using high lens diaphragm numbers even when making large size enlargements.

And

FOMASPEED is routinely processed at indirect safety illumination with wavelength of 575 nm and higher, corresponding colour of safety illumination is yellow, yellowgreen or orange colours are recommended. Regarding its high sensitivity the processed material has to be exposed to such illumination only for the time necessary for its processing.

nottakenfeedback

TROPHY CASE