B&W processing and scanning help sought.

[Alan Clark]

Patrick,

I don't suggest that you should blindly follow my methods, or anyone else's for that matter. To progress you need to understand the principles involved, and that with black & white, exposure is used to control shadow detail, and development time controls highlight density. There is plenty of information around about this.
My concern here is that in this thread scanning seems to have become an issue that is obscuring the simple issues of expsure and development; and maybe adding to your confusion.

Good luck,

Alan Clark

[Patrick Dixon]

Because the Orbital idea of continuous agitation is nowhere near as aggressive as that which a Jobo processor can inflict on film, I would tend to use the DD-X at a dilution of 1+6 instead of the recommended 1+4 for a time of 8'30" at 20°C. I have learnt to increase the dilution with DD-X rather than reduce the time; this allows you more room for manoeuvre when you need to do N- development.

That seems counter intuitive to me. I thought more aggressive agitation would mean shorter dev times or higher dilutions?

Alan, I understand that (now), but there are so many choices of film, developer, development method, dilutions and times, I'd just like to get a base line to get some results that are 'usable'.

Ultimately I'd take a strong image with a dodgy exposure, over a weak one that's perfect, any day. If only I could get one ....

This was the first B&W I've shot for 30 years, the first developing I've done since then (I never did much anyway), and the first time I'd used QLs, so as Joanna says, I should be grateful to get anything at all .... and I am!

[Alan Clark]

Patrick,
The main thing is to take it easy , and enjoy things.
Also, you could try going on the www.apug.org website, and see how others deal with Acros. You will learn a lot from the forums there.
Best wishes,
Alan Clark

[Alan Clark]

Joanna,
I've just seen your post about clouds. Sorry to disagree with you again but with b&w it is normal to base exposure on shadow detail, not on highlight values. These are controlled by development. But I do agree about the usefulness of a spotmeter for checking highlight values, as a means of working out suitable dev.times, and I use one myself for this purpose.

Alan Clark

[Joanna Carter]

That seems counter intuitive to me. I thought more aggressive agitation would mean shorter dev times or higher dilutions?

??? I think that's what I said
In the Jobo ATL 1500 processor, I not only have (very strong) continuous agitation to cope with, I also have to develop B&W at 24°. So, my time dilution ends up being 7'30" with 1+9.

In the Orbital, your "agitation" has to be relatively slow to avoid slopping chemistry out, thus my recommendation of 8'30" with a dilution of 1+6 at 20°C, because I have tried and tested that time and dilution in my Orbital.

I've just seen your post about clouds. Sorry to disagree with you again but with b&w it is normal to base exposure on shadow detail, not on highlight values. These are controlled by development. But I do agree about the usefulness of a spotmeter for checking highlight values, as a means of working out suitable dev.times, and I use one myself for this purpose

And I wouldn't disagree with you there. Obviously my French keyboard is doing a partial translation of what I intended to say

[Alan Clark]

Joanna,
I forgot to say that your ideas about "underexposed" high density - bullet proof-negatives scanning best are very interesting and I intend trying them out when I get a bit of time next week. Will let you know how I get on.

AlanClark

[Joanna Carter]

I forgot to say that your ideas about "underexposed" high density...

Whoa! wouldn't under-exposed negs be thin, not dense? the last thing you want with scanning is too much density, which is why I ensure that anything above Zone 10 is pulled back in the developing.

So far, I have determined that, with Acros developed normally in DD-X, I just start to lose shadow detail in Zone 1 (choose Zone 2 if you want definite detail; whilst, with the Epson V700, I seem to be able to scan pretty well-defined highlight detail in Zone 10. If the highlights go beyond Zone 10, I increase the exposure by about one third of a stop for every N- value I anticipate having to use - i.e. for a 12 stop brightness range from shadow detail to highlight detail, I would overexpose by one stop and develop for N-3.

But, as you said, you need to find these things out for yourself; half the "fun" of this LF lark is all about learning from your mistakes

[Patrick Dixon]

??? I think that's what I said
In the Jobo ATL 1500 processor, I not only have (very strong) continuous agitation to cope with, I also have to develop B&W at 24°. So, my time dilution ends up being 7'30" with 1+9.

In the Orbital, your "agitation" has to be relatively slow to avoid slopping chemistry out, thus my recommendation of 8'30" with a dilution of 1+6 at 20°C, because I have tried and tested that time and dilution in my Orbital.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that you used 1:4 with the Jobo, and that I should try 1:6 with the Orbital. It makes sense to me now.

[Joanna Carter]

Sorry, I thought you were saying that you used 1:4 with the Jobo, and that I should try 1:6 with the Orbital. It makes sense to me now.

Ah, now I see where I caused confusion; the "usual" 1+4 was meant to be a reference to the standard dilution, normally recommended by Ilford. You'll have to excuse me; after around 8 days speaking a lot of French, whilst organising the Autumn workshop over there, I seem to be having problems switching back to thinking in English

[Patrick Dixon]

Pas de problem.

[Alan Clark]

Joanna,
I am afraid that you have confused me too, and I don't even speak French. ( As I come from Teeside, English is hard enough)

Re."dense negatives". When you said the negatives for scanning were too contrasty to print in the darkroom, I assumed that "contrasty" = dense highlights.

I am away for the weekend. When I get back I may ask you if you would care to send me one of your scanning negatives,so I can get a better idea.

Alan

[Joanna Carter]

Pas de problem.

Ça c'est du franglais ; il fallait dire "pas de problème"

Emmanuel ! Au secours !

I am afraid that you have confused me too, and I don't even speak French. ( As I come from Teeside, English is hard enough)

Re."dense negatives". When you said the negatives for scanning were too contrasty to print in the darkroom, I assumed that "contrasty" = dense highlights.

... but mainly thin shadows as well as "fairly", but not too, dense highlights.

I am away for the weekend. When I get back I may ask you if you would care to send me one of your scanning negatives,so I can get a better idea.

See your PM inbox.

[Patrick Dixon]

OK, I have shot a couple more negs and processed in DD-X as per JC's numbers.

As you all so like hay bales, I thought I'd concentrate on those.

One neg, that I thought was underexposed and looks very,very thin, actually seems to scan OK, and with a bit of masking and separate curves for f/g and sky looks like this:-



This is only one half of the neg - but you get the idea. It's got 'interesting' focus as the camera was almost bent in half with a 210mm lens and a very low view point.

The other one looks better exposed, but is rather bland and needs quite a bit doing to the sky to get any detail out.

Neither of them register dynamic ranges greater than about 150/256 on the epson software, even though they seem to have too much range to 'print'.

So, does this sound 'right'? Am I on the right track? Is it completely unrealistic to expect to shoot B&W without a fair amount of post processing to get a printable result?

[PAUL O]

I've been following this post with interest as I'm part way through the transition from traditional wet-darkroom to scanner & printer workflow myself.
My observations are this:

Black and white photography of 10 years ago is a different kettle of fish from that seen today in a digital set-up. I had happily mastered the zone system; from measuring and placing zones through to extensive testing for extended and reduced development times as well as personal ASA ratings for the films I used.

Digital changed much of this and I've started "learning" again

Anyone trying to master black and white photography where scanning and digital printing is involved needs to bear the following in mind:

Modern films require modern developers if the film is going to be scanned. Films such as Ilford Delta and Fuji Acros fair much better in developers designed for modern "tabular" emulsions - use anything else and you will likely enhance grain etc.

You need to get a good scanner - unless you're a lottery winner this means one of the Epson V series (700 or 750) as a minimum. It's no good scrimping here - it would be like using a cheap enlarger lens on a wobbly enlarger in "wet darkroom" speak. You also need to ensure that your film is mounted correctly - get yourself a Betterscanning Mounting Station (again) as a minimum. I agree that this all costs but unless you're prepared to invest in a good set-up you won't get the results that LF is capable of producing.

The zone system needs a rethink when using it with film that is going to be scanned. Jo is correct when she says that many modern films can capture a wide range of zones; they have much wider latitude when it comes to scanning. By placing the Zone 3 measurement on Zone 1 you are allowing the film to record a much greater range of recordable tones and this also avoids clipping the highlights. The aim should be a negative that appears somewhat underexposed and slightly under-developed to a "wet darkroom eye"

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) black and white photography has always involved a steep learning curve. The digital darkroom requires that some re-learning needs to take place in order to get maximum benefit from this type of workflow.

[Bip]

They have dip and dunk b&w processing at this pro lab in Brighton www.thevaultimaging.co.uk
They normally process once a week.
If you call them, asl for David, tell him I recommended.

Cheers
Bip