I’m a nerd and got myself an eBay densitometer (£21) and sensitometer (£5). Both these items were used, old and from manufacturers I couldn’t find anything about so I was taking a punt. You can make “step wedges” with the sensitometer in a dark bag which use about 5 frames of 35mm film and produce a 21 step grey scale when developed, which I then measure with the densitometer and plot. You can then work out what “gamma” ie contrast you like and play with the development time to get it right. Particularly useful for films and developer combinations that are not the most common.
When shooting landscapes, I like to over expose the film by One stop and reduce development by 20 to 30% to hold details in the highlights. I found that it made a huge difference for the clouds in the sky. Thanks for another great video Roger!
Yes I agree with you there Clyde. Pulling the film will hold back a lot of detail to play with later on. I got into a habit of pulling film a lot, then slipped out of the habit! Thanks for the nudge.
As always 👌, one of the best RUclips channels no doubt. Roger you can try to develop the film in different temperatures and see the different results in contrast. Cheers my friend 🙏
That was a lovely comparison and is super practical and helpful at a glance too! Whilst I was stuck inside and didn't have much to shoot, I opted to spend some time learning H&D curves and exposing film to step wedges and measuring the results on a densitometer. It was a worthwhile exercise but a ton can be learned by practical testing and making real photographs and prints versus exposing step wedges and drawing graphs :) It's kinda cool though - what you showed is what I experienced in graph form. Changing the dev times for me raised or lowered the dmax which is most notable in the highlights just like you saw. It changes the contrast by raising or lowering the slow of the straight line (the midtones) but doesn't really mess with deep shadows that much (the toe). Which is I would expect from reading up on how this all works. I did have a few surprises by making curves that would have been hard to figure out with practical testing - Adox HR50 in particular is a film I was both under-exposing and over-developing - by a lot. Turns out, at least in my tests, it's closer to an ISO of 3 when using Xtol-Replenishment to get a standard contrast index. I still need to shoot more tests to validate those results. For the most part though, practical tests like what you did would have done the job just as well - and without having to draw graphs and do some math! Seems like that whole "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing seems to be pretty accurate!
Hi Roger, Funny that your dev was used, this afternoon I decided to print a paper print memo, with details of my Dev, Stop and Fix, date made, ratio, make and type. It is just a simple A4 sheet that I then laminated so I can mark with a grease pencil or dry bord marker, as a reminder of how old my chemicals are. As we get older every little helps. Great video. Thanks.
Thanks Roger for another great test. I just wonder about shooting landscapes: with bright sky and dark background. Measuring light on foreground and ....? Reducing iso or underdevelop...or both to save a details in highlights. Summer is coming ;) so that would be great test - how to avoid high contrast during sunny day
I like the new concept! Always love seeing more of your videos. My favorite are the objects you photograph with the natural light in your house. Especially the episode with the sea shells! I wish you added more prints to your ebay lol.
Excellent effort and initiative. I really appreciate the trouble you take, saving the rest of less patient folk the bother! I usually do it by the book, and shoot at box speed and dev according to the on-line guru: massive dev chart! Thank you! You're a toff gov and no mistake!
Nice one Roger! Just a little tip ......... Never use your mercury thermometer as a stirring rod! Naughty!!! If the 'bulb' snaps off at the bottom you'll be left with mercury contaminating your darkroom - and it's a bugger to collect up. Then what do you do with it? Toxic stuff to be playing with. Cheers mate - take care and stay safe.
This may be a silly question (or I might have missed something) but how did you get the sprocket holes showing on the under developed print with the OM20? Also great content 👍👍 thanks for all that you put up
I accidentally misplaced the negative in the camera when I put that strip in. When I closed the door it must have slipped inside the camera. Gemista, thanks.
I've got a good one for you, Roger. It follows on from what you've done here. Subject indoors by a window. You are to maximise the dynamic range of the scene. You need to achieve a negative which can be printed to get detail both indoors and outside through the window. Photo 1) If you expose for outside, you lose detail indoors, Photo 2) if you expose for indoors, you lose the detail of the scene through the window. Photo 3) If you meter somewhere in between, you'll have difficulty printing details for both indoors and outdoors. Photo 4) Meter for the subject indoors and pull development (try cutting it in half or 2/3rds normal development time) to get a negative that is easier to print than the other 3 examples. This is your mission. Should you choose to accept it........
ha ha Pete. As I was reading it you reminded me of a bathroom scene I shot a while back doing just this. I was trying to get the bathroom exposed well without blowing out the window. And yes I pulled the film. Could be a good one to show! Thanks!
Awesome vid mate! I’ve always wondered about this when I’m developing. Seems similar to overexposing a tad in camera -Think I’ll start over developing just a little ;)
Great stuff Roger. Really informative as ever - just goes to show that it’s not just about getting it right in the camera...there’s so much more to film photography. Look forward to the next instalment.
Thanks for going to the trouble Roger. Other people just sit in front of the telly! You could try printing with the enlarger set at various apertures, using different timings as well of course, to see if there is any difference in the quality and character of the print.
Thanks for the idea! I have actually tried this in the past but just playing what if's on my own and if I remember not much difference at regular sized prints. Maybe I should try larger enlargements. :)
A quick question regarding camera light meter. Do you trust the unbuilt meter or do you always take a hand held meter reading? Am thinking of purchasing a hand held meter Any suggestions...
I do trust the cameras meter but usually when I'm outside shooting street subjects for speed. Anything like this or studio or scapes or portraits I'll use the handheld. The cameras meter will meter the whole scene and measure and average of the light reflecting from the subject. The handheld meter will meter light falling onto the subject depending where I point the lumisphere. That way I have more control but the camera would have probably measured a similar reading.
What could be interesting to see, would be, how if you underexpose and overdevelop or overexpose and underdevelop, the kind of results you'd get ... have I got me knickers in a twist or does it make sense? :)
I don't know if your enlarger is tall enough or your ceiling high enough, but how big can you enlarge a tiny crop from a super-fine grain film like Pan F, Ortho 80, or Lomo Kino Babylon 13?
I can get to about 16 inches. I used to have a set up where I could rotate the head and project at the wall for 28 inches but I did so very few that size I took the set up down for more space
The '5-minute' neg looks darker then the '7-minute' neg. And, the '11-minute' neg looks lighter. Did the negative (OM20) move in the camera? Because, there are sprocket holes on your under-developed print.
The sprocket holes you see is where I misplaced the neg inside the camera before I took the shot Anthony. All settings exactly the same across all three shots. There was no 11 min neg? 5, 7, 9 mins.
I thought I heard someone in my ear. Yes that was because I overfilled the tank. When I pushed the lid on it pushed out slightly. I was aware but it didn't kill the neg. Luckily or I would have had to do it all again!
I really like comparison videos like these. Keep them coming. But to be fair, I think the under/over developed film should be compensated for in the enlarger and see the results then. Even well exposed negative would print badly if you....well...print it badly. I'd really like to see the results if you compensate with contrast filters and enlarger time and try to print all three to the best of your abilities. Then you can properly asses the difference. EDIT: well, I spoke slightly before you finished the video and you mentioned it. But I still think you just brushed it off too easily. You probably haven't done your 'proper' print out of nothing either and needed to make tests. I really love your channel otherwise, but you really cannot make any film comparisons out of bad prints.
![Chino Pacas - Smith (ft. Junior H & Fuerza Regida) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BVK6k56X30Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m a nerd and got myself an eBay densitometer (£21) and sensitometer (£5). Both these items were used, old and from manufacturers I couldn’t find anything about so I was taking a punt. You can make “step wedges” with the sensitometer in a dark bag which use about 5 frames of 35mm film and produce a 21 step grey scale when developed, which I then measure with the densitometer and plot. You can then work out what “gamma” ie contrast you like and play with the development time to get it right. Particularly useful for films and developer combinations that are not the most common.
When shooting landscapes, I like to over expose the film by One stop and reduce development by 20 to 30% to hold details in the highlights. I found that it made a huge difference for the clouds in the sky. Thanks for another great video Roger!
Yes I agree with you there Clyde. Pulling the film will hold back a lot of detail to play with later on. I got into a habit of pulling film a lot, then slipped out of the habit! Thanks for the nudge.
As always 👌, one of the best RUclips channels no doubt. Roger you can try to develop the film in different temperatures and see the different results in contrast. Cheers my friend 🙏
Great tip Peds!
Great idea. Would love to see HP5 pushed and developed in Rodinol at 24°c for grain the size of boulders!
That was a lovely comparison and is super practical and helpful at a glance too!
Whilst I was stuck inside and didn't have much to shoot, I opted to spend some time learning H&D curves and exposing film to step wedges and measuring the results on a densitometer. It was a worthwhile exercise but a ton can be learned by practical testing and making real photographs and prints versus exposing step wedges and drawing graphs :)
It's kinda cool though - what you showed is what I experienced in graph form. Changing the dev times for me raised or lowered the dmax which is most notable in the highlights just like you saw. It changes the contrast by raising or lowering the slow of the straight line (the midtones) but doesn't really mess with deep shadows that much (the toe). Which is I would expect from reading up on how this all works.
I did have a few surprises by making curves that would have been hard to figure out with practical testing - Adox HR50 in particular is a film I was both under-exposing and over-developing - by a lot. Turns out, at least in my tests, it's closer to an ISO of 3 when using Xtol-Replenishment to get a standard contrast index. I still need to shoot more tests to validate those results. For the most part though, practical tests like what you did would have done the job just as well - and without having to draw graphs and do some math!
Seems like that whole "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing seems to be pretty accurate!
That's some text Tim! Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure how I'd get on with denseitometers and curve testing. Never done it or seen it! Great to read 👍
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Haha well, I think your video definitely shows you can draw basically the same conclusions without having to go down that road!
Hi Roger,
Funny that your dev was used, this afternoon I decided to print a paper print memo, with details of my Dev, Stop and Fix, date made, ratio, make and type. It is just a simple A4 sheet that I then laminated so I can mark with a grease pencil or dry bord marker, as a reminder of how old my chemicals are. As we get older every little helps. Great video. Thanks.
Thanks Roger for another great test. I just wonder about shooting landscapes: with bright sky and dark background. Measuring light on foreground and ....? Reducing iso or underdevelop...or both to save a details in highlights. Summer is coming ;) so that would be great test - how to avoid high contrast during sunny day
I like the new concept! Always love seeing more of your videos. My favorite are the objects you photograph with the natural light in your house. Especially the episode with the sea shells! I wish you added more prints to your ebay lol.
Thanks. I love window light. But it's nice to get out ha ha. You can see my prints on Etsy :)
Great lesson !! Thanks!
Love your channel. Very professional 👍
Thanks for watching Anna
Excellent effort and initiative. I really appreciate the trouble you take, saving the rest of less patient folk the bother! I usually do it by the book, and shoot at box speed and dev according to the on-line guru: massive dev chart! Thank you! You're a toff gov and no mistake!
To be honest I usually go by the book Bill for trouble free developing. But it's fun to experiment.
Nice one Roger! Just a little tip ......... Never use your mercury thermometer as a stirring rod! Naughty!!! If the 'bulb' snaps off at the bottom you'll be left with mercury contaminating your darkroom - and it's a bugger to collect up. Then what do you do with it? Toxic stuff to be playing with. Cheers mate - take care and stay safe.
Cheers Ray.
Very nice 👍 looking forward to following this new series :)
This may be a silly question (or I might have missed something) but how did you get the sprocket holes showing on the under developed print with the OM20?
Also great content 👍👍 thanks for all that you put up
He said he used film strips, not rolls. The strip must have slipped down so that the sprockets were in the camera obscura, exposing it.
I was gonna ask the exact same question :-)
@@gemista Makes sense :-)
I accidentally misplaced the negative in the camera when I put that strip in. When I closed the door it must have slipped inside the camera. Gemista, thanks.
Always interesting to see. Thanks for sharing.
I've got a good one for you, Roger. It follows on from what you've done here.
Subject indoors by a window. You are to maximise the dynamic range of the scene. You need to achieve a negative which can be printed to get detail both indoors and outside through the window.
Photo 1) If you expose for outside, you lose detail indoors,
Photo 2) if you expose for indoors, you lose the detail of the scene through the window.
Photo 3) If you meter somewhere in between, you'll have difficulty printing details for both indoors and outdoors.
Photo 4) Meter for the subject indoors and pull development (try cutting it in half or 2/3rds normal development time) to get a negative that is easier to print than the other 3 examples.
This is your mission. Should you choose to accept it........
ha ha Pete. As I was reading it you reminded me of a bathroom scene I shot a while back doing just this. I was trying to get the bathroom exposed well without blowing out the window. And yes I pulled the film. Could be a good one to show! Thanks!
Awesome vid mate! I’ve always wondered about this when I’m developing. Seems similar to overexposing a tad in camera -Think I’ll start over developing just a little ;)
Great stuff Roger. Really informative as ever - just goes to show that it’s not just about getting it right in the camera...there’s so much more to film photography. Look forward to the next instalment.
Thanks Charles.
thank you , very instructive
Thanks for going to the trouble Roger. Other people just sit in front of the telly! You could try printing with the enlarger set at various apertures, using different timings as well of course, to see if there is any difference in the quality and character of the print.
Thanks for the idea! I have actually tried this in the past but just playing what if's on my own and if I remember not much difference at regular sized prints. Maybe I should try larger enlargements. :)
Like the pictures. Have u ever tried forma pan iso 400 black and white
Yes lots. I find it less sensative. more like 200. Nice film. Cheap too
Have you experimented in Stand or Semi-Stand developing with Rodinal ?
To me...the over developed seem to me best of lots. Wondering, whether, results would be same or different for each film stock.
A quick question regarding camera light meter. Do you trust the unbuilt meter or do you always take a hand held meter reading? Am thinking of purchasing a hand held meter Any suggestions...
I do trust the cameras meter but usually when I'm outside shooting street subjects for speed. Anything like this or studio or scapes or portraits I'll use the handheld. The cameras meter will meter the whole scene and measure and average of the light reflecting from the subject. The handheld meter will meter light falling onto the subject depending where I point the lumisphere. That way I have more control but the camera would have probably measured a similar reading.
What could be interesting to see, would be, how if you underexpose and overdevelop or overexpose and underdevelop, the kind of results you'd get ... have I got me knickers in a twist or does it make sense? :)
So a comparison between pushing and pulling film on a scene?
I think one of the lids wasn't properly closed. Maybe that's why you got light leaks?
I did think that but I know they were all on tight. It was strange how that leak happened. Had me doing it all over again! arghhhh!
I don't know if your enlarger is tall enough or your ceiling high enough, but how big can you enlarge a tiny crop from a super-fine grain film like Pan F, Ortho 80, or Lomo Kino Babylon 13?
I can get to about 16 inches. I used to have a set up where I could rotate the head and project at the wall for 28 inches but I did so very few that size I took the set up down for more space
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Got a 35mm or 28mm enlarging lens? That would let you get more magnification at the same height.
The '5-minute' neg looks darker then the '7-minute' neg. And, the '11-minute' neg looks lighter. Did the negative (OM20) move in the camera? Because, there are sprocket holes on your under-developed print.
The sprocket holes you see is where I misplaced the neg inside the camera before I took the shot Anthony. All settings exactly the same across all three shots. There was no 11 min neg? 5, 7, 9 mins.
👍
Lol.....Silberra refills ORWO UN54? Really? oh man.... Thanks for the video...very informative
Yes. Even says ORWO on the negs. Great film either way
The #2 canister in the first run didn't have the lid all the way on. I tried to tell you, but you weren't listening... ;)
I thought I heard someone in my ear. Yes that was because I overfilled the tank. When I pushed the lid on it pushed out slightly. I was aware but it didn't kill the neg. Luckily or I would have had to do it all again!
I really like comparison videos like these. Keep them coming. But to be fair, I think the under/over developed film should be compensated for in the enlarger and see the results then. Even well exposed negative would print badly if you....well...print it badly. I'd really like to see the results if you compensate with contrast filters and enlarger time and try to print all three to the best of your abilities. Then you can properly asses the difference.
EDIT: well, I spoke slightly before you finished the video and you mentioned it. But I still think you just brushed it off too easily. You probably haven't done your 'proper' print out of nothing either and needed to make tests. I really love your channel otherwise, but you really cannot make any film comparisons out of bad prints.
Hmmmm. I think you missed the point of the experiment fella. Sorry
We have digital camera now.
No chemicals required.