hi folkes, i have several rolls of tri-ex 400, 400 neopan and t400CN which i rated all at 320. now i'm wondering what best to develop these when i go to the lab. should i ask them to process "minus a half" development or will 'normal' be better. these are part of my angkor and vietnam shoots so i really want you advice. thanks

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), June 05, 2002

Answers

Run 'em all normal. Definately. The Neo-Pan you might even want to even push 1/4 or 1/2 stop.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), June 05, 2002.

Sparkie,

Take the film to the best Pro Lab closest to you. If you don't have a Pro Lab near you send me the film. I will develope and contact sheet for you. If you can't find a lab. Contact me off forum if you want me to process your work.

Regards

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), June 05, 2002.

There are quite a few variables at work in b&w processing which is why many pros advise to standardize as much as possible. In your situation I would probably go for the 'normal' processing but I hope you have a 'good' b&w lab. Actually I would have done my own processing. If I were in your situation I might be tempted to a. discuss the situation with the lab if they are very good and you trust their judgement. b. do one or two rolls of each film at 'normal' processing and look at them. Even with this there are going to be shots in high or low contrast situations that might benefit from other than 'normal' processing. With b&w the more you get to know your film and lab process the more predictable your results become. Mostly these are just rules of thumb. I'm sure the guys who are still doing a lot of b&w can give you more advice. Best of luck. G

-- Gil Pruitt (wgpinc@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

Sparkie, why did you rate them at 320 in the first place? If you did it because you have already found that a plus-1/3 stop correction is needed for you meter and shutter calibration, then I would process normally, because that's a normal exposure for you.

If you added 1/3 stop more "just for good measure" then one thing I'd avoid is extending the processing time with any of the rolls, because you might get blocked-up highlights, which are so hard to print. A compensating or water-bath development might be a good idea if you think that might be an issue. Otherwise I'd go with a normal development, because 320 isn't that far from 400. It's not like you shot it at 100, or something.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 05, 2002.

Just develop normally, but cut around 15% from recommended developping time. You should be safe if you do that with HC, X-Tol or Emofin. Probably with others, but these I have used.

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 05, 2002.

Forgot to mention that your CN is perfectly safe. Just get it developped normally, it will be great. CN is safe between 50 and 800 :)

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), June 05, 2002.

Sparkie:

Maybe a dumb question, but why three different kinds of 400 B&W film.

Most of us have found it best to standardize on one film, get to know it and stick to it.

Having said that, I use 3/4 films: 90% Ilford XP2, 5% Kodak T400CN and 5% Tri X or Ilford HP5, all for different reasons that I have arrived at thru testing and mistakes. For large format it is strictly T MAX 400 unless I get a bargain on something else that I use for practice or experimenting.

Click Click

-- RICHRRD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Thanks for all your suggestions..I now have to ask about re: my colour film..

< Maybe a dumb question, but why three different kinds of 400 B&W film. >

Richard: its not a dumb question. The reason is that I normally use either tri-ex for its grain or t400cn because it is chromgenic film with no or almost no grain and has a huge tonal latitude giving a different image to that of tri-ex. the reason i ended up with neopan in the bag is because i ran out of b&w film in siem reap (angkor, cambodia) and it was the only b&w film they had which i would try out. i have tried neopan 1600 in the past it produced good results, so i thought why not.

Cheers,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), June 07, 2002.