Unsuccessful Stand development of Foma 400
Old 02-03-2016   #1
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,318
Unsuccessful Stand development of Foma 400

I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?
__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica iiif
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 28mm
Contax RX + Zeiss 50mm f1.4
Olympus OM-4 + 24mm f2.8 + 35mm f2
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7


websites:
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/aykutkaraca
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2016   #2
Mr_Flibble
Registered User
 
Mr_Flibble's Avatar
 
Mr_Flibble is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Lowlands
Age: 42
Posts: 4,095
Stand development in Rodinal of fast films isn't the greatest idea, I'm told.
__________________
Rick - In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Loaded with film: Leica IIIc and a Graphic 23 roll film holder
Latest Toys: Agfa Billy Record, K.W. Etui, unknown 9x12 folder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2016   #3
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
Grainy and fogged come to mind with Rodinal stand; luckily you didn't have streaking. Thin negatives could be many thing though.

I'm sure many members have real times for Rodinal and Foma 400. I think even I do:

AristaEDU Ultra 400 (250) Rodinal 1+50, 11 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per 3 minutes, 68 degrees
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2016   #4
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,318
Foma indicates 1+200 with 60 min on their site so there is one of the mistakes I made. I saw under another topic on rff site that 1+50 gives good results with Foma 400.
__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica iiif
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 28mm
Contax RX + Zeiss 50mm f1.4
Olympus OM-4 + 24mm f2.8 + 35mm f2
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7


websites:
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/aykutkaraca
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2016   #5
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Grainy and fogged come to mind with Rodinal stand; luckily you didn't have streaking. Thin negatives could be many thing though. I'm sure many members have real times for Rodinal and Foma 400. I think even I do: AristaEDU Ultra 400 (250) Rodinal 1+50, 11 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per 3 minutes, 68 degrees
Bang on - but we both knew that right?

I have found that 11 minutes with ANY b&w film is good. It may not be perfect, as I haven't done controlled tests for every film I've used.

My take is that at high dilutions such as 1:50 Rodinal is developing to exhaustion, so extended times at higher dilutions doesn't gain anything. And agitation affects grain structure more than anything else. Again, these are unscientific observations.

For 1:25 use 6 minutes, 1:100 is 19 minutes. The fact that you can get very good to excellent results with these starting points for nearly all films is wonderful.

I loved how CHS 100 looked in Rodinal; haven't tried CHS II yet. And Pan F+ is superb.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2016   #6
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,222
Foma 400 is touchy, as you've discovered. It's grainy by nature, and can fog easily. It's also very soft and prone to scratching. I've had decent luck with a compensating developer - D-23 - either diluted 1:3 for 20 minutes at 68 degrees F or with D-23 straight replenished at 8 minutes. It's far from my favorite film, although I do like the Creative 200, also developed with a compensating developer. Stand developing has its fans, but it is condemned almost as often as it's praised.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2016   #7
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
I've had decent luck with a compensating developer
Indeed, a compensating type developer but not R09/Rodinal for this iso 400 film (in fact iso 200/250) which is a pretty grainy type.

Here an example of FP400 E.I. 250 in Rollei Supergrain, in fact an Amaloco AM74 copy, a semi-compensating type developer, 1+9 6:00 minutes at 20C.

__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #8
ravilamir
Registered User
 
ravilamir's Avatar
 
ravilamir is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London, UK
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeicaFoReVer View Post
I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?
Hi!
I only use Fomadon R09 (rodinal clone) and stand development 1+100 for 1 hour. I do 4 inversions at the start.
I have never seen a problem or "foggy" negatives with Fomapan 400, one of my main films.

See if this is what you thing is thin and foggy. Remember you are seeing here are "scans" done by a very cheap "scanner" and no corrections of whatsoever were done. All shot at ISO 400:

1-28-2016_026 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-28-2016_023 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-20-2016_020 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

1-28-2016_021 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr
__________________
Ricardo Miranda
Canon P. Voigtlander Bessa R

Olympus M-1, OM-1/N, OM-2/N, OM-4, OM-4Ti
A bunch of Nikons
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #9
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,862
I have had good negatives with D76 1:1 for 10 min at 20 deg. C with that film.

It is one of my favourite films.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #10
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,894
Finally I am getting good negatives @250 souped in HC-110 (B) 6 minutes 20C. Before I souped it for 6.5 minutes and was getting really dense negs. Overall I won't shoot this film again especially since HP5+ is only about 60 cents a roll more. Also I can't seem to avoid light leaking into the last two frames when I open the back to change films.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #11
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 374
You probably did everything right. This looks to me a manufacturing fault because the SAME THING happened to me, and I didn't stand develop. I use D-76 and the results were horrible. I didn't make a mistake, the temperature was at a constant 20 Celcius.

I'm not buying FOMA 200 or 400 - too unreliable.

Why bother with it when if I'm unsure wither the film was fogged or not coated properly? Any shot I may get could be ruined, every shot is precious.
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #12
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeicaFoReVer View Post
I made some mistakes. I ended up very low contrast grainy and foggy negatives. Where did I make mistake or mistakes? The film also sat in the camera for 6 months. Rodinal has been out in my balcony where 40c degrees was the temperature in the summer. And I used 1 hour development at 1:100. I think everything I did was with a mistake...gosh...

Can rodinal (R09) go bad?
1:100 with Rodinal is fine. I do 1:100 @ 60 mins, 20 inversions first minute - then 5 inversions every 15 mins (to get consistency).

FOMA films too often for me appear with manufacturing faults. I'm sick of it.

The most reliable film was FOMA 100 - but not 400 or worst 200.

__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #13
ravilamir
Registered User
 
ravilamir's Avatar
 
ravilamir is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London, UK
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
Finally I am getting good negatives @250 souped in HC-110 (B) 6 minutes 20C. Before I souped it for 6.5 minutes and was getting really dense negs. Overall I won't shoot this film again especially since HP5+ is only about 60 cents a roll more. Also I can't seem to avoid light leaking into the last two frames when I open the back to change films.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
You probably did everything right. This looks to me a manufacturing fault because the SAME THING happened to me, and I didn't stand develop. I use D-76 and the results were horrible. I didn't make a mistake, the temperature was at a constant 20 Celcius.

I'm not buying FOMA 200 or 400 - too unreliable.

Why bother with it when if I'm unsure wither the film was fogged or not coated properly? Any shot I may get could be ruined, every shot is precious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
1:100 with Rodinal is fine. I do 1:100 @ 60 mins, 20 inversions first minute - then 5 inversions every 15 mins (to get consistency).

FOMA films too often for me appear with manufacturing faults. I'm sick of it.

The most reliable film was FOMA 100 - but not 400 or worst 200.

Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.
__________________
Ricardo Miranda
Canon P. Voigtlander Bessa R

Olympus M-1, OM-1/N, OM-2/N, OM-4, OM-4Ti
A bunch of Nikons
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #14
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,105
There is a 'stochiometric' approach to stand development, I think 3.5 ml of rodinal concentrate for each roll of 135 film. Thus, the dilution depends on number of rolls (essentially you let all the developer react with the available film surface). I got good results (to my eyes) using that protocol in the past.

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #15
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravilamir View Post
Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.
Ricardo, I feel the same way, I still use Kodak but I also use these film. And I will go to Ilford if Kodak doesn't feel it is necessary to make film. Foma films are different, but I like them especially when you get used to know them. You can use them in the situations where they shine, when you get EI, metering, and development right (just like any film) you will have success.

I did not like these film at first but that was ignorance.

AND I don't use stand with Foma films (or any others).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #16
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravilamir View Post
Would the gents above post images or even better shots of the negative as they are against a backlighted window, please?

I've been using Fomapan 100 and 400 for some years now and never had a single problem.
To badmouth one of the few manufactures that still do R&D and have introduced a brand new emulsion in the last year is really poor.
To me it seems the above gents are Digitographers that are not used to old style films.
Foma films are unique as they are the last emulsions that are very soft and delicate when wet. They damage easily when not properly handled.

So, please, provide proof of what you are saying.
Thanks.
Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #17
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.
I don't know what dark spot is, but I do agree about the paper backing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #18
ravilamir
Registered User
 
ravilamir's Avatar
 
ravilamir is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London, UK
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
Sir are you accusing me of being a "Digitographer"? I do not digitograph and do not even own a scanner. As I stated in my post I am getting good results with Fomapan 400 @250 in HC110(B) 20c 6 minutes. I also shoot Foma 100 in 4x5 and Foma 200 in 135 and like them but for 120 I don't know if I'd want to shoot Foma 400 again. First is the backing paper. I am getting light leaking into the last two frames post exposure when I open the camera back. Sure I can find a dark spot while street shooting with my Rollei but it is not convenient. Also I need the speed and I can get box speed and higher with HP5. Nothing again against Foma and I use their other emulsions.
Sorry and thanks for clarifying what you meant for light leaking.
About backing paper for 120, there has been a series of reports about problems with backing paper for some Kodak and Ilford emulsions.
Now, I don't know how many manufacturers are there for backing paper and how coincident would be that Kodak and Foma would have the same backing paper.
But, it is the first time I've seen mentioning the backing paper on Fomapan 400.
Years ago there were some problems with Fomapan 200 in 120.
They were sorted with a new base film.
I hope if there is any problem with the backing paper that will do as well.
I'll suggest you send to Foma what you think is a defective backing paper together with the negative so they can examine it and find a solution.
__________________
Ricardo Miranda
Canon P. Voigtlander Bessa R

Olympus M-1, OM-1/N, OM-2/N, OM-4, OM-4Ti
A bunch of Nikons
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #19
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,894
The backing paper is OK. I have recently shot Fomapan 200 and 400 in 120 without the backing paper problem of the past. But the paper tends to unroll itself at the end of the rolls letting light in. In certain backs such as newer Hasselblad back where there is a "stopper" to keep the spool tight this is not an issue but for more primitive cameras like the Rolleiflex where there is nothing to keep exposed rolls to spring open when I open the back this is a problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #20
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayt View Post
The backing paper is OK. I have recently shot Fomapan 200 and 400 in 120 without the backing paper problem of the past. But the paper tends to unroll itself at the end of the rolls letting light in. In certain backs such as newer Hasselblad back where there is a "stopper" to keep the spool tight this is not an issue but for more primitive cameras like the Rolleiflex where there is nothing to keep exposed rolls to spring open when I open the back this is a problem.
Right!! Even my 60 year old Kodak Duaflex IV and my Agfa Isolette II have these 'tightening' features. But with some of my other cameras that are newer I've had problems; I'll have to check them for a the 'tightener.'
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2016   #21
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
The backing paper is OK. I have recently shot Fomapan 200 and 400 in 120 without the backing paper problem of the past. But the paper tends to unroll itself at the end of the rolls letting light in.
The base material of Foma (and also some other brands) is Polyester which curls more so you have to keep the spool tight when loading and unloading the roll film.

Rollei Retro 80(S), 400(S), IR-400 are using the same Agfa Gevaert Clear Polyester layer for it.

Some manufactureres are using tri-Acetate for it e.g. on Fuji Acros 100 but this has the disadvantage that the base material is softer and can damage easier especially because it is 100um in thickness only. 35mm Acetate is 125um-135um.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #22
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 406
Sounds to me that the OP did just about everything to get faulty negs

- Foma 400 isn't especially grain-less to begin with, why are you developing it in Rodinal and complain about grain?
- Stand-dev is a crap-shoot, normally used when you have some unknown film and no way to know how to develop it. Notorious for uneven developed negatives, bromide streaks etc.
- Foma 400 isn't actually 400, more like 250 (In Rodinal that is probably even more true, since true-speed for most films are lower in that developer). This can contribute to thinner negatives. "Bending" the scans to get normal looking pictures, will enhance the grain even more.
- Rodinal isn't cryptonite, it can die, go bad, crystallize and loose strength, it should be stored, at least, in stable conditions.
- Foma, in it's various flavors is a cool film and often very nice looking, certainly old-school looking.
- Foma isn't the most high-resolving film, in-fact; The higher the ISO, the lower the resolution.

I Haven't experienced too many issues at all with the 200 and 400, there were issues with the 100 (blue base) in 120 in the past, but from what I've read, it has been resolved a few years back. (pinholes, streaks etc).

I often use Rodinal or HC-110 for the 100, shot at 80 (which looks superb) and HC-110 for the 200 and 400 (shot at 100 and 250 respectively) and develop normally, no issues.

Foma 100 in HC-110, B (120 format)

Fountain in the Queen’s Park, Oslo royal castle by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr


Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 (120 format)



Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1:50 (120 format)











Foma 200 creative @ 200 in HC-110 B (35mm)
(From a zombie-walk in 2012)













Fomapan 400 @ 400 (underexposed) in HC-110 B, double exposure (120-format)

Duality by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #23
Cocal
Registered User
 
Cocal's Avatar
 
Cocal is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: venice italy
Posts: 221
2014♣193 by ruggero ranzani, su Flickr
Voigtlander bessa R3M, Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 f/2,5 MC; Fomapan [email protected], Adox Adonal (1:100) 120', 20C. Scan from negative film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2016   #24
Cocal
Registered User
 
Cocal's Avatar
 
Cocal is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: venice italy
Posts: 221
2014♣195 by ruggero ranzani, su Flickr
Voigtlander bessa R3M, Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 f/2,5 MC; Fomapan [email protected], Adox Adonal (1:100) 120', 20C. Scan from negative film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2016   #25
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,318
Thank you everyone...Yes I made several mistakes. Grain wasnt the biggest problem. I would expect grain due to the fast film I used but lack of contrast and fog with thin result were the biggest issues. I will post some examples. Scanned images are not that bad as it can becompensated by post processing.

I dont like fast films either so I will probably stick with FP4+ which gave incredible results with Rodinal and stand development.
__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica iiif
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 28mm
Contax RX + Zeiss 50mm f1.4
Olympus OM-4 + 24mm f2.8 + 35mm f2
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7


websites:
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/aykutkaraca
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #26
edwliang
Registered User
 
edwliang is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 63
i always get sproket hole streaks and uneven development with fp400 in rodinal 1:100 stand development.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2017   #27
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 159
I stopped stand development after 4 rolls because of streaking and or air bubbles even with a few good bangs after initial agitation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2017   #28
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,387
Wring down before I forget: "FP4+, keep in camera for six mounts, 1 hour in Rodinal which was kept on sun all summer... Great results!"

But I'm also the giver.
On previous week I dumped Kentmere 400 in used Arista Lith Developer for 20 minutes and then to Rodinal 1:40 for fifteen minutes. It took 2-3 minutes for exposure by wide open enlarger lens to get image visible on the 8x10 print. Results were great!

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2017   #29
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 231
The thin negatives the OP spoke about are most likely the result severe underdevelopment caused by insufficient developer.

For 35mm film you need at least 3.5ml of Rodinal per roll, and some people recommend 5.0ml, which is probably a better idea. Sticking with 3.5ml, for a 1:100 dilution you need 350ml of dilute developer per roll. Last year, a lab used a two-reel tank with a capacity of 600ml, which is less than the minimum 700ml needed for two rolls. The negatives were so thin that you couldn't have printed them with an enlarger you could also see that underdevelopment was the problem because the TRI-X logo printed at the edge of the film was so light it was barely visible. So, you need to make sure that you have a large enough tank, and I think it's a good to use 5ml per roll, which requires a 1 liter tank for two 35mm rolls.

The digitalized film was so thin that the Lightroom histogram was just a thin sliver, and even a 1 point movement of the various LR sliders made huge changes in contrast and brightness. But, very carefully, carefully I could get the results I wanted. Here are a few of the pictures no reason not to use stand development.



Chiang Mai





Chiang Mai





Chiang Mai




Wiang Pa Pao

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.