Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Accidentally pushed Fuji Acros 100!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dickless Cheney - 08 Nov 2004 22:07 GMT
Hi,

I messed up and shot a (120) roll Fuji Acros at 400ASA. I can't find any
literature at their site, or the massive development site for that combo.
I'd really like to save these shots.

Is there any general rule of thumb for increasing the development time,
based on the times for normal exposure? I use HC-110 dilB as my standard
developer.

Thanks for any help.
Michael A. Covington - 08 Nov 2004 22:42 GMT
Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.
Dickless Cheney - 08 Nov 2004 23:30 GMT
> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.

Thought police? Didn't we just "end" the political season? Who's we?

If I'm not offending, I'm not doing my job--
me
Michael A. Covington - 09 Nov 2004 00:12 GMT
>> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.
>
> Thought police? Didn't we just "end" the political season? Who's we?

Nothing political intended.  You're just being rude.  You aren't even making
a political point (and if you were, it would be off topic here).

> If I'm not offending, I'm not doing my job--
> me

As I was saying...
Gregory W Blank - 09 Nov 2004 00:01 GMT
In article <418ff9ae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net>,
"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote:

> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.

Can't you just ignore him?
Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Michael A. Covington - 09 Nov 2004 00:30 GMT
> In article <418ff9ae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net>,
> "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Can't you just ignore him?

Sometimes I try to clue in the clueless.  This is often a futile endeavor.
Some people genuinely do not realize that by acting obnoxious, they prevent
others from helping them.  I thought he might want to know he had
successfully repelled someone who knew the answer and could have helped him.
Dickless Cheney - 09 Nov 2004 01:15 GMT
> In article <418ff9ae$1@mustang.speedfactory.net>,
> "Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Can't you just ignore him?

That wouldn't waste bandwidth...
Nicholas O. Lindan - 09 Nov 2004 01:03 GMT
"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote

> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.

Or not.

*   *   *

I was pruning my killfile the other day and just about every entry was for
an anonymous name/email address:

nobody@nowhere.com
blow@me.net

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Michael A. Covington - 09 Nov 2004 04:03 GMT
> I was pruning my killfile the other day and just about every entry was for
> an anonymous name/email address:
>
> nobody@nowhere.com
> blow@me.net

Exactly.  I'm also a sysadmin at The University of Georgia, and we learned
long ago that the people who wanted mildly obnoxious were going to be
trouble.
Dickless Cheney - 09 Nov 2004 01:13 GMT
> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.

My mother taught me years ago, that if you don't have anything constructive
to offer a conversation, then just shut up.

"Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer." How f.cking 
childish. Oops, did I offend you?

Whah whah whah!!!
Michael A. Covington - 09 Nov 2004 04:06 GMT
>> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> "Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer." How f.cking 
> childish. Oops, did I offend you?

You are trying to convince us of your maturity here?
Mike King - 09 Nov 2004 19:01 GMT
Killfiled.

Signature

darkroommike

----------

>
> > Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Whah whah whah!!!
Mike King - 09 Nov 2004 18:53 GMT
Here here!

Signature

darkroommike

----------

> Use a less offensive name for yourself and we'll answer.
Gregory W Blank - 09 Nov 2004 00:01 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thanks for any help.

Regardless of your offensive name ;-) I'll help you out :-)

Typically a 1 stop push is an increase of about 10%
so 2 stops is going to be an addition of about 1.2 minutes
using a 6 minute development time. That's how I would
do it.

Personally I don't like the M.D.C other than a vague
jumping off point, there's too many cooks contributing to
that pot of soup and some are quite questionable in their
knowledge of the recipes.
Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Dickless Cheney - 09 Nov 2004 01:05 GMT
> In article <l6Sjd.6366$zx1.1602@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Regardless of your offensive name ;-) I'll help you out :-)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> using a 6 minute development time. That's how I would
> do it.

Thanks for the input. I actually mixed up some HC-110 at 1:119 and stand
developed the negs for about an hour. Everything came out peachy, and no
drag.

Thanks for not being an elitist snob a well...ie, having a sense of humor!
stefano bramato - 09 Nov 2004 13:36 GMT
> Thanks for the input. I actually mixed up some HC-110 at 1:119 and stand
> developed the negs for about an hour. Everything came out peachy, and no
> drag.

about one hour?
wow!

Signature

Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Ed io imparo.

Dickless Cheney - 09 Nov 2004 16:30 GMT
> about one hour?
> wow!

Sixty five minutes, exactly. These were stand developed. Agitated for the
first minute and then left in a control bath for the remainder of the time.
The shadows were a little less than optimal, but overall, the negs are
printable.
stefano bramato - 09 Nov 2004 18:52 GMT
> Sixty five minutes, exactly. These were stand developed. Agitated for the
> first minute and then left in a control bath for the remainder of the time.
> The shadows were a little less than optimal, but overall, the negs are
> printable.

i was searching for the same *error* in my sheets. just not too time ago
I did the same push with my acros in 120 format. Very nice negs with
less time... in id-11.
Negs was little contrasty but not too much.
ASAP i will find, ASAP i will let you know ok?

:D

sixty-five regards!
Signature

Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Ed io imparo.

LR Kalajainen - 09 Nov 2004 00:42 GMT
Try 50-60% longer in the HC110.  That'll get you close.

>Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Thanks for any help.
Uranium Committee - 09 Nov 2004 03:01 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thanks for any help.

You underexposed your film?

Too bad.
Richard Knoppow - 10 Nov 2004 11:11 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thanks for any help.

   Since the film is already developed this is sort of moot but as a
rule of thumb most films will push a stop by increasing the
development time about 1.5 times. For two stops that comes out to
somewhere around 3 to 4 times normal. Of course what you are really
doing is increasing contrast. The assumption is that the wanted image
is recorded in the toe region of the characteristic, which has much
lower contrast than the normal exposure section. Increasing
development increases the contrast of the toe enough to get some
separation of the tones there but it also increases the overall
contrast which may make parts of the picture which received more
normal exposure hard to print. One stop pushing is about the same or a
bit more than increasing contrast about one paper grade. Two stops
push about two paper grades, maybe a little more for both. At some
point, if the exposure falls low enough, the film simply doesn't
record anything. No amount of pushing will recover an image. This
limit is just about two stops for most films when using the ISO speed
rating. Even at one stop there will be a degradation of shadow detail.
  The ISO method has virtually no safety factor (about 1.25). Up to
1958 the method used had a 2.5X safty factor. A lot of films, like
Tri-X, which got a reputation for being very pushable around then did
so because the ASA speed ratings were a stop _over exposed_. You could
get maybe three stops over the ASA speed, but this is the same as two
stops over the ISO speed.
  Films like Kodak P3200T-Max can be pushed a lot because they have
odd curves which result in an ISO speed much lower than the actual
emulsion speed. The Kodak and Ilford films have ISO speeds of around
800 to 1000 but the true speed is around 3000 to 4000 as the Kodak
name suggests.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Uranium Committee - 10 Nov 2004 19:57 GMT
>    Films like Kodak P3200T-Max can be pushed a lot because they have
> odd curves which result in an ISO speed much lower than the actual
> emulsion speed. The Kodak and Ilford films have ISO speeds of around
> 800 to 1000 but the true speed is around 3000 to 4000 as the Kodak
> name suggests.

In my testing I have not found this to be the case.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.