Nope, straight lens to film

Fine, I really developed it in Ilford ID-11

I think D-76 and ID-11 are the same formula, aren't they?

Yep

Twice

There’s a film for everyone

More consistent format more than anything else

Lots

Why watch the four year old version, when the new updated video has been recently uploaded?

@ I’ll blame it on KZbin search. But you can help me find it by pinning a comment with the link.

Great write up. I recently got into 4x5 and from using hp5 and fp4, I bought a box of fomapan 100. Wow I’ve struggled. I went through 20 sheets and the exposure wasn’t what my metering for strobes was saying. I decided to get a roll of Foma 100 and bracket ei’s up to -3 and +3 as I have a roll back film holder so can use the same camera and lens. I just scanned the negs. In the frame I have the talent hold a 18% grey card. The meter read f11 1/15th in open shade (ei100). The +3 stops shot was rendering the grey card middle perfect 18% grey?!?!? The picture looked a more wash out grey. I developed in hc110 dilation H for 10mins. I do feel foma has potential but wow it’s a struggle to find that sweat spot

@@soulstart89 I would recommend diving into the zone system. I think you've ostensibly reached the point where NOT using the zone system is much more pain than just doing it. The zone system is not just for nerds, it's there because it's actually quite necessary once you reach a certain level. If you make sure you meter different parts of the scene carefully (take a shot with your phone and write the measurements right there in the picture), you'll be able to tell how you need to rate your film in order to get the results that you expect. No more guesswork. Tweak your EI (through testing different exposure settings) until you get your thinnest part of the negative at zone II (which is the same as -3 stops). Even better if you get a step wedge but what I just explained will get you close. I find that Fomapan 100 = EI 50, Fomapan 400 = EI 200. Ilford Delta 400 = EI 400, for example. Bracketing is for amateurs ;) The zone system is Zen.

@ hey thanks for the response. I actually use the zone system. For example when I first got the fomapan 100 I place talent into n zone 6 as she has light skin. My strobe lighting was a ratio of 2:1 with background being 1 stop lower than the key. I then tried rating fomapan 100 ei50 and then reducing developing by 20%. And placing talent in zone 6. Still weird. I only bracketed a roll on 120 foma to get a better understanding and only have to develop once. I was on a photo job today and my tried and trusted sekonic L558 died. I’ve never dropped it and also kept it in the case it came in. When I was metering light for the gig it peaced out. They now go for around 400-500 🤮. I couldn’t agree more that the zone system is essential. It’s a great way to visualise how a negative will come out. When I bought a box of HP5 and did the exact set up on the foma the lighting ratios was how I metered them. I will say I switched from Developer ID11 to HC110 as it would be much more expensive to develop with ID11 1+2 compared to HC110 dilution H (1+63). Can I ask what developer you use with fomapan 100 and the times you use? Again really appreciate you sharing

​@@soulstart89 Regarding the zone system, that's great! What I'd like to point towards is determining your zone II, as that will help in determining the exact latitude in your shadows, and your proper EI. That way you will know that you pulled your zones as thin as possible, not just maximizing the film speed, but crucially controlling the strong knee in the highlights. It's often the knee that will mess with you, if it places itself where you didn't want it. Yes I decided to go for the 858 a while back, because the price for used ones is so high. Seconic is still clueless about the zone system, which is baffling to me since that should be the most important use case for a spot meter. It's still a hassle to use fully with the zone system. I appreciate the light sensitivity, and I hope that it will last longer since it's newly manufactured. We'll see. That bright color display is a bit obnoxious at night though. And it takes forever to power up. Etc... For Fomapan 100 I use TMAX developer, currently for 5 minutes at 20C; 4 minutes 18 seconds at 22C; 4 minutes 12 seconds at 24C. Not sure what that is in F if that's what you prefer, sorry. Note that these times are for rotary development/continuous agitation. If you agitate manually then you should add a bit to the times, perhaps 15%? The reason I use TMAX developer is its keeping properties, film capacity, ease of handling/mixing. As well as (as far as I know) not being surpassed by any other developer when it comes to performance (grain size, shadow detail, resolution without adding artificial accutance/ringing, etc). It was basically Kodak's last big effort into coming up with their best general purpose b/w developer. There was some later work into more environmentally friendly alternatives, but not for improving performance. The naming was unfortunate, I think they intended it to mean "the next big thing". Instead people seem to mistake it for some specialty developer, which it's absolutely not. I know I should do a comparison between developers some day. What makes me avoid it is that I'd throw away large quantities of the developers that I didn't prefer.

@ metering natural light seems so much more logical to me compared to metering strobes. You meter the light (key light compared to the shadows). 💡 whatever my incident light meter reads as exposure is “middle grey”. So in fact I could test what zone 2 is. Three stops down from key light (which is zone 5 )Would be zone 2 for fill light. So I can test with strobes. Thanks!! I called manfrotto this morning due to in the uk they handle repairs. They don’t have anymore spares😤. I really am not a fan of the new touchscreen sekonic light meters. They feel so much long winded to achieve what I can from the 558 or 758. I agree the zone system was always a hassle to use. The 558 is convenient as it has a very good incident/flash option as well as a spot meter. Helps with bag space lol. I’m based in the UK so I use Celsius,normal for me. I never looked into tmax due to exactly what you said “I thought it was made for tmax film” lol. I presume it’s similar to ilford ddx? I use the mod54 to develop 6 sheets of 4x5. That requires 1 litre to develop so tmax 1+4 means 200ml of developer. 30 sheets per bottle. I will Have to give it a try. I’ve HC110, rodinal and a pack of unmixed ID11. Comparing can be a LONGWINDED process. I would love to compare many developers for example pyro developers and diafine but it’s long.

Where does it show finer grain on TriX? HP5 grain is better on every shot.

@@twoeggcups Well, if I look at around 6:58, left is HP5+, right is Tri-X - and Tri-X has finer grain, or at least more pronounced. Same around 7:56. Clearly visible for me in the video, but maybe it looks different on another monitor.

Scientific methodology. You change only one parameter at a time (films here) if you want to make a meaningful comparison. Changing several parameters is useless, you won't know what's causing the differences. The film? The developer? The combination of both? Also D76 is one of the classic developers that everyone knows and can use to reproduce the same experience and expect the same results.

Mostly, DD-X is great with Delta 400 - and (very) good for porbably everything else. Xtol (i've only tried it "stock") is a great developper but I found that if you use it with Tri-X you might shoot HP5 instead, you'll save money. With Tri-X 400 my best results were with HC110 and Tmax Dev. But overall with black and white more than the pair film/developper what makes the difference is the contrast ratios of what your are shooting.

All the other curves were made years ago in a few days and the voice overs recorded over a couple hours. I didn’t do the HP5 one then for some reason. I dug out the film today and measured the curve while editing the video. I have a bout of COVID right now and just didn’t feel like talking. Nothing I say would provide more information than the curves themselves.

@dexon555 The Tri-X image seems a little veiled, which surprises me.

*bet you

Never under-develop HP5+, better go over-developing (not quite into pushing territory, but even that will help). I never liked HP5+ in the past, then started to use it for 4x5, then made the error to pull it (because I thought it would give me better shadows) - this was when I learned that HP5+ has a very long curve that massively flattens out at the highlights, which does better react to regular exposure and over-development (or under-exposure and push-development).

@@c.augustin Thanks for the tip. I'm planning to do some tests with the developers I use the most.

Yes that’s what I’ve found too.