werniX
Hello,
I’ve recently exposed two rolls of APX 100 and two rolls of APX 400. I took my time with the exposure measurements and think I did everything correctly.
I developed two roll films in my small Jobo canister (470 ml) in Rodinal 1+50 (20°C, APX 100 for 17 mins, APX 400 for 11 mins, agitating every minute), but the negatives are simply far too ‘thin’ for my liking; they don’t have the detail I expected :angry:
Could it be that, with 500ml of water and 10ml of Rodinal, the developer concentration per film is too low?
Has anyone had a similar problem, or what is the minimum concentration for Rodinal?
Please help
Regards
Werner
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Werner,
Without having checked your development times, here’s an answer and a few questions:
Answer: no, it actually works with even less Rodinal concentrate
Questions:
Did you develop both films in the same batch of developer, or did you prepare 500 ml for each?
Are both films too pale, or just one?
What did you use to measure out the 50 ml?
Is it possible that they aren’t actually too light, but it just seems that way to you?
AGFA and FOMA films appear paler than HP5 or even XP2 negatives.
However, they print beautifully at gradient 3.
So, question: have you tried printing them yet?
Best regards,
Mirko
werniX
Hi Mirko
Did you develop both films in the same batch of chemicals, or did you prepare 500 ml for each?
>> I prepared two fresh 500 ml batches
Are both films too pale, or just one?
>> Strangely enough, one whole 100-exposure roll of the two APX100s is too pale in my opinion
What did you use to measure the 50 ml?
>> A 25 ml measuring cylinder
Is it possible that they aren’t actually too weak, but it just seems that way to you?
>> Could be
So, question: have you tried printing them yet?
>> Haven’t printed them yet
Thanks for the quick replies
One more question: should I extend the times if I’m using 5 ml of concentrate per film?
I’m looking forward to the RC Polywarmton from your shop (ordered today) – I’ve been using Ilford Multigrade MG IV Pearl 30x40 50 sheets for over 70 euros
Stefan Heymann showed me a print on the Poly for comparison yesterday evening – it won me over straight away
Regards
Werner
skahde
Hi Werner,
17 minutes at 20°C and a 1:50 ratio sounds perfectly normal for the APX 100. If they really are too pale, I’d check the thermometer or simply extend the development time accordingly.
What didn’t you like about the Ilford paper?
Best regards,
Stefan
werniX
Hi Stefan,
You tend to like certain things until you see something better (in terms of quality and price).
I’ve had a chance to compare the two papers side by side.
I prefer Polywarmton; the superior density is clearly visible – in relation to PE, of course.
It’s a matter of personal taste. On top of that, I’ve been wanting to try something new for a long time – just like back in the day, when I tried out lots of things from Agenda in Munich.
What do you usually use?
Regards,
Werner :angry:
skahde
Hi Werner,
When comparing the brilliance, did you take into account the different finishes (pearl vs. gloss)? Were they enlarged to the same contrast? Was one print simply overexposed and the other printed a touch darker? These are possibly differences that cannot be attributed to the different properties of the material (apart from the finish) but are caused by different conditions during exposure and processing. Of course, a gradient 3 from the same negative looks nicer and more brilliant than a gradient 2.
For standard stuff, I use a thoroughly uncool baryta paper of modern design and local origin. It works a treat and looks great. I develop in D72 with benzotriazole instead of bromide; this produces rich but neutral/cool tones rather than greenish/warm ones, as with standard D72/Dektol. For intense toning, I prefer Polywarmton (baryta). You really must try the Tetenal Goldtoner with a warm-tone developer. But don’t be alarmed! :)
Best regards
Stefan
werniX
Hi Stefan,
I’m assuming you’re single and have plenty of time, or that you only produce one print per visit to the darkroom!? Or do you sometimes do PE as well? I mean, I love good old baryta too, and I’ve got a fairly fresh pack of Ilford FB 50x60 open – but in the short time I have for the darkroom, I want to end up with a bit more than just one print in my hands.
As for comparing the papers – naturally, I didn’t compare Pearl with Gloss, but Ilford MG High Gloss and Polywarmton High Gloss – both strips of paper were processed for the same time and with the same development – the density is simply stunning.
I’ve never tried toning before – but I recently took a lot of pictures of drying tobacco and was advised to tone some of them.
Best regards,
Werner
skahde
Hi Werner,
I’m not exactly single. :D On the contrary, my wife puts pressure on me when the pictures for our flat or the children’s portraits for the relatives aren’t finished quickly enough. :P
From that side, I get first-class support for my hobby. B)
As for the issue of time versus baryta paper, the most time-consuming part for me is the aesthetic editing, regardless of the material. The hardest part is deciding which parts of an image can be improved in their reproduction. The turnaround time between exposure and assessment is about 5 minutes, compared to 3 minutes for PE. Those two minutes don’t make much difference. The subsequent processing, washing and drying do not require my presence. As far as my time investment is concerned, the difference between PE and baryta is therefore negligible. I also print small formats for albums and relatives’ shoe boxes on PE, because it is simply more robust when handled roughly and dries flat without any problems. I prefer baryta.
As for the comparison of maximum density, others have already done a thorough job on this: current papers all achieve maximum densities of over 2.0 logD and more, mostly around 2.2, although a paper with 2.3 is, after all, ‘twice as black’ as one with 2.0. ‘Twice as black’ sounds great at first. However, Richard Henry (“Controls in Black and White Photography”) once presented test images with varying maximum densities to test subjects: from logD 1.8–1.9 onwards, they could only distinguish the differences by chance (if you’re making comparisons under dim pub lighting, even less density is enough :) ). This means that every paper achieves maximum blacks that the eye perceives as “black, it couldn’t be any blacker”, provided you view it under the right conditions (and leaving aside the reflective properties of different surfaces).
So if, under certain conditions, one paper does not achieve the same maximum black as another, this does not mean that it is incapable of doing so; one must, however, ask why it does not. Provided that the highlight reproduction is identical for both and the contrast reproduction in the mid-tones is also the same, it may be that one paper requires a higher shadow contrast in the negative than the other (i.e. the paper has a stronger shoulder in the highlights) and therefore does not display the same brilliance in the shadows when using the same negative. If the highlights are right, the negative will then be better suited to the paper that appears more brilliant in the shadows (this is a topic in itself, and here some candidates simply do not go together). This is one of the best arguments for choosing a particular paper. The only thing slightly smarter is to choose a paper and then tailor the entire chain of negative development, film selection and shooting technique ‘bottom up’ to it. But I can’t manage that either B) .
However, it’s also possible – and this is where you can go wrong much more easily – that the overall contrast in cases A and B is simply different; a quarter of a stop is enough.
How can you reliably compare the maximum black? It has been proven that you can’t do it with the naked eye at all (see above). :D So you just have to be reasonably sure that you can achieve it. For example, you can expose a grey scale and extend the exposure until the two darkest areas are no longer distinguishable, or quite simply check the film base and surrounding area in a negative contact print. If the latter are indistinguishable, ‘black enough’ has been achieved in the surrounding area. Comparisons with standard enlargements are far too unreliable due to the unpredictable contrast differences between the materials.
If you’re now wondering why such a fuss is made about increasing maximum densities using selenium toners, it’s because this also enhances slightly less dense areas, whilst the brighter highlights and mid-tones within dark areas remain as they are and thus stand out more clearly. The shadow contrast increases, and the image looks crisper. This has only an indirect connection to the actual maximum blacks, as these only increase to a measurable extent.
Otherwise, toning is a revelation if you haven’t tried it yet. It’s the fourth dimension in the darkroom: paper choice = 1, exposure + contrast = 2, development = 3, toning = 4
Best regards and apologies for the long-winded ramblings ;)
Stefan
werniX
Hi Stefan,
Now you really must explain to me the details of how you develop your baryta prints (equipment and process) – maybe I’ll start doing more baryta work again in the future.
Since you seem to have a lot of experience – are there any examples of your work online?
Best regards,
Werner
StefanHeymann
Hi Werner,
> Strangely enough, a whole roll of 100 from the two APX100s is, in my opinion, too pale
Were they both developed in the same tank? One after the other in the same spiral? If so, I’d suspect an error in the exposure measurement. Are the batch numbers (which are printed on the film edge) identical?
Hi Stefan,
I respect your comments on maximum density, but just try comparing MG4 and PWT (both PE, both on the same surface). PWT is *significantly* denser; in contrast, the MG4 just looks grey. If you send me your address (bladrunner@stefanheymann.de), I’ll be happy to send you the comparison strips that Werner also received from me. I won’t label them, as you’ll see the difference straight away. And you can see it in the photos too; I’ve been enjoying printing much more since I started using PWT. (Though I don’t think that’s what caused Ilford’s bankruptcy ;-)
Best regards
Stefan
skahde
Hi Stefan,
Now I’m starting to get curious. I’ll just go ahead and do the comparison. I’ve still got some MGIV PE here, and PWT only in baryta form, so I’ll add a small sample of Agfa MCP and MCC to each. We can swap them back and forth by post afterwards.
It’s worth a try! ;)
Werner,
So far, there are a laughable two of my photos online (in the Moersch customer gallery). The photos don’t really come across well online for me, which is why I can never bring myself to learn how to scan properly :).
But we’re welcome to swap (working) prints by post, ideally as a round-robin swap. Stefan, are you in? Four prints each? Anyone else?
Best regards
Stefan
StefanHeymann
Hi Stefan,
I’m not sure whether the MG4/PE vs. PWT/Baryt test is entirely fair ;-)
I’d be happy to take part in the print swap, but my preferred format is 24x30, which unfortunately isn’t very easy to post (DIN A4 = 21x30). So I’d have to produce the prints for the ring swap first, which doesn’t happen as quickly as I’d like. So feel free to go ahead with the ‘ring swap’ and I’ll join in when I’m ready...
Best regards,
Stefan
werniX
Hello Stefan Heymann,
I’ve now made prints from the films in question – and Mirko was right – print them first. So the 2x100s are OK – there’ll be something to see on the Hassi forum soon – but the 2x400s are really too flat – though I already know why that is – they’re simply finished – expired – ruined – I immediately ripped out the last one, which was already in the magazine.
Regards,
Werner
skahde
I’m not sure whether the MG4/PE vs. PWT/Baryt test is entirely fair ;-)
Hi Stefan,
My working hypothesis is that you can’t see any difference in the maximum black. So I’ll have to do my very best to disprove it. :)
I’ll enclose the results with the prints for the ring exchange and will get them sent back to me in the ring dispatch along with your results. I’ll start a new thread for the ring exchange so we don’t end up just the two of us.
As for sending the photos: the magic words at the post office counter are ‘Warensendung Maxi’. It can be up to 35.3 x 30 x 15 cm in size and weigh up to 500 g. It costs €1.53 and just takes a little longer.
Best regards,
Stefan
