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 / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The procedure I've been using for developing tri-x 400tx

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com - 01 Jun 2005 04:50 GMT
6 minutes 15 seconds with d-76 @70 degrees, agitate w/5-7 quick
inversions, then repeat every 30 seconds. I've been doing a final
agigation like the above at the end, right after times up. I also smack
the canister into my palm at the end of each agitation bit.

Stop bath, 45s seconds ( i beleive its an ilford stopbath) w/constant
agitation

Fix for 4 minutes in Kodak Fixer, agigate for 15 seconds every 30
seconds, with the time for agitation counting as part of that 30
seconds.

A 60 second cold water wash with constant agitation.
A 60 second wash in a permawash.
A 60 second wash in cold water again.

I keep thinking that thats not enough, I'm a novice, and it 'seems'
short, but it is per the bottle's instructions.  I then fill with cold
water agitate for a few seconds, and then dump that.

Then 15 seconds in a photoflow solution.

Is this a 'good' procedure?

What happens if I fix for more than 4 minutes, likesay 10 minutes?
Fixing is supposed to be a process that goes to completion and then
stops no?  So the maximum amount of time you /need/ is the minimum
amount of time it requires to work no?

here
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image4.bmp
is a scan of a negative that I made with basically the same procedure
as above, except that the fixing time was longer, along the lines of 10
minutes (this is what I had found in the reference papers).  The
scanner is a Nikon Coolscan III and it was scanned as a negative.  The
thing that is troubling me is that the top of the structure (which is a
stage, but we are looking at it from the back) has tremendous loss of
detail in the portions that are directly lit by sunlight,(as in the
right most part of the curve and some of the columns) whereas there is
still detail in the parts not directly lit (such as in the left most
portion of the top of the structure)

(i apologize, photobuck has shrunk the photo done quite a bit)

Here is the same structure from the other side, with similar problems

Here is another one, where anything bright seems to have no detail,
whether its hte water, the sky, or the grass in the foreground
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image1.bmp
Richard Knoppow - 01 Jun 2005 05:38 GMT
>6 minutes 15 seconds with d-76 @70 degrees, agitate w/5-7
>quick
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> foreground
> http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image1.bmp

  Your procedure is OK. You might want to get the data
sheet for Tri-X from the Kodak web site at:
http://www.kodak.com  type F4016 into the search panel and
it should take you to the data sheet.
  You don't need to hit the tank at the end of every
agitation cycle, only at the beginning. After pouring in the
developer agitate it continuously for about 30 seconds and
what the tank bottom on the sink a couple of times. This is
to dislodge any bubbles that may have formed on the surface
of the film. Once they are knocked off and the film wetted
by the developer they will not reform.
 Stop bath is non critical as long as the film is in it
long enough to stop development. The tank should be agitated
continuously for at least 15 seconds to prevent streaking
from uneven stopping. Usually the stop bath will have
deactivated the developer after about 15 seconds but a
longer stop won't hurt anything.
  Kodak recommends fixing in a film strength rapid fixer
for 2 to 4 minutes. The way to check the necessary fixing
time is to fix a clip of the film you are using. This is
just a scrap of undeveloped film. Soak it in water for a
couple of minutes, then put it in the fixer and agitate it.
See how long it takes to become clear. You should fix for
twice that time. As the fixing bath becomes exhausted the
clearing time gets longer. The general recommendation is to
discard the fixer when the clearing time becomes double the
time for a fresh bath. I think this is probably excessive
and would discard when the time is about 1.5 times the
original.
  Now, you state you are using Kodak Fixer, that is a brand
for powdered fixer of the Sodium thiosulfate type. This
needs about 10 minutes to fix out Tri-X when fresh. A better
fixer is something like Kodak Rapid Fixer with Hardener. You
can leave the hardener out (it comes in a small bottle) its
not usually necessary. Rapid fixer will fix out Tri-X in 2
minutes when fresh, Sodium thiosulfate fixer will take about
10 minutes. Tri-X, like T-Max films is slow to fix compared
to other films and really should be fixed in rapid fixer.
  Longer fixing in strong acid rapid fixer can cause some
bleaching since the fixer when acid is capable of dissolving
some fine grain image silver. However, this is really more a
problem for paper than film. Fixer does not need continuous
agitation but should be agitated often. The agitation does
not have to be so regular as for developer since the fixer
is used until the fixing process is complete. If you are
using sodium thiosulfate fixer no bleaching will occur
unless you leave the film in it for say half an hour, it
might take even longer.
  I am sceptacle about the Perma Wash instructions. The
MSDS says the ingredients are proprietary but they are on
the label. It contains Ammonium sulfite and sodium sulfite
so its not much different than Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent.
Kodak labs published a paper on its wash aid some years ago
with graphs showing the effectiveness with time. Maximum
effect is had in about 4 minutes but film needs only about 2
minutes. Kodak recommends a 5 minute wash after treatment
and I suspect this is closer to the mark. The problem with
products like Heico is that that they want to keep
everything secret. I prefer to know, at least approximately,
what is in the stuff I use and also if there is some valid
research to back up its effectiveness.
  The pre wash is to extend the life of the wash aid. If
you use it once and dispose of it the pre wash is
unnecessary. I use Kodak wash aid as a one-shot but give the
film a 30 second pre wash as per instructions.
  After washing a good final rinse is:

Isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) 70%   35 ml
Kodak Photo Flo                           2.5 ml (half
recommended strength)
Water to make                             1.0 liter

This combination makes a sort of super wetting agent and
will leave the negatives clean.
 If your tap water isn't clean make this up with distilled
water. Locally, I use tap water which works fine.
 Soak the film in it for about 2 minutes and hang up to dry
without squeegeeing.

  I can't make out from the posted pictures what is wrong.
That is I don't know if I am looking at scanning problems or
film problems. What do the negatives look like? Do they have
detail where the scans show them blank. More info will be
helpful in finding an answer.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Richard Knoppow - 01 Jun 2005 06:04 GMT
>>6 minutes 15 seconds with d-76 @70 degrees, agitate w/5-7
>>quick
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> http://www.kodak.com  type F4016 into the search panel and
> it should take you to the data sheet.
  An error crept in here, the correct number for the Tri-X
data sheet is F4017  the other is for T-Max.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

dan.c.quinn@att.net - 05 Jun 2005 23:58 GMT
> Kodak recommends fixing in a film strength
> rapid fixer for 2 to 4 minutes.

 Kodak is not the only one to "recommend" a film strength
fixer for film. Perhaps 'suggests' would be a better word.
 The only reason for a 'film' strength fixer is film's great
per unit volume tolerance for silver in solution.
 In plain English, a hell of a lot of film can be fixed in
a small volume of strong fixer.
 If one has determind quantitatively, as I have, the actual
amount of A. or S. Thiosulfate needed per roll or sheet, then
a much more dilute fixer can be used and used one-shot.
 As the actual amount of A. or S. Thio. is small compared
with the volume of solution needed to process, one may rest
assured an archival fix has been achieved AND with one fix.
 Two limits when fixing; the chemistry's capacity limit AND
the per unit volume silver limit. Dan
dan.c.quinn@att.net - 06 Jun 2005 10:20 GMT
> > Kodak recommends fixing in a film strength
> > rapid fixer for 2 to 4 minutes.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   Two limits when fixing; the chemistry's capacity limit AND
> the per unit volume silver limit. Dan

 I'll have to qualify the above with regards to archival
results with one fix. I had in mind one roll/reel and a full
tank. For 35mm shooters a two reel tank should be used.
 Keep in mind, A. or S. Thiosulfate the capacity per unit
volume is the same. Dan
Richard Knoppow - 09 Jun 2005 00:42 GMT
>> > Kodak recommends fixing in a film strength
>> > rapid fixer for 2 to 4 minutes.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>  Keep in mind, A. or S. Thiosulfate the capacity per unit
> volume is the same. Dan

  The capacity of a fixing bath to fix depends on the
amount of free thiosulfate ions available to form complexes
with the silver halide. It takes three thiosulfate ions to
complex one halide ion. The conversion of the halide from
the insoluble form it has in the emulsion to a fully soluble
form is complex, going through about four steps. If there
are not enough thiosulfate ions available the process is not
completed and some silver-thiosulfate complex remains in the
film. After a period of weeks this complex changes to a form
which can no longer be made soluble by additional fixing.
  The speed of fixing depends on the concentration of
thiosulfate in the fixer, the higher the concentration the
faster the fixing. Early research at Kodak Labs showing a
definite optimum value for thiosulfate concentration was
later found to be in error. The research was done using dry
film. When wet film is tested there is no peak value, the
fixing speed continues to rise as the thiosulfate
concentration is increased.
  While a highly diluted solution of either sodium or
ammonium thiosulfate might contain enough thiosulfate ions
to complete the fixing of a small amount of film the time
required might be very long. If the idea is to insure
complete fixing by using an unused fixing bath each time it
is misleading because the diluted fixer may not be able to
complete the fixing in any reasonable time.
  The dissolved silver in a fixing bath is a measure of the
ability of the fixer to fix completely, however, it is only
one test and not a replacement for measuring the actual
residual halide and thiosulfate complexes in fixed and
washed emulsion. That is the only real way of determining
the degree of fixing and whether fixing is "archival".
Testing for halide or complexes is simple, using using
either a 2% solution of Sodium sulifide (not sulfite) and
the other is a 1:9 dilution of Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner.
The sulfide test can be used at any time after fixing, the
KRST test fails if there is much residual hypo in the
emulsion so should be used only on well washed material.
Both tests leave a yellow to brown stain if there is any
residual silver halide or complexes in the emulsion.
Properly fixed film or paper should show no stain after
using the test.
  The tollerance for dissolved silver of Ammonium
thiosulfate fixers (rapid fixer) is about double that of
Sodium thiosulfate fixer. Also the ammonium salt is more
tollerant of dissolved Iodide from high speed films which
tends to act as a restrainer of the fixing bath. However,
the capacity of either salt for complete fixing in a single
bath is rather limited. By using a two bath system the
capacity is extended by a factor of at least four and as
much as ten. This can be further extended by using a sulfite
wash aid, such as Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, following
fixing. The Sulfite will release some thionates which are
otherwise tightly bound to image silver allowing them to
wash out.
  Ammonium fixing baths are often used at two different
dilutions, one for film, a weaker one for paper. The only
reason for the weaker dilution is as a precaution to prevent
bleaching. Bleaching is not a problem for Sodium fixing
baths but can happen when an acid Ammonium bath is used.
Ammonium thiosulfate is a fairly good solvent for metallic
silver when acid. The bleaching does not take place unless
fixing time is extended well past the point of complete
fixing and is noticable mostly as a cooling of the color of
warm tone paper. Nearly any paper will fix out completely in
2 minutes in a film strength Ammonium thiosulfate bath, many
papers will fix out in 30 seconds. Fixing time for paper
should not be extended beyond about 2 minutes unless testing
has shown definitely that more time is needed for a
particular paper. Film emulsions for various reasons take
longer to fix. The images on film are also composed of
substantially larger grains of silver than those on paper
making them much less susceptable to the bleaching effect.
It is not an issue for film. Neutral or alkaline Ammonium
thiosufate fixing baths do not have the bleaching property.
If one is reasonably careful there is no reason a film
strength rapid fixing bath should not be used for paper.
 Testing for fixer exhaustion:
 There are two means of testing for fixer exhaustion, one
is to test for clearing time of a standard emulsion. This is
compared to the clearing time of that emulsion in fresh,
unused, fixer. The film should be wetted before testing
because dry film fixes at a different rate than wet film.
The rule of thumb is to replace the fixing bath when the
clearing time doubles but this is probably to much silver so
some shorter time should be allowed.
 The second test is the Potassium Iodide test. A
standardized solution of Potassium Iodide is added to a
diluted sample of the fixing bath. If more than a certain
amount of silver is present it complexes to form insoluble
Silver Iodide which precipitates as a cream colored or
yellow cloud in the solution which does not redissolve when
agitated. The sesitivity of the test depends on the relative
dilution of the fixing bath. This test is useful for
determining the end of life for the first bath of two bath
fixers or for single fixing baths where commercial rather
than archival fixing is required. Formulas for the Iodide
test, the Sulfide test and others are found in the
literature, for instance the _Kodak Black-and-White Darkroom
Dataguide_.
  A last word. Complete fixing is necessary for long life
of film or paper because any insoluble material left in the
emulsion will eventually either decompose and attack the
image or be attacked itself by atmospheric polutants. Where
prints or film are to be toned for image protection the
fixing _must_ be complete because the toners will tone the
residual materials as effectively as the image silver
resulting in permanent stains.
  Some general recommendations:
  While either Sodium or Ammonium fixers will work for film
Sodium is much slower and is more vulnerable to accumulated
Iodide and dissolved silver.
  Either Sodium or Ammonium fixer can be used for paper. If
well controlled darkroom procdeures are followed film
strength Ammonium fixer has the advantage of greater
capacity and faster fixing times.
 So, For film or paper use film strength rapid fixer.
   Use a two bath fixing setup.
   Use sulfite wash aid for both film and paper.
   Test fixing baths periodically by using  both the
clearing time method and the accumulated silver test using
Potassium Iodide.
   Test the results of fixing by using the Sulfide or KRST
tests. A scrap of paper can be processed along with the
prints for tests on paper.
   Unless there is a good reason for using hardenign fixing
use non hardening fixer. Rapid fixers without hardeners or
with the hardener in a separate container which can be left
out are available from all chemistry manufacturers.
   If there is a question about the control of fixing time
use neutral ph Rapid fixer. This is available from several
sources and is used in color processing. An example is Agfa
Universal Fixer. Such fixer must not be used with an acid
stop bath. Use a running water wash of a couple of minutes
for film or paper. This procedure is to prevent bleaching.
  For paper Sodium thiosulfate fixer is quite suitable.
Make tests using the sulfide test to find out what the
minimum fixing time actually is since clearing is hard to
determine on paper. Many papers will fix out in 2 minutes in
conventional fixer. For these there is no particular reason
to use rapid fixer.
  Film or paper given a reasonably good fixing, and a
reasonably good wash should have an expected life of about a
century if stored well. By treating film and paper with a
protective toner, such as Kodak Brown Toner, the expected
life will be more than a century and the materials will be
reasonably free of vulnerability to airborne peroxides and
sulfides.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

glaserp@sustainsoft.com - 01 Jun 2005 12:26 GMT
Hi Nygdan,

> The
> thing that is troubling me is that the top of the structure (which is a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> still detail in the parts not directly lit (such as in the left most
> portion of the top of the structure)

Other than reiterating Richard's question (i.e., is there detail in the
negative itself per visual inspection), I would refer you to the
following website for a method of calibrating your developing process:
http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/testingm.htm.

The essence of the procedure is that you need to determine: 1) the
correct exposure index (your light meter's ASA setting) so as to
achieve adequate shaddow detail (shaddow detail is determined by
exposure and so the way to get more or less of it is to rate the film
slower or faster respectively); 2) the correct development time for the
highlights (highlight density is determined by the amount of time in
the developer, the agitation regime, etc.). Please do not be distracted
by the "zone system" terminology. Even if you never vary your
development times to control the contrast range of your negatives to
compress or expand the tonal range of a scene, it is still immensely
useful to do this calibration process.

There is a separate thread recently asking about whether negative
densities need to be different for scanners as opposed to for
traditional silver printing. I find this to be an intriguing question
and look forward to learning more as that thread unfolds. In the
meantime, I continue to develop negatives  the same for scannning as
for tradtitional printing, but my scanner has a pretty good dynamic
range and for a more limited scanner I can imagine it might be
necessary to compress the range.

Finally, remember to use good third-party software for your scanner (I
recommend Vuescan) and to adjust the scanner as needed to capture
detail.

Best of luck.

--Phil
Mike King - 03 Jun 2005 17:18 GMT
PermaWash and wash times seems short to me.  I use my wash aid for 5 minutes
with constant agitation on a motor base and wash for 10 minutes, if water
conservation is a big concern use 10 water changes with 30-60 seconds
agitation per exchange.  Fixing times also seem short.  With fresh Fixer I
fix for twice clearing time in Rapid Type ammonium fixers or three times
clearing in sodium fixers (powdered).  Use the trimmed off leaders from your
film to determine fixation times.

Signature

darkroommike

----------

> 6 minutes 15 seconds with d-76 @70 degrees, agitate w/5-7 quick
> inversions, then repeat every 30 seconds. I've been doing a final
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> whether its hte water, the sky, or the grass in the foreground
> http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image1.bmp
Richard Knoppow - 03 Jun 2005 21:36 GMT
> PermaWash and wash times seems short to me.  I use my wash
> aid for 5 minutes
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> leaders from your
> film to determine fixation times.

 Snipping here...

  The research paper describing Kodak wash aid shows a
graph of wash time for reducing the hypo content to archival
levels vs: treatment time in the wash aid. The graph shows a
fairly rapid reduction of wash time up to a treatment time
of four minutes, after that increased treatment time doesn't
do much. Kodak's wash aid treatmentn times and wash times
are based on the retention of a very small amount of
thiosulfate which was found to give some protection against
oxidation of the image. If the image is to be toned this is
probably irrelevant.
  Paper needs somewhat longer treatment time in order to
allow the wash aid to soak into the paper base so it can
displace the thiosulfate there. Again there is not much to
be gained by more than 4 minutes of treatment.
 Residual hypo can be tested for using a silver nitrate
test. The test solution leaves a stain which is proportional
in density to the amount of thiosulfate present. Kodak
publishes an over lay called the Kodak Hypo Estimator for
use with this test but in general no more than a very slight
yellowing should be present after the test.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

UC - 06 Jun 2005 22:22 GMT
Your agitation is WAY too vigorous. Use ONE cycle of two inversions
ONCE per minute. Rap the tank >>gently<< at the end of the cycle. Use a
double-folded towel (two layers) to cushion the tank.

> 6 minutes 15 seconds with d-76 @70 degrees, agitate w/5-7 quick
> inversions, then repeat every 30 seconds. I've been doing a final
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> whether its hte water, the sky, or the grass in the foreground
> http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13/Nygdan/Experimental%20BnW/Image1.bmp
Richard Knoppow - 09 Jun 2005 00:52 GMT
> Your agitation is WAY too vigorous. Use ONE cycle of two
> inversions
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> the canister into my palm at the end of each agitation
>> bit.

 This is pretty mild agitation. Kodak's recommendation for
small tanks is 5 to 7 inversions in 5 seconds every 30
seconds. Ilford recommends inverting for 10 seconds once a
minute. Either system will work if you stick to it.
 The degree of development and consequently contrast,
increases with agitation. For that reason agitation should
be very consistent whatever system is used.
 There really is no such thing as excessive agitation
provided the replacement of the developer at the emulsion
surface is uniform. Where there is some irregularity of
flow, as is nearly always the case for tanks, continuous
agitation will result in irregular development sometimes
known as flow marks. Insufficient agitation also results in
irregular development but of a different sort. Since the
developer in the denser parts of the film generates reaction
products faster than in lower densities it can work at a
different rate. When this is controlled it may result in a
lowering of highlight contrast, an effect known as
compensation. This is somtimes desirable but in general not.
But, if not controlled it will result simply in irregular
development and blotchy or steaky negatives. If the film is
vertical some reaction products may flow downwards from the
high density areas before they have a chance to diffuse into
the developer. This results in so called bromide streaks,
lines of lower density below and in line with high density
areas of the negative.
 A reasonable amount of agitation will eliminate the
effects of insufficient agitation but still allow enough
time for constant development to mask any effects of
irregular flow.
 Again for consisten results it is very important that the
agitation by consistent regardless of the particular sytem
adopted.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

UC - 11 Jun 2005 02:16 GMT
I finally found the instructions for the Paterson System 4 tanks:

"DEVELOPMENT
The quantities of solution required for each size of film will be found
engraved on the tank base.

Pour the required quantity of solution through the central hole in the
lid. DO NOT tilt the tank during filling. The tank is designed to
permit solutions to be poured in with extreme rapidity whilst in an
upright position, and the solution covers the film evenly from below
upwards, avoiding streaks and uneven development.

AGITATION
The recommended method of agitation is by inversion. This method is the
most effective one in preventing uneven development of the film and the
following procedure is recommended.

1 After pouring in the developer insert the agitator and twist the
spiral backwards and forwards for a few seconds to dislodge any
air-bells- which might form on the surface of the film. Lightly tapping
the bottom of the tank on the bench will help to remove air-bells.
Place the water-tight polythene cap in position Put on the lid and
allow one minute for the film to to become saturated with the solution.
N.B. Push the cap down SLOWLY. This prevents undue air pressure inside
the tank up which might cause leakage past the sealing ring during
inversion.

2 After one minute, invert the tank and at once return it to the
upright position (see Fig. 2).

3 Invert once each minute during the development time."

> > Your agitation is WAY too vigorous. Use ONE cycle of two
> > inversions
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Pieter Litchfield - 11 Jun 2005 13:23 GMT
Wow - Patterson tanks all leak because we've been putting on the caps wrong?
Maybe Triumph motorcycles all leaked oil for the same reason! ROFL

>I finally found the instructions for the Paterson System 4 tanks:
>
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Frank Pittel - 13 Jun 2005 15:59 GMT
Unlike Triumphs Harleys don't lead oil. They mark their spot!! :-)

: Wow - Patterson tanks all leak because we've been putting on the caps wrong?
: Maybe Triumph motorcycles all leaked oil for the same reason! ROFL

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

John - 13 Jun 2005 23:21 GMT
> Unlike Triumphs Harleys don't leak oil. They mark their spot!! :-)

    We call them "Hardley's" as in hardly affordable and hardly worth even
half their price.

Signature

John - www.puresilver.org

F.C. Trevor Gale - 25 Jul 2005 15:33 GMT
> AGITATION
> The recommended method of agitation is by inversion. This method is the
> most effective one in preventing uneven development of the film and the
> following procedure is recommended.

Greetings;

I also use the Paterson System 4 tanks for 120 roll-film; inversion
agitation is not the only successful method. The rotation handle which
comes with that system allows the alternative of rotation agitation
which I use a lot, and gives perfectly successful results, and also
guarantees even development.

Just my 2c worth - F.C. Trevor Gale
UC - 25 Jul 2005 17:36 GMT
The post is a quote from Paterson.

> > AGITATION
> > The recommended method of agitation is by inversion. This method is the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Just my 2c worth - F.C. Trevor Gale
Gareth - 26 Jul 2005 13:32 GMT
Wash time sounds a little (well, a lot) too short for me, but I can't
see how that affect the highlights.

I suspect you have a problem with overexposure or a scanner problem of
some description.

Is the scanner set to auto expose?  (if it's not, that might be the
problem)  Any possibility of your exposure meter (in camera?) being off
(or film speed wrongly set)?

As Richard and Phil mentioned, the negative should give some clues.  If
there is detail in the highlights (i.e dark areas of the negative) not
coming through on the scan, you have a scanner problem.  If the shadows
seem ok (i.e light on the negative but with detail) but the highlights
have no detail, that suggests over development (e.g too much time, too
much agitation and/or too high temp).  If the shadow areas seem
overexposed (e.g mid or dark grey on the negative) and the highlights
have no detail, sounds like an overexposure problem.

Regards
Gareth
 
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.