B&W processing and scanning help sought.

[Patrick Dixon]

I haven't shot any B&W film for over 20 years and having tried again, I am beginning to remember why.

I shot 3 negs using Acros rated at ASA 100

I processed them individually in turn using a Patterson Orbital processor, with Rodinal 1:50 @20degC using continuous agitation. I reduced the recommended 13.5mins to 11.5mins because of the continuous agitation.

I shot one sheet of Provia 100F at the same time using the same meter readings, and that came back over-exposed.

I accidentally knocked the QL clip and half exposed the first sheet before processing. Here's the result scanned in two halves on an Epson 4490 using the Epson scanning software:



Given that the sky's blown, I processed the second neg (shot with the same shutter/aperture settings as if it were 50ASA, and developed as before for 9 1/3mins. I screwed up the stop (water) and it came out cloudy, so I re-fixed. There are some streaks though.



The third neg, was exposed one stop less than the other two, so I developed as per the first at 100ASA:



OK, so these are not the best photographs in the world, but the results are inspiring me to give up. Given that I don't want to get into the complications of zone systems and N-1, N, N+1 developing, how can I get acceptable results using the primitive tools at my disposal?

To my untrained eye, negs 1 & 3 don't look too bad in the flesh, but the scanned results look pretty dire. What scanner settings should I be using?

Many thanks in advance - particularly if you have suggestions that don't involve me buying new equipment.

[Joanna Carter]

OK, so these are not the best photographs in the world, but the results are inspiring me to give up. Given that I don't want to get into the complications of zone systems and N-1, N, N+1 developing, how can I get acceptable results using the primitive tools at my disposal?

To my untrained eye, negs 1 & 3 don't look too bad in the flesh, but the scanned results look pretty dire. What scanner settings should I be using?

I can only tell you from my experience of regular use of Acros.

You should always expose at 100 ISO; the film can easily cope with 9 stops of brightness range, from the deepest shadows with detail to the brightest highlight with detail.

When exposing, I meter the darkest shadow are that I want to retain detail and then reduce that exposure by 4 stops to place it in zone 1. Then I check that the highlights don't exceed zone 10 (5 stops higher than the actual exposure).

This extended range only works when scanning; it would be far too contrasty for wet printing.

Assuming you are using the standard Epson scanning software, you need to do a preview scan and adjust the black and white points to avoid blocking and blowing the shadows and highlights. Then you should get a full range scan which will need further work in Photoshop to enhance the contrast levels.

The only additional expense could be to get a 4x5 scanner rather than having to do the job in two parts. You should not use the automatic exposure control for scanning.

Does that help at all?

[Dave Tolcher]

Hi Patrick, I wouldnt give up just yet !

To me your scans look entirely usable (esp 3rd one) - needs some PS work with curves and levels but it looks like all the tones are there. IME a scanned B & W (and colour) neg looks very flat if you have squeezed all the tones from the neg in at the scanning stage and needs a lot of PS work. Just like a RAW file in digi world - it looks awful until you work on it.

Primitive tools would be back to basics on exposure and standard development, maybe look at pyro which produces a neg that scans well because it grain masks with the dye. Pyro is quite tolerant of time and temp and self compensates to an extent. For exposure I have never gone very wrong with the old rule of identifying the darkest area that I want detail in and underexposing 3 stops from the reading of that area. Apply grads as for colour and you are very unlikely to blow highlights in the sky or whatever, just check for anything critical - you have got as much as 10 stops. You arent trying to get a neg with tonal scale that matches a grade of paper, your looking to get detail in everything important for scanning so, for me, I would forget the zone system. (clearly this is b**** if you want to print in the darkroom).

Further down the line at the scanning stage it would be worth looking at multi exposure scans for negs with a big DR, I have examples where you need the +/- exposed scan to get into the details. Some folk get better results scanning as a colour slide and the reversing and desaturating (I do for pyro negs with a heavy stain).

As a complete aside I personally dont like orbitals for 5x4 and would get a combiplan.

[Patrick Dixon]

Does that help at all?

Yes - thanks. I'll have another go at scanning tomorrow, and see if I can get a better result.

It's a pita scanning in two pieces, but I don't want to spend the money on a V700 or V750 at the moment, so I'd like to get a passable result with what I've got.

As a complete aside I personally dont like orbitals for 5x4 and would get a combiplan.

I quite like the orbital so far. It's easy to load in a medium sized changing bag and only uses small quantities of chemicals. Some people seem to suggest you need much more than the 60ml specified (like 300-450ml), but I think small quantities are fine if you continuously agitate. I used 150ml for the first two, and 100ml for the third.

I also have a jobo reel for 4x5 sheets (no tank), but I can't even load it in the light - let alone blind in a changing bag.

I would like to try prescysol at some point, but I read that it's not good with Acros.

[PAUL O]

As a complete aside I personally dont like orbitals for 5x4 and would get a combiplan.

I was a confirmed Combiplan user until I "discovered" the Paterson Orbital Processor! They are easier to load and much cleaner in use. I've managed to find two of these at bargain prices and with some modification I find that they are much easier to use than the Combiplan.

The first modification is to remove the long "fins" on the light trap inside the lid; these can leave streaks on film but a quick session with a junior hacksaw and job done!

Second modification was to stick some clear plastic bumpers to the base of the tray - thereby raising the sheets of film a fraction and allowing chemistry to cover them evenly (and for anti-halation dye to wash off). I used 5mm diameter plastic "domes" designed to raise sheets of glass clear of desk surfaces and a drop of superglue stuck them down. The chemsitry used in black and white processing has had no ill-effects on these whatsoever

Finally, changed the red pegs - useless at preventing film sheets from migrating around the tray during agitation. I replaced these with 3mm plastic screws cut longer than the original pegs and these work a treat and simply twist into the original sockets.

I now get evenly developed negs, can use the processor with 5x7 film and only need to use 180mm of chemistry for 4 sheets of 5x4 or 2 sheets of 5x7 film.

[Bob Singleton]

Hi Patrick

I tend to use FP4 and pyro so I can't tell you much about the film but I use the paterson tank with good results.

I suspect that you can use a light meter and most b&w film is pretty tolerant of errors so I wouldn't worry on that score till you are happy and start getting greedy for better.

The paterson tank takes only small amounts of chemicals I tend to use 150ml but with pyro at 100:1:1 that's not much dev and rodinal uses similar dilutions so measuring becomes very tricky and small errors can result in a lot of variation. I use a medical syringe to measure the concentrate.

Secondly with a few sheets of film and not much dev there is the risk of exhausting the dev. So my advice is check the dilution and use a bit more solution you can get over 250ml in the tank before it starts to slop.

I mix my pyro from chemicals so it doesn't come with directions so I had to do a few trials when I started out and came to the conclusion that in a dish with so little solution it isn't necessary to reduce the times as much as when you process 35mm in a motorised jobo.

I usually stop with water then just fill the tank with fix.

Finally I don't have a motor so rotate by hand on the manual base. When I started I went far to quickly and you can end up with only a very shallow depth in the middle if you go too fast and I had some cases where the middle corners didn't dev properly. Moderation is the key just keep it moving slowly.

After a couple of goes the negs have been very reliable and I am happy with the tank. By the way if you haven't already modified it a bit of silicone or waterproof tape on the bottom inside breaks the vacuum and stops the sheets sticking and makes sure the anti halination layer comes off.

Hope this helps

[Patrick Dixon]

I've roughened the bottom by scoring with a scalpel and then using 60 grade sand paper to get a good key. I reckon if you use silicone or beads to raise the film, you'll have to use more chemicals - and if you use a lot, the fins may then come into play a cause a problem. I did have to dismantle the trap in the sink to recover one of the pegs though.

I have a 1ml syringe, so 2 or 3ml of dev to 100 or 150ml of water is not a problem, although I reckon it's probably better to make up a litre at a time and keep it in a collapsible bottle (which I don't have).

How much do you reduce development times for continuous agitation in an orbital then? I used 15%.

[Joanna Carter]

How much do you reduce development times for continuous agitation in an orbital then? I used 15%.

I use the Orbital for the odd sheet that needs special development (N+/-) and don't reduce the time because, although it is constant agitation, the film is not covered by developer for anywhere near the percentage of time that I would get with the Jobo ATL 1500.

[Patrick Dixon]

Thanks - how much developer do you use in your orbital? And how would I tell if my negs are under-developed?

[Joanna Carter]

Thanks - how much developer do you use in your orbital? And how would I tell if my negs are under-developed?

I use around 200ml in the Orbital. Looking at your scans, I would say that, for Acros, your negs are a tad flat, which is unusual if they were fully developed (unless the scans are a lot flatter than the negs).

Where are you getting your dev times/dilutions from?

[Patrick Dixon]

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=faq

[vanman]

Hi Patrick,
When I first started using a field camera I used a 6x9 roll film back. This gave me a chance to get used to the camera and mess around with movements while developing film in the Patterson roll film tanks that I was familiar with from my M.F & 35mm days. You would also be able to practise matching your developing times to get the right contrast for your scanner without spending a fortune on sheet film.
Some might critisise my using roll film backs but big negs are not always necessary, if the are why did both my 5x7's come with 4x5 backs as well?
Patterson Orbitals are wonderful and after trying a Combiplan (you need at least a litre of chemicals to develop 6 sheets, but the manufacturers recommend 4 sheets for the best results) I think that they make great washers for 4x5 sheet film.
I bought plastic dome thingies at my local Hobbycraft and glued them to the bottom of my Orbitals to keep the film raised from the base. I also use 300 ml of chemicals in my Orbitals, I know that others use less but it works for me.
Best wishes,
Vanman.

[Tom Green]

Hi, Vanman,I have the same feelings about the com-biplan tank, also anyone out there has or knows where i can purchase a orbital devloper I am very interested. in changing to one Best Regards Tombo. (I have checked around the darkroom Co s, but nothing doing )

[Patrick Dixon]

The orbitals come up on eBay from time to time. Some people seem to have got them for a tenner at a car boot sale, but I paid about £40 for mine in as new condition from eBay. The motorised ones are a bit more.

I have a fair amount of B&W sheet film (Acros, Era, HP5, HP4) that came in various deals, but I get disheartened easily ...

[PAUL O]

The Orbital can go for silly money! One sold a day or so ago, with motorised base for £99.99