Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 29th May 2018, 08:44 AM
photomi7ch's Avatar
photomi7ch photomi7ch is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 2,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Mitch, I've done very little pinhole photography and none recently. Should we both be getting about the same contrast; or do I need to modify my processing, in your opinion?
Not sure how to answer, only to say are you happy with the results? If so then no change.
Secondly I make most of my pinhole images on very bright sunny days which leads to some high contrast looking negatives. In some cases leading to split grade printing as the only why to print.
In the case of my XP2s negatives they print at grade three or slightly less which I would call standard for me across the camera and film makes I use.
I have done a comparison print using just white light with my grade three print. There is a contrast difference but very slight, you would be hard press to tell which is which.
__________________
Mitch

http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/

If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 29th May 2018, 02:12 PM
Michael Michael is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ballinderry Lower, Co. Antrim
Posts: 1,009
Default

Mitch, thank you for that. It was just that a lot of pinhole images I see seem to me quite low in contrast. My two side-by-side images are the only low-key frames on that film (apart from one of my wife that fooled the camera, not the film). I find contrast in low-key images less easy to assess; so how they get printed is a bit hit-and-miss with me. I am pretty happy with all the rest of the film. I bought a couple more 35mm rolls this morning and will put the next one through a fully manual camera, the Leica IIIf. If it's a success, it would do fairly well as a "winter" film along with PanF+ which I like to use in summer.

Thank you again for your comments there.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 17th June 2018, 03:52 PM
CambsIan's Avatar
CambsIan CambsIan is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1,223
Default

Just shot the remaining frames on the XP2 film and developed it.

Have attached 2 consecutive frames from the roll.
1st one was shot at 400asa, as per my original post
2nd one shot at 100 asa (this might be a bit out of focus)

Darkroom out of commision at the moment so have scanned the negs as both +ve and -ve for comparison (mods - if +ve scans break the rules please delete)

Developing routine
HC-110 1:49 at 20C - 5 mins
6 inversions in first 10 seconds then 3 inversions in 5 seconds every 30 secs
Water stop
Ilford Rapid fixer 15 mins (did not seem to be fully fixed at 10 min so added a further 5 mins to make sure).


100asa certainly better, but would a longer development say 5.30 or even 6 min improve the negs further ?

Have one further roll in my box which I will use to experiment with, but looking at negs anybody got any observations ?

Ian
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	img163.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	61.0 KB
ID:	2885   Click image for larger version

Name:	img164.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	69.4 KB
ID:	2886  
__________________
Learn to live, live to learn

Last edited by CambsIan; 17th June 2018 at 03:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 17th June 2018, 06:10 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 7,710
Default

Certainly the first neg is extremely thin. Hopefully longer development will considerably improve matters. Frankly if it doesn't then it looks to me that exposing XP2 Super at anything more than 100 is a waste of time. 2 stops over as a minimum would be too big a drawback for me compared to C41 development.

From what I can remember in the other thread on Photrio ,I don't think the user had to reduce the film speed by 2 stops to get good negs and prints.

I cannot remember what the other person's dev time was but I assume you chose 5 mins because this was his time.

Based on the car neg I'd go for an increased dev time of 40% i.e. 7 mins. This may be overshooting on the development time but at least overshooting makes it easier to get the correct aim on the next occasion.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 17th June 2018, 07:52 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,249
Default

The suggested times from the member of Photrio are published on the Ilford website. EI 100 is 5mins and EI 400 10mins. I developed a couple of rolls on Friday. The important frames were EI 200, do I developed for 7mins. Those negatives look fine. The rest were EI400, and, like Ianís, look quite thin. My impression is that this film is quite sensitive to variations in development time.
I am going to attempt printing the thin negatives, but Iím not sure how good the results will be.
Alex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 17th June 2018, 08:49 PM
CambsIan's Avatar
CambsIan CambsIan is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1,223
Default

Hi Mike, Hi Alex,

Many thanks for the replys.

I used 5min as I saw it somewhere, just can't remember where at the moment, but was thrown up while searching the net.

The loss of speed is no great loss to me as virtually all my film is 100asa, but as the others are cheaper than the XP2, I can't see me switching to it any time soon, but the lack of grain is a big plus for me.

Thanks for the timings Alex, for my last roll in this experiment, looks like I need to choose between
100 = 5 min (might just try making it 5 1/2 mins about +10%, think that's the right way to get thicker negs)
200 = 7 min
400 = 10 min

As I say can't see me making this my regular film, but it's been fun trying out something different.

Ian
__________________
Learn to live, live to learn
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 17th June 2018, 10:26 PM
Michael Michael is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ballinderry Lower, Co. Antrim
Posts: 1,009
Default

If you look at the XP2 data sheet, you will see that it's not as simple as balancing exposure times against your rated speeds. Rather than varying development, I'd suggest that Ian expose more outdoor scenes at 100 and maybe 200 (or bracket, even) and carry on with the 5 minute processing. This is a funny film, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 18th June 2018, 04:45 PM
photomi7ch's Avatar
photomi7ch photomi7ch is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 2,334
Default

I used my XP2s at 100 iso for five mins. Again it was a bright day lots of contrast. When it came to printing them I was surprised that I could use grade 3 which is about normal for me. If I had been using fomapan 100 I would have had to reduce it to zero because of there would be to much contrast. This suggests to me that maybe XP2s under rates the contrast.
__________________
Mitch

http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/

If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
black and white film, ilford, xp2
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.