The dumpsters have been overflowing for a weeks . . .

NOTE: These are from two rolls of Delta 400 exposed at 200 and developed in Xtol. It wasn’t a winning combination. Delta can have tendency to run towards flattened midtones, and pulling it in Xtol seems to do it no favors. Tmax Developer would have been a better choice. Oh well. I’m down to just a couple of rolls of Delta 400 . . . might push them in Microphen.

I ordered another 10 rolls of FP4+ from B&H, which must mean that I’m liking it fairly well. Apart from a failed experiment with Diafine, I’ve only souped it in Rodinal so far, but I plan on trying it pushed to 200 in Tmax Developer. I’ve also got Xtol on hand and Microphen on the way, but if those fail to please the Rodinal seems to work with this film eve if it is a bit grainier.

Not bad, not bad at all. Same process as the XP2. Turned out a bit grainier. More to come.

M6TTL, 50 Hex, Ilford XP2 @ 200, 5ml Rodinal + 600ml H20, Stand for 1 Hour

I had planned on developing these rolls in Diafine, but my Diafine has developed a case of the crud, and I couldn’t find anything around the house with which to filter it. I’d been wanting to try stand development with Rodinal, and since I didn’t expect much from these negs anyway, I didn’t figure I’d be out much if the whole lot was ruined. The process worked a lot better than I thought it would. I was fully prepared for these negs to turn into an unevenly developed, grainy, high contrast mess. Instead they’ve got good separation in the highlights, plenty of detail in the shadows and less grain than TriX in Xtol. They were also some of the easiest to scan negatives I’ve worked with in a long time, requiring very little photoshop work. Recipe below.

Ilford XP2 Stand Developed in Rodinal

• Shoot the XP2 at 200.
• Pre-soak the film in distilled water. I’m not sure if this is necessary, but the Delta films seem to develop bromide drag in minimal agitation regimes - see my post on diafine - so some insurance seemed advised.
• Develop in a solution of 5ml Rodinal and 600ml water (dilution chosen because it’s easy to measure with my current equipment). My solution measured 69F, but I suspect anything around there would work.
• Rotational agitation for the first minute followed by a couple of inversions for good measure.
• Set it aside for approximately an hour. Don’t touch!
• Fix and wash as normal.
• I can’t imagine that this a relevant part of the process, but just in case it is, I’ll note that I had to use some vodka in the final rinse. I usually use a solution of 100ml rubbing alcohol to 500ml of water and 3ml of photoflo. I was out of rubbing alcohol, so some vodka from the freezer had to stand in. The vodka doesn’t seem to have hurt it, but Smirnoff is a lot more expensive than rubbing alcohol.

The negs are an odd rust brown color. I’m not sure how well they would print in a wet darkroom, but the base color didn’t have any impact on scanning. I’m curious to know how well this process would work with other C41 films, and I’ll be trying it on a couple of rolls of Delta 400 that I shot at 200.

Of course, my mom has her eyes closed . . .



M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC, TMY (New TMax 400), TMax Dev

On the 4th of July, my cousin Brian got married on a veranda over looking Lake Michigan. The M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC and a couple of rolls of the new TMax 400 (TMY) performed admirably. Tents over looking lakes on bright sunny days make a lovely setting for a wedding, but all that backlighting can bedevil the flashless photographer. The new TMY seemed to handle the wide luminance range well, though. I’ve always liked TMY despite its reputation as a difficult film. It was the first film I developed on my own, so I’ve been using it off and on for 15 years. The new TMY seems to be just as forgiving as the old. Just give it generous exposure to keep the shadows healthy. It probably would have done even better pulled to 200, but these were my first rolls with the new film, so I didn’t want to experiment too much. For those who care, I shot the TMY at 400, developed in TMax Developer and followed Kodak’s new developing times. This worked out to 5.5 minutes at 75 degrees with a dilution of 1+4.

Apart from the disposable cameras on the tables, I was the only person shooting film. A couple of people commented on this with a mix of bewilderment and awe. The pro was shooting a D3 and a D300, but I was more interested in his foot gear, a pair of black reverse heel shoes. I’ve got to try those out.

Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, HP5@800, Ilfosol S 1+14


Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, HP5@200, Tmax Dev 1+9


Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, HP5@400, Ilfosol S 1+14

HP5 is plastic in the best sense of that word. If the digital camera manufacturers release some rogue virus that destroys every emulsion except for HP5, I could happily continue shooting B&W, but let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

BTW, you shouldn’t interpret that as meaning HP5 will be the only thing I’m shooting. I’ve souped my last roll of it for a while, and a pile of Delta 400 and TriX is waiting in the wings.

HP5 @ 200 in Ilfosol S for 5.5 minutes at 68 degrees looks something like Efke 400 with slightly better shadow detail. These took a bit more PS work to get here than HP5@200 in Tmax. The contrast was higher and the shadows fell apart easier. Hmm, interesting, but perhaps not a winning combination.

City Hall, Columbus, IN | Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, HP5@320, Tmax Dev

Last week I wrote that I’m standardizing on one lens, one film, and one process until I learn something. The something to be learned is scanning and post-processing. I’ve always approached scanning like it was that part of the imaging chain represented by a cloud labeled magic. This approached demanded a processing regime geared towards producing low contrast negatives with well controlled highlights. For the most part it works, but I’m looking for improvements. I chose HP5@320 in Tmax Dev at 68F for 6 mins because it’s produced some great photos for me, but it’s also resulted in some scans that were miserable failures. I’m hoping to trying to get the percentage of miserable failures downs and maybe make the great photos even better. Sticking to one lens is just for the sake on wanton asceticism.

With the film stock and process set, that leaves me free to experiment with various scanning and post processing techniques. I’ll be giving VueScan another look, and I’ll be investigating Colin’s work with ColorNeg. I’ll also be looking at improving my Photoshop skills (Did you know that the curves tool can be used to draw something other than an S curve; who’d have guessed?). Lightzone will also get another look, as I’m not sure that I approached it the right way initially. And if my old ScanDual IV happens to die anytime soon, I guess I’ll be looking at other scanners as well.

Garden Walkway, Columbus, IN | Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, HP5@320, Tmax Dev

When I’m done with all this, I might well go back to what I’ve been doing for the last couple of years, but I’m hoping I’ll have learned enough to deal with some of the problematic scans that come up on every roll. Along the way, it’s fairly likely that some of the images may not look quite right. I’m not quite starting over again, but it’s something near to that, so there’s likely to be some false starts. You’ve been warned.

Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, Delta 400 in Diafine

Diafine for the Doldrums

For a few weeks there, I renewed my love affair with Diafine. It didn’t last, but it seems worth writing about, since I long ago promised a review of Diafine. I’ve mentioned before that Diafine was for a long time my only developer, usually in combination with Neopan 1600 or TriX. Those were the available darkness days. Recent experimentation with Delta 3200 got me back to thinking about Diafine, particularly about how carefree it can be; mix once, use for years, no critical temperature or timing worries etc. The typically fat midtones, good shadow detail and well controlled highlights are nice too; makes scanning easier. In a lot of ways, it’s the perfect, low-maintenance choice for your slightly frazzled feeling photographer.

The Basics of Two Bath Developers

B&W developers have two main components, a reducer and an accelerator. There’s a bunch of other junk in there, but it’s all supporting role stuff. The reducer is the actual developer. The accelerator makes the developer work on a time scale of minutes instead of hours. Single bath developers mix all this up in one batch, usually with a preservative to keep the whole thing shelf stable for more than five minutes.

Single bath developers have a couple of weaknesses. Foremost, those preservatives are not entirely effective, particularly if you don’t control exposure to air. Hence the proliferation of those burp bottles that supposedly prevent your developer from oxidizing. They don’t.

Besides having the longevity of pepperoni pizza in an IT shop, single bath developers also require complicated contrast controls. Think Zone System. Single bath developers force us into “shoot for shadows, develop for the highlights” because highlights develop fast and shadows develop slow. Long before the density is built up in the shadows, those greedy highlights have stuffed themselves, become blocked up and impossible to scan (or print). You can get some measure of control over this by using really dilute developer and minimal agitation. Without agitation to bring in fresh developer, the highlights will quit developing, while the slower feeding shadows will continue. Taken to extremes, this gives us stand development routines with rodinal diluted to 1+250 and times around an hour. Stand development is tricky though. Do it wrong and you get uneven development. Do it right, and you are still developing for an hour.

Dual bath systems are really targeted at this second problem, although along the way they often end up solving the first problem as well. They do this by separating the reducer and the accelerator into two solutions, part A and part B. The reducer goes in part A. The accelerator in part B. Part A saturates the film with developer, but because reducer sans accelerator is slow acting, very little development takes place until part B is introduced. In part B, the accelerator goes to work on the reducer already saturated into the film. Since there is no more reducer available in part B, the highlights use up the reducer available to them quite quickly, while the shadows can take their sweet time. That’s the theory.

Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, Delta 100 @ 50 in Diafine

Diafine

In the US, at least, when you say two bath developer, you probably mean Diafine. It’s by no means the only option, but it is the most widely available two bath developer. Pretty much any internet photoshop will have it, although there are some interesting restrictions involving shipping it. Outside of large format circles, where it is sometimes used with very slow films, Diafine is primarily known as a speed enhancing developer for already fast films. With TriX you get a two stop bump, with many other films a one stop bump and with some slow films and T grain films a no stop bump. Many a forum has gone down in flames arguing about whether the Diafine speed bump is legitimate. The speed increase seems to come mostly as an increase in midtone density. Shadows get a slight boost, but usually not by much. Argumentative types with densitometers will argue - and probably argue rightfully - that this speed boost isn’t real because it just changes the shape of the curve. That said, it looks real enough to the eye in most situations.

Apart from being a speed enhancing developer, Diafine also has a reputation for ease of use. This reputation is mostly legitimate with a few exceptions to be discussed later. It is essentially insensitive to changes in time and temperature. Keep it between 70 and 85 degrees and leave the film in each bath for at least 3 minutes, and you should be fine. There’s not much to mess up. You don’t even choose your own film speed, as the Diafine box has a table that lists most commonly available film types and how to rate them.

That’s the theory. The practice is a bit different. Time and temp are really pretty much irrelevant, but agitation is not, and, it turns out, film speed isn’t quite as straightforward as the table on the box would lead you to believe. As to agitation, many rolls of film have been ruined by following the box recommendation for “gentle” agitation. Agitation during the first bath just makes sure that developer has evenly soaked into the film. In the second bath, since we aren’t worried about bringing fresh developer to the film, agitation shouldn’t much matter. It turns out, agitation during the second bath isn’t so much a matter of bringing in fresh chemistry as it is a matter of disposing of waste. Agitate too little during that second soak and you will end up with bromide stains. I think.

Are those vertical streaks in the sky bromide drag, or just old-fashioned, uneven development?
Hexar RF, 50 Hex, Delta 100 @ 50 in Diafine

As with many things that everyone already knows, it’s next to impossible to find out anything concrete on the internet about bromide drag. It’s just taken for granted that we all know what bromide drag is, and that it happens to all those naughty people that try to use Diafine to increase film speed. From the little I’ve been able to piece together, it seems that bromide is a natural by product of development. If you don’t agitate enough, it runs down the film, causing stains. I’ll buy it, particularly since upping the agitation seems to fix the problem. The shot above I only agitated - and very gently at that -for five seconds every minute. Upping the agitation to a more vigorous ten seconds every minute seemed to solve the issue, although the increased agitation was with different film type, Delta 400.

I don’t recall ever having this problem when using Diafine with TriX or Neopan 1600, but in those days I used a stainless steel tank. The variable might be the film or the difference between rotational - plastic tank - or inversion - stainless steel tank - agitation. Given the varied results I’ve seen with my plastic tanks, I suspect a little of both might be at play. I’ve done four batches of film in Diafine in recent weeks. One batch of Delta 3200, one batch of Delta 100 and two of Delta 400. The Delta 3200 showed a bit of streaking on a few frames at the end of one roll. The Delta 100 showed streaking on most frames of both rolls. The first batch of Delta 400 showed streaking on the last ten frames of each roll, but on the second batch of Delta 400, where I doubled the agitation, I got no streaking. It will be interesting to see if increased agitation resolves the problems with Delta 100. I suspect that increased agitation is necessary with the plastic tank, and that some films require more agitations than other - the couple of rolls of HP5 I souped in Diafine early this summer showed no streaking.

When Diafine gives you bromide drag, make wide format lanscapes.
Hexar RF, 50 Hex, Delta 100 @ 50 in Diafine

Apart from this streaking issue, the only other question with Diafine is film speed. Do you shoot your film’s native speed or what the Diafine box suggests? What if the box suggests nothing? Native film speed will almost always work, although you will end up with flat negatives and, in some cases, really dense midtones. This ends up looking kind of strange on the negative, but it usually scans ok. Keep in mind that the highlights should still be controlled because the developer exhausts itself in the highlights first. The film speeds suggested on the Diafine box are a good bet for really contrasty light. At the suggested speed, in contrasty light, Diafine often gives you negs that appear to have normal contrast. This is why available light shooters so often go for Diafine; you can get high film speed without nearly as much contrast as you would normally get from pushing. You can also gain a level of contrast control by changing film speed. Contrasty light? Shoot at Diafine speed. Flat light? Shoot at native speed. All without the need to change development. Pretty tricky, eh?

Diafine and the Deltas

You will often hear that Diafine and Tgrain films don’t mix. A very short experiment with Tmax and Diafine a few years back did not yield great results for me, but I wasn’t very patient with it. I have vague memories of Fuji Acros in Diafine working well, but I can’t be bothered to find the negs in archives. While it is certainly true that you don’t get much of a speed boost from the Diafine/Tgrain combo, you do get fine tonality, ease of use, and a long lasting developer, at least with the Deltas. Initial results are, well, inconclusive. Sometimes this combo seems to work great, other times you get nasty, muddy midtones. I’m not sure what’s up with that, and at the moment, I’m not inclined to take the experiment any further. My love for Diafine has slipped away. Controlling time and temperature just aren’t that hard, and the results of this experiment have been a little too unpredictable.

Examples

All else aside, I’m pretty happy with a lot of these photos, regardless of the developer used.

This photo, the previous photo, and this one were all shot on HP5 rated at 800 and souped in Diafine. For a long time, Diafine was the only developer I used, often with TriX or Neopan 1600 (an oft overlooked combo). HP5 in Diafine looks a lot like TriX in Diafine but with one stop less speed. It’s an interesting look, and it’s dead simple to manage in processing and later on in scanning. With Diafine, highlights just don’t block up in the normal way, while shadows manage to retain some detail.