 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2005Help...Developing times Neopan 1600@3200??
Hi, I have a bunch of films Fuji Neopan 1600 which I rated @3200, I was told at college today by one of my tutors to use neat developer and develop for 15 mins, the normal time @1600 being 8mins. I have developed one of these films using this method intending to get a 'grainy' finish, although it has given me a more grainy picture the negs and prints are very dark. I no that I have to overexpose and that is why but could I possibly reduce the dev time by say 1 or 2 mins, or try a dilution of water with the developer?? Sorry I don't know what dev it is, it is just a standard solution that evryone uses at college. Thank You, Steve > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Message posted via http://www.photokb.com The speed of this film is about 650, NOT 1600. It develops VERY FAST. Try about 8 mins to start with, in D-76 1:1. NO MORE! This film is NOWHERE near 3200 speed! Who told you it was? I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso of 3200 to intetionally underexpose it, I now need to compensate with 'push' processing it so developing for a longer time. The time it says in the Fuji data sheet is an extra 7 mins from the original 8 mins, but I feel that this could be less, I have tried one today at 13mins max dev and I will see how that comes out. I am just trying to see if there is anyone else who has push processed this film?? Thanks for yopur reply, Steve > I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso of > 3200 to intetionally underexpose it, I now need to compensate with 'push' > processing it so developing for a longer time. But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for underesposure. > The time it says in the > Fuji data sheet is an extra 7 mins from the original 8 mins, but I feel > that this could be less, I have tried one today at 13mins max dev and I > will see how that comes out. I am just trying to see if there is anyone > else who has push processed this film?? I use it all the time. It's great stuff, but you're not going to get anything worthwhile doing this. I know! > Thanks for yopur reply, Steve >> I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for > underesposure. Steve, Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. I'd suggest you ignore his posts on this subject. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you a lot of other replies to read at this point. I'm afraid I can't offer you any guidance on your specific situation, other than to check the massive development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) and to experiment until you get something you like.  SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> writes: > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for > > underesposure. > Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless > procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results. It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it then all the development in the world will not produce an image. Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights. Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > > "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> writes: > > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ Thanks, Nick! Considering that in my foolish youth I pushed hundreds of rolls of film, I know what I'm talking about. This film, in particular, does not gain anything by extended development. It's a complete waste of time. Try some Diafine if you get the chance. If you have no other choice when you have very low light, go ahead and shoot Neopan at 3200. Realize your shadow detail will be non-existent. But, many times in that situation you wouldn't have any anyway. I often use this film at that speed in dance/theater photography. Oh yeah--don't waste your time reading UC's posts. You will eventually learn that pathetic, gaseous windbags like him are creeping about on USENET. The term 'troll' has his picture by it. Experiment, and don't let angry, lonesome old losers like UC detract from your learning. > Try some Diafine if you get the chance. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Experiment, and don't let angry, lonesome old losers like UC detract > from your learning. Funny, I never tell people to ignore anyone else's posts. The sad fact is that PUSHING DOES NOT WORK, and whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. >> Try some Diafine if you get the chance. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >is that PUSHING DOES NOT WORK, and whether you believe it or not is >irrelevant. Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you names or reference outdated authorities, all I have to do is let you speak for yourself. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved > everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you > names or reference outdated authorities, all I have to do is let you > speak for yourself. > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Are you illiterate too? I said, facts are facts whether YOU believe them or not. Whether YOU believe it or not, silver bromide DOES NOT react to darkness. You have to expose the film to light, and if you don't expose it enough, you get what's known as underexposure, and NO amount of extended development will compensate for underexposure. Thus, pushing does not work. Underexposure is fatal. ALWAYS. Time to stop the lying, Scarpathetic. The ONLY reason you get away with it on USENET is because there is no moderator. You have been thrown off Photo.net, APUG, Ilford, etc., sites because of dishonesty. I hope any newbies come across this thread note this and don't engage you in any of your favorite trolls. Heh, there was a jerk on Photo.net the other day--do you know what the response was? "Hey, that douche-bag liar Scarpamoron is back!" Turns out it was just another troll--not THE phototroll--you. Funny how when anyone acts like an a.s, the first thing that is posted is a reference to YOU. On your gravestone: "took crappy pictures, was clueless about photographic materials, but was the BEST of trolls" What a pathetic life you must lead, that you must concern yourself with my modest contributions to eradicating errors from photo discussion sites. If you can show that film responds to darkness, let us be enlightened. Read my lips: PUSHING DOOES NOT WORK. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MATERIALS. > Time to stop the lying, Scarpathetic. The ONLY reason you get away with > it on USENET is because there is no moderator. You have been thrown off [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > On your gravestone: "took crappy pictures, was clueless about > photographic materials, but was the BEST of trolls" > my modest contributions Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha! Lying to newbies, insulting people of far greater knowledge, and being pompous the whole time isn't a contribution. Getting your slimy, two-faced carcass thrown off every photo site isn't 'modest'. You are hated, not because you bring wisdom to deaf ears, but because you are a pathetic imp of a man. >let us be enlightened. There is NO 'us'. Just your tiny pathetic frame squirming behind a monitor, desperately trying to get someone, anyone, to listen to you. Your whole Scarpathetic existence on USENET revolves around the fact that there is no moderator. If there was, your distasteful personality would have been tossed long ago. What do the names Knoppow, Gainer, and Buffaloe mean to you? Men who know photographic materials and spread knowledge about them. You will never have your name listed with them. You are the only person--other than a few newbies that learn soon enough (often by reading ARCHIVED posts like this one)--that thinks you aren't a bumbling idiot. Please, O noble savior of the photographic community, take a photo 101 class--and try not to make the whole class and the teacher find you so pathetic. > What a pathetic life you must lead, that you must concern yourself with > my modest contributions to eradicating errors from photo discussion [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > On your gravestone: "took crappy pictures, was clueless about > > photographic materials, but was the BEST of trolls" > > my modest contributions > > Lying to newbies, insulting people of far greater knowledge, and being > pompous the whole time isn't a contribution. Getting your slimy, > two-faced carcass thrown off every photo site isn't 'modest'. You are > hated, not because you bring wisdom to deaf ears, but because you are a > pathetic imp of a man. Most people who contribute to photo newsgroups are not very knowledgeable. I don't tolerate ignorance, no matter who spouts it. I know Mr Gainer and Mr Knoppow (bothy fine individuals) and have corresponded with them, as well as Bill Troop. I don't claim to be Mr Personality. I do know my stuff, however, and you can take what I say to the bank. I don't 'insult people of far greater knowledge' because there are so very few who could fall into that category. : In article <1110751119.655483.228200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, The best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it. Please ignore it. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com : >> Try some Diafine if you get the chance. : >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : >is that PUSHING DOES NOT WORK, and whether you believe it or not is : >irrelevant. : Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved : everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you : names or reference outdated authorities, all I have to do is let you : speak for yourself. : Robert Vervoordt, MFA Ignore him and he'll go away. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved > : everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ignore him and he'll go away. I second that. SignatureLF 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 >> : Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved >> : everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I second that. I said it before, and usually do ignore him, but this was too rich an opportunity. He actually did hang himself with his own words. He's not going to ever admit any mistake or revelation, but all others can judge for themselves. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > I said it before, and usually do ignore him, but this was too rich an > opportunity. He actually did hang himself with his own words. He's > not going to ever admit any mistake or revelation, but all others can > judge for themselves. > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Film still does not react to darkness, whether you ignore me or not. > >> : Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved > >> : everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Oh ye of little phyics and no chemistry: Did they take away your brain when they gave you that MFA? : > "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> writes: : > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for : > > underesposure. : > Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push : > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless : > procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. : Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old : glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or : using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results. : It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the : silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it : then all the development in the world will not produce an image. : Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high : contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights. : Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations. Over developing will help a little in the midtones. Remember that over developing increases the density most of the curve. The highlights are effected the most while the midtones are effected a little with little to no effect in the shadows. I also agree that for all effective and practical purposes overdeveloping does not increase the speed of the film. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com : : > "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> writes: : : > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for : : > > underesposure. : : > Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push : : > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless : : > procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. : : Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old : : glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or : : using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results. : : It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the : : silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it : : then all the development in the world will not produce an image. : : Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high : : contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights. : : Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations. : Over developing will help a little in the midtones. Remember that over : developing increases the density most of the curve. The highlights are : effected the most while the midtones are effected a little with little : to no effect in the shadows. : I also agree that for all effective and practical purposes overdeveloping : does not increase the speed of the film. After I posted this I remember a couple of exceptions to the rule about increasing development time not effecting film speed. That exception is Tmax-3200 from Kodak and Ilford's Delta version. While the increased development time has more effect on the highlights then shadows there is an increase in effective speed. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > >> I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso > > of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless > procedure. That's true! > He's definitely not in the majority on this. So what? The majority is wrong! > I'd suggest you > ignore his posts on this subject. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.rodsbooks.com > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push >processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless >procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. I'd suggest you >ignore his posts on this subject. I'll agree that push processing is less than useful if you care about shadow details. Intentionally underexposing film means that you're going to lose shadow details. Doesn't matter what you want to call it, but you'll lose them. Maybe that's fine if you're shooting a low contrast scene and you want to bump up the contrast. But that's not really push processing. That said, if you don't care about shadows and only want to get something usable in a newspaper, Neopan 1600 tolerates underexposure about as well as others. In my setup (Xtol 1:3), I rate Neopan at 1600. I got "usable" prints at 3 stops underexposed. That is, 12,800. In practice, I prefer it at 1600. Even one stop underexposure results in lots of grain. Too much for my tastes. In many developers, Neopan 1600 is more like an 800-1200 speed film. So you're probably looking at a two stop underexposure. -- Eric http://canid.com/ Rod, we forgot to define what speed really is, I mean: how do you measure it? On the middle grays? Or on the lowest blacks? (like AA suggested) In the latter case, I'm afraid the committee is wright. As far as my experience with Neopan 1600 concerns: in Ilfotec DD-X I get some 800 out of it, measured with densitometer the AA way. I use the film @ 1600 anyhow (with 20% extra time for dev. above the ones suggested by Ilford). See for some resulsts on www.jantieghem.tk and follow the link "thema's" -> " In the Mood" (sorry, not in English) You'll notice lack of real shadow detail, but in this case this was no big issue for me. Jan | Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push | processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) and to | experiment until you get something you like. >>>I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) and to > experiment until you get something you like. Whatever you may think of "uraniumcommittee" in general, I would agree that push processing is a nearly useless procedure. If film is underexposed, the stuff in the shadows is just not there. Push-processing, as usually practiced, is simply developing the film to higher contrast, and it will not make unexposed film developable. The most it can do is make it easier to get more contrast from a bad negative. Sometimes this may make a print acceptable to less critical viewers as it will use more of the tones of which the paper is capable, but it by no means will reveal what is not there in the first place. The only procedure I have found to "increase" film speed is to process it in a two-solution developer such as D-23 for the first bath (say for about 7 minutes in the case of 4164 Tri-X) and then for 3 or more minutes in a 2% Sodium Metaborate + 2% Sodium Sulphite for bath 2. If you test film speed for this, it may give you a stop or so speed increase, but chances are you will not like it because, while it increases the film speed in the shadows, it leaves the higher levels alone, so the shadow contrast is poor. Pre-exposure or high lens flare can get you a similar effect, and most people do not like it. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 05:35:00 up 51 days, 13:52, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.24, 4.13 >................. > The only procedure I have found to "increase" film speed is to process it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are you will not like it because, while it increases the film speed in the > shadows, it leaves the higher levels alone, so the shadow contrast is > poor. Pre-exposure or high lens flare can get you a similar effect, and > most people do not like it. If the shadow contrast is poor, would not some more developing in the D23 (or whatever) improve the contrast? >>................. >>The only procedure I have found to "increase" film speed is to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > If the shadow contrast is poor, would not some more developing in the > D23 (or whatever) improve the contrast? No. What the two-solution development does is raise the toe. Developping more in bath 1 will increase the overall contrast and pretty soon you will not want to do that or the entire negative will be too contrasty. Bath 2 just raises the toe and not the shoulder. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:25:00 up 55 days, 2:43, 3 users, load average: 4.15, 4.18, 4.17 IF you're willing to take the time and experiment and you find the results at EI 1600 acceptable as a base time and exposure start with 1.5 times the development that you would use for 1600. Whether you will get acceptable results at EI 3200 depends on your metering technique, meter pattern for your camera, final purpose of the images and your own brain (and your instructor's criteria if you plan to submit the images for a grade). You'll probably also need a higher contrast paper to print these images to expand the short scale rendered on your negatives. You can also try intensifying the negatives in selenium toner if they still won't print well. Stay away from mercury toners (nasty) and toners (Chromium, etc) that are "temporary". I've always thought it better to say a "Hail Mary" (or Buddha, etc,) and take the shot, then try to make something of it in the darkroom rather than mutter something like (in Rainman-type tones) "Fuji 1600, really only 650, yeh 650, not enuf, gotta go home, gotta get a different film, yeh, film too slow, gotta go, yeh, only 650, 650, not enuf, gotta go, yeh...shoulda had Delta, yeh, Delta, 3200, still too slow, but gotta shoot Delta, yeh, gotta go,..." There have been a lot of great images taken on Tri-X rated at ridiculous, inflated EI's and then pushed like crap back in the lab; the most famous that comes to mind in the shot of RFK lying in a pool of his own blood moments after he was shot. Guess the Pulitzer committee didn't know Tri-X can't be pushed. I rarely photograph gray scales. And pushing film really doesn't work (if you are a sensitometrist), it adds zero extra density to shadow detail, where by definition true film speed is measured, but in the midtones and highlights it will add some density and yield a more printable image, your viewers' brains are more that willing to fill in the missing detail, just like they do when letters are left out of words or words in a sentence are scrambled. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thank You, Steve Hi Steve, The Uranium Committees suggestion of a true speed rating of around ISO 500 or 640 is probably about right for this particular film, and rating it at EI 1600 will be at the expense of some loss of detail in the shadows, however, there is an interesting article that you can read on page 18 of Kodak publication 0-3 that you can down load from the Kodak website. I hope that this is helpful for you. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank You, Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 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.