Drums

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Drums

Post by Nando on Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:50 pm

Finally got around to mixing some chemicals. Did one 120 roll today and I'll probably do a few more tomorrow. Tri-X @ 400 in D76 1:1... Agitation was a bit on the aggressive side. I will be gentler on the next rolls. Taken at the International Drum Festival at Clergue Park with the Arax and Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 Biometar MC.





.
Edit: Cloned out the white string on the first one.


Last edited by Nando on Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by bjotoole on Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:10 pm

Great shots Nando. I prefer the 1st one for two reasons. The first being that I really like the composition, and the second is that the out-of-focus background drums (bokeh) look totally freaky and amazing.
avatar
bjotoole

Posts : 115
Join date : 2008-01-28
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, ON

View user profile http://flickr.com/bjotoole

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:27 pm

Thanks Bryan. On the flickr page of the 1st shot, I commented that it was my favourite shot from the Arax so far. I'm having a terrible time composing in the square format.

The Zeiss Biometar does have some rough bokeh and it goes well with the subject matter in this case. I find that it is not as bad in colour photos. I have a standard Arax 80mm that gives smoother bokeh but its slightly bigger and not as nice in the hands. Also have a 180mm f2.8 "Olympia" Sonnar for this camera - for me, undoubtedly the 'King of Bokeh'. Unfortunately, it makes the camera feel like a bazooka.
avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by crowellphotographs on Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:54 pm

Awesome shots Nando! Great compositions, great tones.

I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction with the agitation comes from the density of the drum surface.
I think it's bang on. The rules I've always heard when it comes to film is that underexposure and insufficient agitation are the two ultimate sins. You can always burn the heck out of the dense parts of a neg, there's no creating detail from blank spots on the neg. I guess I'd have to see the neg though.

I'm with BJ on the bokeh. It almost looks painted.
Great shots! Square suits you, I guess it just takes some getting used to.
It took me forever when I went from exclusively shooting with the 4x5 for 2 years to going back to 35mm and DX format.
I'm excited to see more.

I've used the d-76 before. I absolutely HATE the mixing process and did find the results tough to be consistent at first. Though I didn't use it for long.
I'm not sure how much of the stuff you have stockpiled. But I will give a vote to my absolute favorite developer. RODINOL!
Easy mixing, sharp grain and great tonal curves from the neg.
I do know many that love d-76 though. I guess it's a preference thing.
avatar
crowellphotographs

Posts : 258
Join date : 2008-01-14

View user profile http://crowellphotographs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Kenneth Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:43 pm

I really need to get developing my own. Processing B&W negs is KILLING me at $12/roll of 36. I should probably stop getting prints but the real cost is having them sent to TO.

These look great. I want to see more.
avatar
Kenneth Armstrong

Posts : 896
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste Marie ON

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubbergorilla/

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:13 pm

Thanks Colin.

The density of the drum surface did bother me. I also wasn't too thrilled with the skin tones in a few photos from this roll. I followed Kodak's recommendations for Tri-X @ 400. I just finished doing another roll and it's drying at the moment. I changed things around a little bit. Instead of following Kodak's recommendations of 30-seconds of agitation at the start and 5-seconds of agitations at 30-second intervals, I did 30-seconds of agitation at the start and 10-seconds of gentler agitations every minute. Unfortunately the roll was from my Flexaret TLR. The last half of the shots look really over-exposed. I think that I may have damaged the camera during my last outing with it, perhaps misaligning the shutter-speed and aperture controls with the numbers on the camera. I would like to do one or two more 120 rolls later on this evening.

A friend brought me a bottle of Rodinal from Toronto. I thought about developing with D76 at full strength to get through with it and then onto the Rodinal. But developing D76 at full-strength, for me, would be like being in a race. I'm looking forward to more longish and relaxing development times with Rodinal 1:100. I've been told that less frequent and gentle agitations is the key to using Rodinal with 35mm.

Mixing D76 isn't difficult but its a hassle. Getting the right temperatures is time consuming. I was told to boil the water for about 2-3 minutes and then let it cool to 50C before mixing. Apparently using this method instead of just raising the temp to 50C increases the life of the batch. The rest of the Kodak stuff is easy to mix. I may switch to Rodinal but I'll likely keep the Kodak stop, rapid fixer, hypo-clear, and photo-flo. The nicest thing about D-76, as you are probably aware of, is that it can develop any film and do a reasonably good job at it. Rodinal seems to get grainy with 400ISO and higher films. It may not matter much with MF or LF formats but with 35mm, it can be an issue. However, if I were to use high ISO film and really need to have fine grain, I'd probably go with Kodak BW400CN - yes, its C41 but its very good.

Ken,

D-76 was $6.99 for powder to make a gallon. I dilute mine 1:1, meaning 1 part D-76 to 1 part water right before putting it into the tank. So really, I have 2 gallons or 7.6 litres. My dev tank is 800mL (I think its identical to the one you bought). Holds two 35mm rolls or one 120 roll. So I can develop 18 rolls of 35mm or 9 rolls of 120 with that one pack of D-76. The stop and fix cost money too but its not that bad and they can be reused a number of times. The developer has to be discarded after use. If you want to photograph film and do it economically, B&W and home developing is the way to go.
avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Kenneth Armstrong on Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:20 pm

I know it needs to be done, it's just a matter of doing it.
avatar
Kenneth Armstrong

Posts : 896
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste Marie ON

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubbergorilla/

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by crowellphotographs on Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:23 pm

I didn't know about rodinol and higher iso film. The most diluted recommendation with 125 film has always given me great results.
I also found the agitation and development times to be tricky with D-76. I did a batch of 4x5s that had really bad edges. Something I'd never experienced with Rodinol. That was the end of it for me. I'm sure I could have started changing my agitation process, but I've always had great results with Rodinol and another Ilford developer(can't remember) so I didn't bother.

The rest of the Kodak products you mentioned are all I've ever used. I've never had problems other than some over fixing. (purple film base)
Once I started doing fixing tests, i never had the problem again. I also never came close to the manufacturer recommendations either.

Again, great work. I can't wait to see more.
avatar
crowellphotographs

Posts : 258
Join date : 2008-01-14

View user profile http://crowellphotographs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:44 pm

I added a shot from the Meopta Flexaret roll mentioned above to the "Lets see your gear" thread in the Equipment section. I'm scanning that roll right now.

Tri-X @ 400+ ISO in Rodinal certainly is grainy and contrasty on 35mm... some people really dig that look. Take a look at some (clean) Ralph Gibson stuff - I think that he uses Tri-X and Rodinal in this manner. Personally, I really like the look of Tri-X rated 200ISO in Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100. Check out Bud Green's flickr page - this guy is a master of the Tri-X/Rodinal combo (and I really admire his work in documenting his sons as they grow up).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_green/

However, there is something about APX100 and Fomapan100 in Rodinal. It's just gorgeous.

Ken,

Almost forgot. One of the best things about doing development at home is no watermarks, no dust, no streaks ... just nice and clean negatives. After shooting C41 for a while, I've gotten used to doing a lot of spotting and cloning to clean up my scans. All due to dirty negatives from the labs. Even the "Digital Ice" feature of my Nikon scanner doesn't clean up everything. The scans you see here took me just required little or no spotting in PS. I also fine that post-processing is minimal too - For the scans I made so far, I just set black and white points, added the slight warm tone (a curves preset), resized and saved for the web. That's it.
avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:11 am

Here's one from the Flexaret roll. Nothing to do with drums though and perhaps a bit too dark.

avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:42 am

Here's one from the 3rd roll developed. Used the Arax with the Zeiss 50mm f/4 Flektogon. This one was taken late in the evening and took the photo hand-held. I used the mirror lock-up and couldn't see anything as I took the shot. I was lucky not to have part of the hand cut off.

avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by crowellphotographs on Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:39 pm

Oh my god you've got me excited to get back to film. That last one is so smooth!
Really nice light Nando.
How are you finding the square format? Starting to feel comfortable?
I'm getting really hyper to start playing.
avatar
crowellphotographs

Posts : 258
Join date : 2008-01-14

View user profile http://crowellphotographs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Kenneth Armstrong on Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:39 pm

That's a great environmental portrait.
avatar
Kenneth Armstrong

Posts : 896
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste Marie ON

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubbergorilla/

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Nando on Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:34 pm

Thanks Colin and Ken.

Colin,

I'm glad that these are motivating you. The last one was handheld in relatively dark conditions... I think I took it wide-open at f4 at 1/16th using the mirror-lock-up. I think that the way we hold a box camera at the waist somewhat helps with hand-holding. I took two frames. The 50mm wide-angle handles camera-shake much better than the standard 80mm. Luckily, one of them didn't have the hand cut off.

I'm still very uncomfortable with the square. I spent so much time looking at and shooting 3x2 photographs that everything else seems unnatural. Nearly all of my favourite photographers shot 35mm - I never really even looked at work by square-format shooters like Helmut Newton, Dianne Arbus, Mary Ellen Mark, etc. My first real interest in the square came from looking at photos by Tommy Oshima and then Isabel Munoz. Oskar Barnack, who invented the Leica and the 35mm format, chose the 3x2 format since it was close in approximating the golden ratio. I always felt it was the nicest length and width ratio for a photograph and I don't see myself ever changing my mind.

I'm finding that I have to be much more deliberate and really take my time composing with the square. Even then, I'm really unsure of my decisions when I commit myself to firing the shutter. It's very much an exercise for the left-side of the brain. With a 3x2 ratio, things are more intuitive for me and I shoot with the right part of the brain mostly and leave the left-side to doing the editing (as in self-critiquing and selection as oppose to editing in photoshop) after the roll is done. My hit/miss ratio has improved, I think, with 6x6 but I just can't just shoot with the square frame instinctively. I hope that this will change with time - I've only shot 10 rolls so far. Lots of it may also have to do with the nature of the box-type camera itself, the mirror-image on the waist-level finder, the bulk, the slower controls, etc.. I've been wondering if a 6x9 rangefinder camera like an classic Voigtlander Bessa, Bessa II or a more recent Fuji GW69/GSW69 would make any difference but I promised myself that I wouldn't go there anytime soon.
avatar
Nando

Posts : 940
Join date : 2008-01-13
Location : Sault Ste. Marie, Canada or Coimbra, Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Drums

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum