Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 5 - N+ and N- Development.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- In today's video we're back with our FX55 Crawley developer and Ilford FP4 Plus film. To maximise versatility with our developer/film combination we should work out our N+ and N- development times. This will allow us to expand negative contrast or reduce negative contrast thus making printing or scanning the photograph much easier. The method I demonstrate here will work with any developer film combination (but does not work with Stand Development).
Also see:
Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 1: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 2: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 3: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 4: • Getting the Best From:...
Getting the Best From: FX55 Pt 5: • Getting the Best From:...
John
www.pictorialplanet.com
Thoroughly enjoy these learning videos.
Cheers, Robert! Glad they're helpful.
This was the best description of N+- development I have ever heard.
That's very kind of you to say, Larry. Thank you 🙏
I just measure my negatives with a densitometer, much more accurate than trying to see a different shade of gray, but your method works.
Your method, Steve, although often used by people with densitometers, is only theoretical. What I mean is when you measure a grade 1 grey it might not show as grade 1 on your print paper. The system I show here is practical - the grade 1 is actually grade 1 on the paper. Big difference.
@@PictorialPlanet It's my history to do things lazily and in the end, wrong, so I'm not surprised. I do try to employ zone densities especially those of Ansel Adams and other notable photographers that are published in graphical form with zone vs. density as the variables. Glad to be corrected.
You're doing good 👍 Especially because you make black and white negatives that I'm sure are great. Drop me a line.
I spent weeks testing film and development. Film base plus fog ! I eventually had it dialed in, and the printing became so much easier. I got to know my film like the back of my hand.
That's the way to do it! I hope your comment inspires others to do the same. It makes a real difference.
John-- You would have FAINTED if you had seen how I used to have to develop FP3 PRESS FILMS years ago when I worked for Breda Studios of Barking Essex -- they had a small shed in the garden of the converted house where they did all the Press Photos for the 'Barking Advertiser' newspaper - NO Temp Control -- 'Deep Tanks' of ID11 and Fix and in summer the temp got up so high the Dev Time was a 'guessed' 3 mins !
Ha! Yes, I think us "from the age of film" have all been there :) No fainting required.
First time I have watched your videos. very impressive. Instead of eye balling the developed print to observe the gray tone, would it not be more accurate to read the reflection of the dried paper with a densitometer? Not sure what reading would represent the zone of interest though.
People have asked me before about using densitometers and there's nothing wrong with them but they are not required if you want to keep it more artful or personal. That's why I teach this method.
Thank you John for this excellent explanation. If you could develop a little more the last part concerning the development N-1 and N-2, my poor English did not allow me to assimilate the explanation of this part well. Maybe in your next book ;-)
Will do!
Should we be taking pictures of a off-white/grey backdrop as well?
Not sure I understand your question?
@@PictorialPlanet let me rephrase the question. The picture you took for testing purposes was that grey folding table. Should I find something similar in size and color to take a picture of as well? I don’t have a table, but maybe a blank bedroom wall.
Thank you for rephrasing that. I'm sorry I didn't understand. Yes, take pictures of some mid-toned evenly lit surface. It could be a painted wall inside or outside. I'm lucky to have this table but before that I'd use a brown house wall. Any dimples or blemishes should not show if you set your lens to infinity.
@@PictorialPlanet Okay, thank you for taking the time to answer my question! I’ll let you know the results.
I fully support John's demonstrations here. However, please keep in mind that when you are doing these zone calibration tests by judging tiny density differences in finished prints (And how about print dry down?), you are mixing into that overall calibration the meter, camera, film and its developer, and the paper and its developer. In theory, if you change any of those elements, you need to re-calibrate your system again. In the real world, properly adjusted cameras and meters can be changed without issue, but not so for the film and paper and their developers.If you are Ansel Adams, you just spend your week in the darkroom calibrating all of your usual combinations. I won't review my own procedures, as I have the luxuries of both transmission and reflection densitometers to eyeball my tests for me. This may all seem like a lot of work, and it is. But the payback is immediate in terms of negatives which print with ease and prints which need a fraction of the test strips and prints previously required. .
Thank you for you comment, Randall. Yes, the payback is worth the effort.
In my experience, I've found that our modern films don't expand/contract nearly as much as the emulsions I used 40 years ago; though, Steve Sherman seems to be able to bend FP4+ to whatever he needs.
FP4+, an awesome film. I don't know why everyone isn't using it?
Ansel Adams said the same thing about "modern" emulsions in the last (1992) edition of his *The Negative* -- apparently in the 1950s there were films (like the legendary Super Double-X) that could be developed over a range from N-4 to N+6 or N+7 with the right developer. By 1990 or so, N-1 to N+2 was a more accessible range, and with T-Max (other than P3200) there's even less range than that, with the contrast "baked in" to the emulsion. Needless to say, the two rolls of TMY I tried to push to 3200 that time in 2002 didn't have much on them...
@@SilntObsvr Oh, how I so miss Super-XX. The tonal range (especially the mid-tones) was unmatched by any film then or now, IMO.