Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-04-2019, 07:29 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
Been a little quiet here lately in the ol' F76 thread. But fear now as I am back on the case. I have a whole pile of Foma 400 to deal with so here we go; pulling Foma 400 back a stop.

I've read rumors that Foma 400 is really approx. ISO 250 in actuality. So I got out my old Ricoh Singlex TLS, set the ISO dial to 200, and figured I would take 15% off of the normal Foma 400 development times to see how this would come out. It's not bad at all; here are a couple shots;



That's 6 minutes and 45 seconds in 1+9 concentrated F76. Somewhat overcast day with a lot of snow so plenty of light. Took this with my Takumar 55 f2.



This one took seconds; I used a cable release, and shot this with a Tamron 17mm Adaptall-2.

I think this is fairly spot on, overall. Some shots come out a bit under-developed but others seemed slightly over. I'll spare you all the picture I took of the cat as it's not that well composed or focused; the fur and general look of the picture seems pretty much spot on. Having another camera to do odd-ball stuff like this is great.

02-04-2019, 09:40 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
I also pushed another roll of Foma 400. I metered to ISO 1600 with my new-to-me Chinon CE-5 (lovely camera!) and took the following;



I used a previous development method and I think these came out well as they did the time before 1+9, 24 minutes total time, 1 minute initial agitation and three inversions every 30 seconds after that first minute. I also wonder if there's really much latitude left in Foma 400 to allow for a true EI 3200 via pushing. If there is, I don't know that F76 is the developer to get there. The great thing is that detail is still there and this isn't a pile of huge grain.
02-12-2019, 08:57 PM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
Developed a roll of Foma 400 last night using the method described in the previous post and it didn't come out as well. Under-exposed/under-developed with some frames coming out basically clear. Not sure what happened. Trying to shoot a lot of Foma 400 this month to see what I can get out of it and I'm kind of on the fence about this film.
02-18-2019, 07:20 PM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
Still on the case pushing Foma 400 two stops. Used the above development scheme of 24 minutes total time, first minute of constant inversions and then three inversions every thirty seconds. Seems to work well. Here's an example;



I need to shoot in new locations!

07-10-2019, 04:46 PM - 1 Like   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
I can't believe I haven't updated this thread lately. So, without further ado;



That's Ilford HP5+ developed in F76, 1+9 dilution, 14.5 minutes for about a two stop push. Enough speed to make evening seem much brighter than it really was when taken.
07-20-2019, 10:59 PM   #36
Pentaxian
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,166
Looks pretty good to me
08-05-2019, 06:36 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
I hadn't tried playing with color film in F76 for a while. Normally I wouldn't do this; there's plenty of good, inexpensive black and white film around. But I wanted to test a new-to-me Pentax MX and just got in some well priced Ultramax 400 and I thought I would do a test roll in F76 to keep costs down. I metered for 800 and shot the roll in about a day.

This was probably shot more like EI 400 due to the max shutter speed of the MX capping at 1/1000 and my not wanting to stop down further than f16 (I was using my M 85 f2 for this shot). Conversion of the roll with my K-5 II and Negative Lab Pro 2. No playing with anything but size and .jpg conversion using Adobe products.



I've never seen this much color show up after a run with F76. I almost want to shoot a roll at EI 100 and see what it comes out like. It's got an odd look that is fun for playing around in although I would be frustrated it a roll of HP5 or Tri-X came out like this.

Oh, and this roll dried with an extreme curl, making it hard to scan evenly. Some other shots I like in the middle and really don't like the shifts at the side. Might rewash and try again but probably not.
08-14-2019, 08:33 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,659
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
Still on the case pushing Foma 400 two stops. ... Seems to work well. Here's an example;
Are you sure? On my monitor, 80% of that picture the blacks are R=G=B=0. In other words, the blacks are at base + fog of the film meaning no exposure. That doesn't look like a successful exposure/development to me. But of course there could be more detail down there in Zone 1 but it was lost during the digital conversion.


Last edited by tuco; 08-14-2019 at 09:27 AM. Reason: Spelling
08-14-2019, 04:24 PM - 1 Like   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Are you sure? On my monitor, 80% of that picture the blacks are R=G=B=0. In other words, the blacks are at base + fog of the film meaning no exposure. That doesn't look like a successful exposure/development to me. But of course there could be more detail down there in Zone 1 but it was lost during the digital conversion.
That had been messed with a bit to get a more inky black and less fogged negative. Here is the same image with just the negative inverted to a positive, resized in Photoshop after doing the inversion in Lightroom.



Using the color picker tool in Photoshop Elements, I'm getting R/G/B numbers from 30 to low 40's in the "black" areas with this image. Is that what you're finding?

I don't know if much color information is lost in the transition from .PEF to .TIFF and then again from .TIFF to a .JPG stored here in the online albums at PF.com. Seems like it would be very minimal at most.
08-14-2019, 07:19 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,659
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
...
Using the color picker tool in Photoshop Elements, I'm getting R/G/B numbers from 30 to low 40's in the "black" areas with this image. Is that what you're finding?
I see. There is nothing wrong with having film base black in a picture, btw. But it is an unexposed area of the film. Sometimes our pictures look better if we compress the blacks to zero for some dark scenes. Your pool table scene is difficult to get the lights and darks in with a normal development let alone pushing.

I think it helps to also evaluate the negative rather than the results from a 2nd generation image. Look at the negative on a light table. If say most of your blacks fade into the film's base density and you wanted detail there then clearly it would be under exposed/developed and an accurate way to know if you're pushing too far.
08-15-2019, 07:58 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
I wouldn't have been looking for detail in the "shadows" of that shot, personally. I think you're correct when you say a lot of detail in the darker areas is missing.

Given the variables and the aspects of the equation that I do have control over, I think I'll continue to push and just loose or never capture details in shadows in those sorts of scenes. Given that this was taken with Foma 400 I want to tell myself that the given image & development/exposure was about as good as it was going to get shooting handheld.
08-15-2019, 08:27 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,659
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
I wouldn't have been looking for detail in the "shadows" of that shot, personally. I think you're correct when you say a lot of detail in the darker areas is missing.

Given the variables and the aspects of the equation that I do have control over, I think I'll continue to push and just loose or never capture details in shadows in those sorts of scenes. Given that this was taken with Foma 400 I want to tell myself that the given image & development/exposure was about as good as it was going to get shooting handheld.
I'm looking at it from a point of evaluating the push process as apposed to any aesthetics of the image so naturally I want to see how much density above B+F is on the negative from the push process. It's like pixel peeping in digital. And that can of course can make for a less flattering image sometimes.

At the expense of using a tripod with slower shutter speeds, you could do the opposite if you want more shadow detail and keep those highlights down. Over expose and under develop. It is developer dependent how far you can take that and I have no experience with F-76. One clue would be if the developer has a minimum development time.
08-15-2019, 09:59 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,659
I'll also add that if you set your contrast curve so RGB=0 for the base of the film, any value above that (eg R=B=G=33 grey scale) will show your scale of recored blacks with a point of reference. And that's not perfect for everyone looking at it because computer screens vary but it still a good point of reference.
09-12-2019, 07:24 AM   #44
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 4
Acros in F76+

Hi Everyone, this is my first post!

Does anyone have time/temps for developing Acros in F76+? I've had difficulty finding this.

Thanks!

Steve Rosenblum
09-13-2019, 10:57 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,960
Original Poster
Time and temps for stock dilution of D-76 is probably approximately close-ish. F76+ isn't a very active developer from what I've found over the course of the last year. A little extra time is probably smarter than not enough; the numbers on the Massive Dev Chart make me think 7.5 minutes, 1+9 ratio, at 72 degrees F would probably get you good results. Take that with a grain of salt of course.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bottle, camera, cat, chris, clayton, concentration, dev, development, f2, film, minutes, photography, roll, shots, solution, stock, time, try
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Small Waterfall at Mt. Diablo, Clayton CA Y_V_E_S Post Your Photos! 4 08-17-2018 06:09 AM
Landscape Clayton Beach Sunrise & Water fall jnguyen Post Your Photos! 4 03-04-2013 08:35 PM
Landscape Clayton Beach jnguyen Post Your Photos! 5 02-17-2013 06:18 PM
Hello from Clayton, NC claskowski Welcomes and Introductions 2 08-20-2008 10:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top