Four film how well did they develop.

Film development.

It has taken quite a time to reach this point. There have been numerous interruptions, not all of them good, but the results are in and there are some surprises.

The different makes side by side

All the films are 120 format and 6x6 negative size. They were exposed at box speed and developed in the same way with the same thirty month old batch of stock ID11. When I checked the date I was Shocked. It did explain the slightly wheat looking tone to the developer. To be honest I did not give a second thought as to whether it would work or not. The developer was diluted 1+1 and used only once at a temp 20c, No pre-soak was used. All inverted for the first thirty seconds this is equal to twelve inversions and then four inversions every minute this is equal to ten seconds. Then stopped, fixed and washed as normal.

FP4+ negs

I chose to develop the FP4+ first. This is the film all the others are going to be judged against, so there was no pressure to get the development spot on. The suggested time by the manufacturers is eleven minutes, but I find my negatives tend to be a bit thin so process for fourteen minutes. While the negatives were drying I looked over them to see how well they had turned out. I was surprised to find they are some of the best negatives I have produced. Let's hope I can keep this standard up for the rest.

Rollie 400s negs

The next film to be loaded into the developing tank was the Rollei 400s. This did not have a very auspicious start after loading the film into the back of the camera. I had mistaken the noise it was making for the film coming off the spool. I am so used to the sound FP4+makes when being wound on. I checked to see if it was OK in a blacked out darkroom and it was. This lead to four frames being lost. The suggested development time for this film in ID11 is eleven minutes. I must say I had my doubts but developed it for the said time anyway. Need I say they look thin; will have see how well they print!

Fomapan 100 negs

The five litre can of ID11 is getting very close to being used up and the developer is getting darker in colour each time I use it, could be a close run thing as to whether there is enough to do two more films. Next into the soup was the Fomapan classic exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested development time for this speed is eight to ten minutes. This is another film I have no previous knowledge of, so which is it 8,9 or 10 minutes?. With the thin looking Rollei negs at the front of my mind I've chosen ten minutes I feel it may produce better results and it did. My calculated gamble paid off this time. Producing the density of negative I like and very close to the FP4+ results.

Adox chs negs

The last one to meet the spiral was the Adox CHS exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested time for ID11 at this speed is 7.5 minutes. I took no notice of this time at all. Boyd by the results of the Fomapan I pushed the time to ten minutes. Where did this time come from? The previous results indicated that a longer development time would produce denser negatives so I decided to do the same for this. Was I right? NO! I should have gone longer. These are the thinnest negatives of the lot. Again, will have to see how they print.

Experience and knowledge has played it's part in the development of the Fomapan, 400s and Adox but even so the later two's results are 'off' by my standard. The times suggested for developing the films are from a trusted source. So I am a little disappointed that they did not turn out better than they did. Having said that it maybe the developer losing its potency as I start to scrape the bottom of the bottle. It is, to a certain extent, a gamble when using old material, combined with ones I have not used before. All is not lost, it just means that the thinner negatives will be a bit more of a challenge to print properly.

How are they going to print?

Finally the Id11 ran out before I had a chance to do another roll of the 400s. If I had, I would have extended the time by three minutes. With the Adox I would have increased the time by five minutes.

Four Film

The Plan.

This is the first time I have four different manufactures of black and white film in 120 format in stock. To mark the occasion I'm going to compare them to see if there is a noticeable difference between them. This comparison is not about which is the best film to use but to do with creativity and what each emulsion may bring to the party. Choosing a film in the first place is very subjective, you can ask as many questions as you like and look at loads of pictures that are the product of it's exposure but you will not truly know how it looks until you use it for yourself. FP4 was the first roll of film I chose to use and has remained my favorite ever since. At the time it was a close run thing with Kodak's offerings.

The protagonists are, of course Ilfords FP4+, Fomapan classic 100, Adox CHS 100 and Rollei retro 400s.

FP4+ has been the main stay of my median format work and therefore I know how to get the best out of it. The Rollei 400s and Fomapan classic are the two out of the four that are unknown quantities when it come to exposure and development. So to a certain extent the results will also have a first impressions flavour. Not always the best way to judge a product. I have used the Adox before in 35 mm format so I have an idea what to expect and in that case was not favourable but I will not let that taint the use of its bigger brother. I am also aware when loading Adox film it needs subdued lighting as it fogs easily in bright conditions. The Fomapan classic when processed with certain combinations of fix and developer can be susceptible to pinholes appearing in the emulsion but then I have had this with FP4+ in the past.

All the pictures will be made on a Bronica SQAi. I will not be replicating the same twelve views across all the films. I prefer to make pictures when the opportunity arises. They will all be exposed at box speed and developed in ID11 and processed as normal, then printed on an RC paper that will be chosen at the time of printing. I decided to keep things simple and use materials that I have a good understanding of, making it easier to tell how well the two unknown films have been exposed and developed.

All we need now are the exposed and developed film. The links below will take you to the follow up posts.



The links below are the follow ups to this post.
The developed film

The prints

Dogs Dinner.

Well not quite, a dogs water bowl! There is no chance of it falling in his dinner because his head is in the bowl before it hits the floor. The film was more likely to become a chew.

I noticed that two film containers were sitting on the kitchen table. Thinking they were empty I picked them up to throw away, to discover that they were not. I opened one and out dropped a roll of exposed colour film. Butter fingers here managed to drop the roll of film! The consequence of these finger fumbling, was splash! straight into the dogs water bowl. My wife said that she had not seen me move that fast since my superman days. I need reminding, what superman days?

After a bit of dancing around to shake the water out, it was off to the local supermarket for development. An outlet we had not tried before. The film was also long out of date - nearly a decade. If it had not been for the fact I was on my way out I would have blacked out the darkroom and removed the film for drying. These things always happen when you're short of time.

As it turns out the water had destroyed nearly half the frames on a film of twenty four. The up shot of this was we only had to pay half the normal fee. There was also colour shift on some of the prints. This I put down to the water damage.

Am I disappointed? No! Not really, but I am with myself for the butter fingers, but not with the results we have, as neither of us could remember who, what, when or which camera was used in the first place. The big disappointment is with the quality of the processing and paper used. 

A mistake comes good

Developed normally

In a recent chat I had with another photographer, there was a lamenting the fact that he had not noticed a problem with his new pinhole camera; well not the camera but a bit of kit he was using with it. He is not the only one not to notice the little tell tail signs that things are not going well. I had the same sort of thing with the lith 200 process I was trying out for the first time. It was not until I started to use different makes of paper that the fault struck me. Up to that point I thought it was part of the process. It turned out that the box of Kentmere paper had been light contaminated (fogged),but when I could not remember.  At this realization two things crossed my mind, what a waste of a box of paper and dam! it is not a peculiarity of the process.

lith 200 Kentmere paper

I changed to a different paper and continued to produce prints. Using the

negatives I had selected for the trial with the lith 200. While I was doing this I had the idea that maybe the fogged paper could be used to creative affect. I chose some of the negs that may lend themselves to this and processed them accordingly. As the first result appeared in the developer, I started to question this creative wisdom as it looked rubbish, but then my perception changed when the photograph of the bottles on the window sill appeared. It did not look out of place, in fact it added to it a sort of early twentieth century feel. Maybe my idea wasn't such a bad one after all!.

lith 200 Forma paper

What I'm getting at is just because it has gone wrong there is no need to throw the baby out with the water so to speak! With a little lateral thinking creatively you can turn things round. Some of you may think I'm talking a load of rubbish ( I'm being polite) but it is surprising how often a mistake can come good.

lith 200 Kentmere paper

The most popular posts of 2013.

William Henry fox Talbot 

These are the ten most popular posts on this site for 2013. In some cases not the best written but then who sets out to write a bad article. I compare it to making pictures, I go out with the intention of producing my best work. I chose those pictures that meet that criterion and share them with you. Then the choice is yours and that means you may not agree.

Of the hundred and fifty or so posts on the blog the following are the most visited making them the most popular.

1. Fox Talbot a short history.
2. Darkroom layout.
3. Preparing the pinhole camera for use.
4. Basic split grade printing.
5. Choosing an enlarger.
6. Print washing.
7. Test results for Agfa APX 100.
8. Fuji GW 690111 overview/review.
9. Dryside of the darkroom.
10. Keeping your negatives safe.

Easy Lith 200 Results.

This is my follow on post explaining what happened and how it was done. Not everything went according to plan, but more about that later.

Being in a fortunate position of owning a second slot processor I decided to set this at 26 degrees for the lith developer. I did not add stop or fix to the other slots but continued to use what was already available in the other slotty, keeping the temperature to 20 degrees. It is just as well I did as one of the papers emulsion became very soft.

I chose high contrast negatives that I had already printed. I looked back through my notes on how long each was exposed for and added one and half times more exposure to see how things worked. I chose to follow the instructions when it came to diluting part A and B at 2X 1+25+1000 mls water. (20 mls of each 40 mls in total in 1000 mls of water). The paper I chose to start with was Kentmere RC because it was the paper originally used with these negatives. All the prints were exposed to white light, no grades were set. I had no idea how they would turn out or what sort of tone would be produced. I used two other varitone RC papers to see which produced the best results with this mix of A and B.

Kentmere paper

This is the original Kentmere print exposed at grade zero and developed as normal.

Kentmere paper

This is the first print out of the easy lith on Kentmere paper. It took over three minutes for it to reach full development. A very faint out line of the picture started to show about 30-40 seconds in. It was difficult to see whether the print had toned or not with the red light on.

Foma 131 paper

Second print was on Foma 131 varitone. This took a full twelve minutes to develop fully and is what I had in mind as a lith look.

Ilford paper

Third print was on Ilford multigrade paper, I pulled the paper early because I thought it may go completely black.

Conclusions:

Not knowing what to expect from this process makes it difficult to be to critical with the results. One of my main mistakes was to treat this like a normal developer, I should have mixed the two parts separately so I could vary the strengths of each part to get a look that was in my opinion more lith like, this may have lead me to make changes to the amount of over exposure as well. The problem I think in these early stages of getting to grips with a new process such as this is there are a lot of variables to take into account. With more practice I suspect I will arrive at something more my taste.

A side affect of using the Lith process has shown up a weakness in what I considered a well vented darkroom. This is the first time I experienced a build up of fumes. Some updating needs to be carried out if I wish to continue printing using lith chemicals. After a bit of thought I feel it should be upgraded regardless!

Over all I am pleased with the outcome, for a first attempt. Others may not, but I would prefer to get as many of the mistakes out of the way now so I can concentrate on producing finer prints in the future.

Link back to first post easy lith 200

Easy lith 200 try out.

Easy lith 200

For the best part of a year I have been looking at a couple of bottles of Moesch easy Lith 200. It is there by mistake, having turned up in an order I placed and could not be bothered to send it back. After looking at the instructions again I decided to give it a go. How difficult could it be, after all it does say easy lith!? It is time to put 'easy' to the test.

What the instructions say:

The lith developer comes in two bottles marked A and B. the former has Hydrochinon and the latter Potassium Carbonate.

A and B can be diluted from 1+15 to 1+50 or any combination of the two. For example 1+25 = 40 ml of developer to 1000 ml of water. (20 ml A +20 ml B +1000 ml of water)

You should over expose your prints by 1 to 4 stops. The amount of over exposure and the strength of the developer influences the interaction between the two, e.g. with a small over exposure you should use a stronger developer of say 1 to 15 dilution, with a larger over exposure you should use a weaker developer of say 1 to 50 dilution.

Reaction when you add part A and B together

The image printed is dependent on the paper and exposure used i.e. lots of light plus weaker developer equals longer development time and greater colour.

If you are using variable contrast papers (VC) you should use white light as contrast is controlled by a combination of exposure and development time.

Short exposure equals higher contrast, underdeveloped middle tones and minimal colour.

Long exposure equals softer and colourful high lights.

It does not matter what combination of exposure or dilution you use it can take between four to twelve minutes for the image to appear whether RC or FB paper is being used. When in the developer it is recommended that the print is agitated continuously and that the emulsion side should not come into contact with the surface of the tray as it will damage it.

The water added in this case was at 26 degrees.
as you can see the milkiness disappears

The development time will extend from print to print as oxidation and bi products build up this can be compensated for by adding fresh developer to regenerate the working solution.

You can vary the relationship between part A and B. Different affects will be achieved by doing this. More part A equals more colour and harder prints but runs out of steam more quickly. More part B equals a softer print that appears more quickly relatively speaking and will produce more prints before it is exhausted.

It is suggested that by increasing the temperature of the developer to around 26 to 28 degrees centigrade it will reduce development times by 30 to 40% but by doing this it will soften the gelatin making it easier to damage.

The instructions above are not verbatim as they are translated from German but contain all the most important bits.

Some thing’s to think about before you start:

Oxidized lith developer after 24 hours

I would suggest where possible that if you are going to use the developer at the increased temperature of 26 degrees +, that it is done separately to the stop and fix which would normally be used at 20 degrees. This is really aimed at those of us who mainly use a slot processor for printing. By doing this you decrease the amount of fumes given off making the air more breathable. It also allows you to cool down the paper when it is moved to the stop therefore hardening the gelatin layer decreasing it's susceptibility to damage as you move it from bath to bath.

Collapsible bottle.

I added part A and B together when I mixed it up for the first time which I think was a mistake, it would be a better idea to dilute A and B separately as one exhausts more quickly than the other. The instructions do not state either way as to mixing the pair together.

It also states that the developer oxidizes quickly when used in a tray and that you should only mix enough for the session and when finished throw it all away. I found that if you pour the unused developer into collapsible bottles it will stay fresh for at least 48 hours. A slot processor slows the oxidation down but not to the extent that it will keep over night.

Because this post is getting a bit long my results will be posted separately. 

Results link

Angles of view with different lenses..

The diagram shows angle of view or angle of acceptance.

I have been looking back through my college notes and came across this series of pictures. I used the colour film you find in the pound/ budget shops. I have had no problems with the way the film has performed.

These pictures show how much of the view in front of the lens is depicted at the negative. As the focal length of the lens increases the angle of view reduces but the object size gets bigger. Therefore as you go up the focal range so the depth of field lessens.

View at 35mm

View at 50mm

View at 80mm

View at 135mm and the cold is getting to me.

View at 210mm

Ilfords new darkroom paper.

The old Multigrade 4 FB.

Ilford have launched an upgrade to its popular Multigrade 4 FB darkroom papers called Multigrade FB classic suggesting that this is the best light sensitive paper they have produced so far. If you judge it on sales alone and the fact it has sold out you maybe right or they could have simply under estimated it's popularity. It comes in gloss and matt surfaces offering greater sharpness, shorter development times and improved Max D – could this mean less time in the wash? Available at all the usual sizes. The classic paper has a white base tint, neutral image colour, good mid tone range and deep blacks. It has also been made more sensitive to traditional toning techniques but then I didn't find the original that difficult, even with toning developers. As part of the changes a cool tone FB paper has been introduced to complement the warm tone FB papers. This has crisp whites and nicely separated midtones. One of the surprising things about this paper is that Ilford has kept the price of the paper at multigrade 4 FB prices so far.

Technical sheets from Ilford:

FBClassic PDF

FBCool tone PDF

Paper flashing, Pre-flash examples.

I had not envisaged writing a second post on this subject so soon, but I thought I should have included some more examples with the first post.

Examples:

All the pictures that appear here have been printed on Kentmere VC RC at grade 0, developed in Ilford Multigrade and pre-flashed at one second increments with the enlarger light box at nearly full height and the lens shut down to F16.

Straight Grade Zero print

This picture is a straight grade zero print. When I took this picture I knew it would be a difficult scene to print.

Pre-flashed for one second

This picture has had a one second pre-flash the difference is quite subtle but you can just make out an increase in tone.

Two second flash

This picture has had a two second pre-flash and looks a bit washed out. The tonal range has increased in comparison to the last picture now making it necessary to add the grade five exposure to bring out the contrast and blacks.

Pre-flash test strip:

Exposure curve and Kentmere test strip
in second intervals

I have combined the pre-flash test strip for the Kentmere paper with the exposure curve to show how the test relates to the curve. Intervals 1 to 4 relate to the numbers on the curve.

Example two:

Grade zero print

This is also a grade zero print, when I took these shots I did not think the negatives would require pre-flashing.

Flashed for one second

This picture has had a one second pre-flash. If you compare the two carefully you can make out the subtle change in the sky which appears darker and the  additional tonal range in the details in the shadows.