# Blew it with this roll ... but ...



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

I shot a roll of 35mm and developed after the test pics from my new (used) Mamiya (posting those later). I think I let the developer get warmed up, because I developed these after the 120 film, and for exactly the same time. And I specifically remember not checking the temp before developing this roll. The negatives were VERY dark(at least two stops), and ... as it turns out, very grainy ... I'm almost certain it was the developer temp. But I found three that I liked. Here they are.

1)



2)


3)


P.S. These were shot with Ilford FP4 Plus 125 with a #25 red filter(LOL held over the lens by hand, the threads were too big  )

P.P.S. These were cleaned with clone stamp, and added a touch of contrast & clarity in LR


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2015)

What were the films? Were the 120 and the 35mm both the same speed?


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

limr said:


> What were the films? Were the 120 and the 35mm both the same speed?



Actually these three were with the 35mm. The 120 I have yet to scan. They were both FP4 Plus 125


----------



## Derrel (Aug 28, 2015)

The red filter gives that deep,dark black blue sky and puffy clouds! Yeah, the grain is pretty big and...grainy...you're probably right about overdevelopment if they were dark and also very grainy. Of course...you might have overexposed the bejeebers out of the film too for all we know!


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2015)

kdthomas said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > What were the films? Were the 120 and the 35mm both the same speed?
> ...



Yeah, I know those were from the 35mm. I just asked because it might have been an issue of development time rather than temp if the films had been of different speeds.

But like Derrel said, maybe there were also exposure issues.


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

limr said:


> kdthomas said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Oh, okay ... And yes, that's a good point ... but the 120 negatives were nowhere near as dark as the 35 mm. It was bright sun that day, and the 120 was shot under fairly controlled circumstances, w strobes and what not. But I really am certain I exposed it mostly right. I checked the meter on the camera (minolta x700) and it was set to 125 ...

But wouldn't the coarse grain indicate overdevelopment? It had to be the developer temperature, right? It must have set out at room temp for like 20 minutes ...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 28, 2015)

Overly large grain can be brought out by too high a developer temp, by gross overexposure (sticky lens aperture for example...), or by over-agitating, or by developing for too long or with too strong a solution, or any combination of those things. I have no idea how you agitated, or what "room temperature" might be...it's late August and you are in Texas...room temp for all I know might be 85 or 90 degrees...


----------



## limr (Aug 28, 2015)

Yeah, knowing that it was the same film and that the first roll came out fine, it's likely that it was the temp. Each degree warmer would ideally have taken a certain amount of time off the total process (if you didn't feel like cooling it off again). Can't remember how much off the top of my head and I think it would depend on the developer you used anyway.


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Overly large grain can be brought out by too high a developer temp, by gross overexposure (sticky lens aperture for example...), or by over-agitating, or by developing for too long or with too strong a solution, or any combination of those things. I have no idea how you agitated, or what "room temperature" might be...it's late August and you are in Texas...room temp for all I know might be 85 or 90 degrees...



I was doing the 10-secs-every-minute deal (mostly ... I was washing other stuff while the 35mm was cooking)

And as far as room temp ... that all depends on how cheap ya are with the A/C. But here, man ... this time of year, you just about can't get a house below 80 deg  Gotta love it.


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

limr said:


> Yeah, knowing that it was the same film and that the first roll came out fine, it's likely that it was the temp. Each degree warmer would ideally have taken a certain amount of time off the total process (if you didn't feel like cooling it off again). Can't remember how much off the top of my head and I think it would depend on the developer you used anyway.



I was using Ilfotec DDX ... also the first time ... I think I've been using D76 almost exclusive up till now. Atany rate ... lesson learned. Check that temp!


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 28, 2015)

So what about the images themselves? I'm emotionally connected to them, but I like the banged-up grain. What about the composition, and overall feel of the images? I think there's a dreamy kind of nostalgia in there for me.


----------



## timor (Aug 29, 2015)

Are this picture of the same magnification ? I mean the same crop ? I mean they represent the same amount of negative area ? That's one. Second, how did you set the exposure ? On that roll do you have picture of the sky only ?


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 29, 2015)

@timor ... Yes, these are all the the same magnification, no cropping, straights scans with a little cloning & contrast/clarity. Here's an untouched scan(pretty sure this was with a red #25 filter in front of the lens):


----------



## timor (Aug 29, 2015)

OK. So, it looks like you've got different size of grain in different frames. That cannot be attributed to development only, but to exposure. In frame #3 of the original post is something, what looks like uneven development. What was the method of light metering ?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 29, 2015)

Have you checked the _actual_ shutter speeds of the cameras you're using?  Is 1/125 reasonably close to 1/125, or is the shutter slogging along and you're actually shooting at 1/15?

Focal plane shutters in older film cameras are prone to this. And usually, the higher the desired speed, the further off they are.


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 29, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Have you checked the _actual_ shutter speeds of the cameras you're using?  Is 1/125 reasonably close to 1/125, or is the shutter slogging along and you're actually shooting at 1/15?
> 
> Focal plane shutters in older film cameras are prone to this. And usually, the higher the desired speed, the further off they are.



Good tip, I hadn't thought of that ... But I've shot several other rolls with this camera, with the external meter and the cameras internal meter, and they really did look okay. 

@timor ... I can't really see a difference in the size of the grain per se ... Maybe in the cloud pic ... All the negatives are about as dark as all the others ...

I have to believe it was the developer temp. And I must've really cooked the daylights out of it with that grain, jeez. I mean that's 125 ... 

At any rate, I'm happy with these three(most important thing after all right?  ) ... and that makes wrecking the roll worthwhile. I actually may try pushing a properly exposed roll a couple stops with portraits just for the hell of it, to get the specifics down.


----------



## timor (Aug 29, 2015)

Well, OK. I see #3with much more gritt. To me it looks like negative was underexposed and then, thanks to high temperature of developer and time not corrected to it you pushed the film by some 3 stops, possibly 4. I have 3 x700 and none reads correctly the density of red filter. Usually they under expose by 1stop comparing to spot meter. In effect you've got less exposed grains which hot developer caused to grow rapidly to be big. FP 4 in DDX should be grainless.


----------



## timor (Aug 29, 2015)

GRAINLESS off course, not brainless. (Smart android autocorrect). Sorry


----------

