![]() On the B&W roll, one of those random outdoor shots of a patio table accidentally turned out far better than expected, sort of like a scene from a 1940s noir film. This is the primary reason I’d use XP2 like this again. A detailed area enlarged at 20x30 equivalent still looked good. As mentioned, B&W processing still yields very fine grain and sharpness. 100 might be better, but since I print my own negatives and can burn/dodge if needed I’ll take the extra stop of light at 200. The fresnel was more of a torture test than a real situation. B&W processing looks great but you have to treat it like a normal film. You don’t need to squint or use a densitometer, it’s obvious. It has better shadow detail and holds back the highlights, just guessing at least 2 stops above and below the same exposure in B&W. C41 absolutely performs better in high contrast light. One roll was processed in C41 by a local lab, the other by me in R09 1+50 for 10 minutes. This was done on two rolls with identical exposure settings, metered at 200 (more relevant for the outside shots than the tricky spotlight). Glowing lens in the frame with the wall in shadow. My process was to load my Nikon FE (sorry, but super reliable shutter speeds for testing) and take a broad range of exposures of a very high contrast subject - a fresnel spotlight near a wall. Probably… On the other hand, XP2 in C41 is capable of handling a huge range of scene brightness, which is its primary advantage, unless you absolutely must have black and white film but can only process C41. My mind’s eyeball says I’m probably not lying. I’m not sure that you gain anything over Delta 100 or TMAX 400 though, and I didn’t directly compare. Think of it as Delta 200 or something like that. Skipping to the end, XP2 performs very well in black and white chemicals. In that technique of course you do get the silver masking some of the colour, to give a desaturated effect.I wanted to know as well so I made my own experiment. It hadn't occurred to me until now that bleach-bypass is very similar to this, just with a proper colour developer not a B&W one. I've heard of people doing that with bleach-bypassed negatives to revert to the original colour. I suppose I could pick a sacrificial negative strip and try it, to see what happens! Maybe I'll do that with my next roll - it should be possible to do this process, scan the negative to see the image, then retrospectively bleach and re-fix. My guess is still that if you bleached these negatives you'd end up with virtually nothing, such a weak colour image that you won't see anything. But, presumably those under-exposed areas won't have a lot of colour either since the under-exposure will apply as much to the colour as to the silver (ultimately, as I understand it, the colour couplers act in conjunction with the silver to produce dye clouds, so if there's less exposed silver, there'll be less dye as well). so I've had a think about this and I understand what you're saying now - if it's the silver masking the colour then yes, under-exposed areas will show more colour.who knows! All the shots in this article are as they came off the scanner, except for two which I converted to black and white afterwards in Photoshop. Perhaps your scanner will be completely different. I have noticed that portrait shots seem to come out with more pink on my Epson V500 scanner, for reasons I don’t entirely understand. ![]() I can never tell exactly what tint each shot will be until I scan it – each frame is different. This has the advantage of adding a unique subtle tint to each shot, normally slightly pink or brown. The scanner then knows that it has to subtract the orange mask from the result. I scan as colour negative, just as I would if the film had been developed “properly”. If you scan as B&W you’ll get some results, but they might be affected by the orange mask. Unlike B&W or slide film, colour negative film has an orange tint to the base. Once developed, you then need to scan your negs. Final rinse: A drop of Photoflo in distilled / deionised water to reduce drying spots.Rinse: either 10 minutes in running water, or use the Ilford method.Develop: 15 minutes in APH09 or Rodinal 1:50 at 20C.For 120 film, it’s 10ml of APH09 in 500ml of water. I use 6ml of APH09 and make it up to 300ml with water to process one 35mm film in my Paterson tank. For Rodinal-based developers, this is 15 minutes when using a 1:50 concentration at 20C. A good rule of thumb is to use the same development time as Kodak Tri-X in the developer of your choice. All colour negative film has the same development time, regardless of ISO, so it doesn’t matter what film you’re using. There are lots of articles here and elsewhere on basic B&W development, so I won’t repeat them here in detail, but you’ll need to know the development times for C41 film.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |