Rodinal, Compensating and Filters

GeneV · 03-22-2010, 06:40 AM

Over in the "show us your film shots" thread, I posted some shots I took Saturday of blossoms after a snow. The shots were taken on LegacyPro100 (reputed to be Fuji Acros) medium yellow filter, exposed at ISO 100 with a +.5 stop filter factor (1/2 the usual compensation for Med yellow) and developed in dilute (1:80) R09 for just under 17 minutes at 21 degrees C with minimal agitation. I have just started using this development technique based upon results I saw from others, here. My thought was that it would help to render the subtle differences in highlights between the snow and the blossoms.

However, what I noticed is that 1) the negatives have a fairly high density and low contrast and 2) the effect of filters is blunted. The end effect is an interesting, delicate shot, but not the shot I expected.

Below are three examples from that day. The first is one I previously posted shot on LegacyPro100, but darkened a bit so that the stems come closer to matching the shots that follow in tone. The second is a color shot from a pocket camera I had with me on ISO 200 print film, and the third is the color shot rendered to BW in Photoshop with a "yellow filter." The third shot is closer to what I thought I was getting in sky tone.

The last shot (nothing special as a photo) is another roll of LegacyPro that I processed at the same time. It was shot on a different day with a medium RED filter, with half the usual filter factor for red, so, theoretically underexposed. The tones on the playground equipment are pretty close. Note that the sky is better rendered than the blossoms, but nothing like what I expect from a red filter.

So, when using this development technique should I seriously underexpose? Is Fuji Acros so sensitive to blue that filters don't have their expected effect? Other thoughts?

Vendee · 03-22-2010, 09:22 AM

I've never used Acros but I do use Rodinal with APX100 and I know that stand or semi-stand techniques where there isn't much agitation will result in low contrast negs. I use contrast filters in my enlarger to increase the contrast if needed. I suppose you can just do the same to your scans in photoshop.

GeneV · 03-22-2010, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Vendee

I've never used Acros but I do use Rodinal with APX100 and I know that stand or semi-stand techniques where there isn't much agitation will result in low contrast negs. I use contrast filters in my enlarger to increase the contrast if needed. I suppose you can just do the same to your scans in photoshop.

That is quite true. My scans are juiced up quite a bit in Photoshop to get the contrast shown. Unfortunately, it does not seem to deepen the sky. That is what I found curious. The shot of the girls on the playground has reasonable contrast for the girls and the equipment, but the sky is nothing like one expects from a red filter.

Ratmagiclady · 03-22-2010, 10:33 AM

Well, I can tell you from experience that Acros is just *tough* in snow. It's very impressive at a lot of what it does, but delicate renderings of snow just isn't one of those things. I like a dense negative, but I think it may be just 'too much' in some ways. At least, I never found the right developer (Only tried the usual suspects when I was up in the snowy North: D-76 and the T-max developer (yikes. That wasn't a great idea) but it makes the usual stuff I do want to really block everything up.

I never got to it, but the next thing I'd be inclined would be to expose kind of like Kodachrome and do nothing for my usual preference for shadow detail. Or, if I were home, walk into my favorite pro lab and see what they gave me. I've kind of labeled it 'High tech, usual rules not applicable,' for now. I may have been getting a hair overexposure thanks to a lens on my Mamiya whose aperture blades may have been sluggish, but it's clearly not very forgiving in the highlights in this respect.

So, if that's Acros, in fact, I'm guessing, do it by the numbers.

GeneV · 03-22-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Wouldn't that be theoretically overexposed? If you're suppose to, say, apply 3 stops for a Red filter and you only applied 2 stops, I think you'd have more exposure.

I applied one stop to compensate for the filter, so it is theoretically at least one stop under the recommended exposure for a red filter but one stop more than that indicated by the meter. I guess one would have to define "underexposed" and "overexposed." The exposure is less than recommended.

To better phrase the question, should I not apply a filter factor with Acros? Should I underexpose (push) Acros when using the semi-stand development?

GeneV · 03-22-2010, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Well, I can tell you from experience that Acros is just *tough* in snow. It's very impressive at a lot of what it does, but delicate renderings of snow just isn't one of those things. I like a dense negative, but I think it may be just 'too much' in some ways. At least, I never found the right developer (Only tried the usual suspects when I was up in the snowy North: D-76 and the T-max developer (yikes. That wasn't a great idea) but it makes the usual stuff I do want to really block everything up.

I never got to it, but the next thing I'd be inclined would be to expose kind of like Kodachrome and do nothing for my usual preference for shadow detail. Or, if I were home, walk into my favorite pro lab and see what they gave me. I've kind of labeled it 'High tech, usual rules not applicable,' for now. I may have been getting a hair overexposure thanks to a lens on my Mamiya whose aperture blades may have been sluggish, but it's clearly not very forgiving in the highlights in this respect.

So, if that's Acros, in fact, I'm guessing, do it by the numbers.

Normally in snow, I would add a stop or two, and normally I would add a stop or two for the filter, so theoretically, I should have been adding several stops. I added one stop on the park and .5 stops on the snow. So, you are suggesting I not make adjustments at all?

By the way, it is not the snow that bothers me so much as the sky. The tone of the sky between those branches should be something like that shown on the color shots.

03-22-2010, 06:40 AM	#1
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Rodinal, Compensating and Filters Over in the "show us your film shots" thread, I posted some shots I took Saturday of blossoms after a snow. The shots were taken on LegacyPro100 (reputed to be Fuji Acros) medium yellow filter, exposed at ISO 100 with a +.5 stop filter factor (1/2 the usual compensation for Med yellow) and developed in dilute (1:80) R09 for just under 17 minutes at 21 degrees C with minimal agitation. I have just started using this development technique based upon results I saw from others, here. My thought was that it would help to render the subtle differences in highlights between the snow and the blossoms. However, what I noticed is that 1) the negatives have a fairly high density and low contrast and 2) the effect of filters is blunted. The end effect is an interesting, delicate shot, but not the shot I expected. Below are three examples from that day. The first is one I previously posted shot on LegacyPro100, but darkened a bit so that the stems come closer to matching the shots that follow in tone. The second is a color shot from a pocket camera I had with me on ISO 200 print film, and the third is the color shot rendered to BW in Photoshop with a "yellow filter." The third shot is closer to what I thought I was getting in sky tone. The last shot (nothing special as a photo) is another roll of LegacyPro that I processed at the same time. It was shot on a different day with a medium RED filter, with half the usual filter factor for red, so, theoretically underexposed. The tones on the playground equipment are pretty close. Note that the sky is better rendered than the blossoms, but nothing like what I expect from a red filter. So, when using this development technique should I seriously underexpose? Is Fuji Acros so sensitive to blue that filters don't have their expected effect? Other thoughts?

03-22-2010, 10:01 AM	#3
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by Vendee I've never used Acros but I do use Rodinal with APX100 and I know that stand or semi-stand techniques where there isn't much agitation will result in low contrast negs. I use contrast filters in my enlarger to increase the contrast if needed. I suppose you can just do the same to your scans in photoshop. That is quite true. My scans are juiced up quite a bit in Photoshop to get the contrast shown. Unfortunately, it does not seem to deepen the sky. That is what I found curious. The shot of the girls on the playground has reasonable contrast for the girls and the equipment, but the sky is nothing like one expects from a red filter. Last edited by GeneV; 03-22-2010 at 02:42 PM.

03-22-2010, 02:32 PM	#5
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco Wouldn't that be theoretically overexposed? If you're suppose to, say, apply 3 stops for a Red filter and you only applied 2 stops, I think you'd have more exposure. I applied one stop to compensate for the filter, so it is theoretically at least one stop under the recommended exposure for a red filter but one stop more than that indicated by the meter. I guess one would have to define "underexposed" and "overexposed." The exposure is less than recommended. To better phrase the question, should I not apply a filter factor with Acros? Should I underexpose (push) Acros when using the semi-stand development? Last edited by GeneV; 03-22-2010 at 02:38 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Trade: My 77mm filters for your 72mm filters (CONUS)	loveisageless	Sold Items	0	10-02-2010 12:29 AM
To use UV filters or Not to use UV filters?HELP NEEDED	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-20-2010 04:50 PM
compensating for crop factor	jeans	Pentax DSLR Discussion	52	01-28-2010 03:03 PM
DA15 compensating for lack of versatility	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	10-25-2009 09:36 AM

03-22-2010, 09:22 AM	#2
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	I've never used Acros but I do use Rodinal with APX100 and I know that stand or semi-stand techniques where there isn't much agitation will result in low contrast negs. I use contrast filters in my enlarger to increase the contrast if needed. I suppose you can just do the same to your scans in photoshop.

03-22-2010, 10:33 AM	#4
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Well, I can tell you from experience that Acros is just tough in snow. It's very impressive at a lot of what it does, but delicate renderings of snow just isn't one of those things. I like a dense negative, but I think it may be just 'too much' in some ways. At least, I never found the right developer (Only tried the usual suspects when I was up in the snowy North: D-76 and the T-max developer (yikes. That wasn't a great idea) but it makes the usual stuff I do want to really block everything up. I never got to it, but the next thing I'd be inclined would be to expose kind of like Kodachrome and do nothing for my usual preference for shadow detail. Or, if I were home, walk into my favorite pro lab and see what they gave me. I've kind of labeled it 'High tech, usual rules not applicable,' for now. I may have been getting a hair overexposure thanks to a lens on my Mamiya whose aperture blades may have been sluggish, but it's clearly not very forgiving in the highlights in this respect. So, if that's Acros, in fact, I'm guessing, do it by the numbers.

03-22-2010, 02:36 PM	#6
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Well, I can tell you from experience that Acros is just tough in snow. It's very impressive at a lot of what it does, but delicate renderings of snow just isn't one of those things. I like a dense negative, but I think it may be just 'too much' in some ways. At least, I never found the right developer (Only tried the usual suspects when I was up in the snowy North: D-76 and the T-max developer (yikes. That wasn't a great idea) but it makes the usual stuff I do want to really block everything up. I never got to it, but the next thing I'd be inclined would be to expose kind of like Kodachrome and do nothing for my usual preference for shadow detail. Or, if I were home, walk into my favorite pro lab and see what they gave me. I've kind of labeled it 'High tech, usual rules not applicable,' for now. I may have been getting a hair overexposure thanks to a lens on my Mamiya whose aperture blades may have been sluggish, but it's clearly not very forgiving in the highlights in this respect. So, if that's Acros, in fact, I'm guessing, do it by the numbers. Normally in snow, I would add a stop or two, and normally I would add a stop or two for the filter, so theoretically, I should have been adding several stops. I added one stop on the park and .5 stops on the snow. So, you are suggesting I not make adjustments at all? By the way, it is not the snow that bothers me so much as the sky. The tone of the sky between those branches should be something like that shown on the color shots.