We've heard about thin and thick negatives. What we really need are juicy negatives. That is such a great video, man - it is so nerdy and genius. Thanks for the darkroom test too!
This was definitely one of the best videos I watched about developing. I've been dreaming about starting developing my own films. I even got a Peterson tank, but the films and developers are very expensive here in Brazil and I just didn't get the courage to do it. Also I would still need to send it to the lab for scanning while I can't scan or enlarge at home. Thank you for sharing that much! It inspired me a bit more!
This is the most thorough test I’ve seen on black and white exposure and developing. There are great videos out there but there’s usually at least 1 or 2 variables they decide to not bother with which makes the results less conclusive. I’ve been shooting tri- x forever before it was renamed 400tx. I’ve also noticed recently the rebate on my contact sheets are nearly black when I exposed the paper for max black. So confused as to what they’re doing since tri-x in 120 seems to be normal. I thought my paper developer was bad or I wasn’t developing long enough. Tri-x also seems to be at a minimum a true 200 speed film or even less. Maybe 160. Apparently it used to be marketed as a 200 speed film. My recent hp5 contacts have been near perfect at 400 with extremely bright film rebates with clear sharp text. I’m always on the fence about switching to hp5. I also gave pan f+ another go and it’s now my go to low speed film at 32iso. I’ll be bulk loading soon. Thanks for this great video. Are you shooting tri-x consistently at 200? What’s your go to development time? Mine has always been 9.75m in d76 1:1 or 7min in rodinal 1:25
Thank you so much Eric, your words are very much apprecaited. I have made very similar experiences to you, along with a friend of mine who has always used tri-x since over 20 years. The emulsion and writing has definitely undergone some change, at least in 35mm. I've been metering Tri-X consistently for 200 ISO, as it feels very much like that is the correct true native speed. Develop in Rodinal 7:30 at 20 degrees (1+25).
wow. it's so nice to be learning about these films and the ways to control the developing not just a review of which is better. i'm reading ansel adam's 'the negative' at the moment, do you have any other books or resources you recommend about science of developer dilutions and times on negatives? or is it all just practical trial and error? i really admire how meticulous and calculated you are to the artform (not to mention, a very creative eye) thank you for your time, for these videos, for your input x
Thank you so much for your kind words. All of Ansel Adams books are a good starting point -- yet much has changed since they were written. Practical trial and error and bit of experimenting got me where I am now, I highly recommend it! :)
Curious why you add more time for HP5 and rodinal? I use it at 1-25 at 6 minutes and find it’s great but super curious what you found the benefit of a longer development time. Great video by the way!
Hey! I think the film curling up might be a different factor i tried a long fixing time with tri-x and its still curling up. That being said i don’t have acces to a drying cabinet. Might that be the factor making a big difference? (I just airdry the film, with weighted clamps)
Hi there, oh interesting, thank you for your feedback into this! Hmm, yes, the cabinet could also make a difference, perhaps the heat keeps the film more "loose" and with the weight it "stretches" it into flatness .. I could also be very wrong though :D
@@doyoudevelop thank you for your response. that would make a lot of sense. I think Longer fixing time did make the curling occur a bit less then before, in my case. And along with some other tips you shared i got my negatives to be a bit denser. So thank you for sharing!
let me thank you for your efforts but let me give you an advice as well: you spent most of the 16 minutes speaking about your method for comparing the two films. Ok I appreciate the efforts for having a scientific approach. Then some good explanation about how to judge in general film density. In the end you showed just ONE image. One image only and not particularly complext for comparing the whole technical and expressive capabilities of the two films. Wouldn't have been better limiting the description of the method to the first 2 minutes, 3-4 minutes to the density and different developing and the rest for comparing at least 5 different images? one with street elements, one with a portrait, one with landscape, one with conntained contrast indoor image maybe a still life.. one to complete maybe street again.. whatever...? Sincerly I got nothing that gives me a visual idea of the two.
Appreciated! The video was more about the developing method and creating an environment for controlled developing. Much could have been done to further improve the testing, like the use of a densitometer to compare the actual depth of the negative and if the developing times match the output .. :)
Honestly I’ve been developing for such a long time but never heard of this ingenious device. Thanks for sharing, mate!
We've heard about thin and thick negatives. What we really need are juicy negatives. That is such a great video, man - it is so nerdy and genius. Thanks for the darkroom test too!
Haha! The juicy negatives are the ones Jorit develops :D Thanks for tuning in!
This was definitely one of the best videos I watched about developing.
I've been dreaming about starting developing my own films.
I even got a Peterson tank, but the films and developers are very expensive here in Brazil and I just didn't get the courage to do it.
Also I would still need to send it to the lab for scanning while I can't scan or enlarge at home.
Thank you for sharing that much! It inspired me a bit more!
This is the most thorough test I’ve seen on black and white exposure and developing. There are great videos out there but there’s usually at least 1 or 2 variables they decide to not bother with which makes the results less conclusive. I’ve been shooting tri- x forever before it was renamed 400tx. I’ve also noticed recently the rebate on my contact sheets are nearly black when I exposed the paper for max black. So confused as to what they’re doing since tri-x in 120 seems to be normal. I thought my paper developer was bad or I wasn’t developing long enough. Tri-x also seems to be at a minimum a true 200 speed film or even less. Maybe 160. Apparently it used to be marketed as a 200 speed film. My recent hp5 contacts have been near perfect at 400 with extremely bright film rebates with clear sharp text. I’m always on the fence about switching to hp5. I also gave pan f+ another go and it’s now my go to low speed film at 32iso. I’ll be bulk loading soon. Thanks for this great video. Are you shooting tri-x consistently at 200? What’s your go to development time? Mine has always been 9.75m in d76 1:1 or 7min in rodinal 1:25
Thank you so much Eric, your words are very much apprecaited. I have made very similar experiences to you, along with a friend of mine who has always used tri-x since over 20 years. The emulsion and writing has definitely undergone some change, at least in 35mm. I've been metering Tri-X consistently for 200 ISO, as it feels very much like that is the correct true native speed. Develop in Rodinal 7:30 at 20 degrees (1+25).
I really enjoyed this video. Please keep it up.
Thanks, John!
Extremely thorough. Best example overall.
Thank you!
Great video intelligently delivered !
Thank you!
wow. it's so nice to be learning about these films and the ways to control the developing not just a review of which is better. i'm reading ansel adam's 'the negative' at the moment, do you have any other books or resources you recommend about science of developer dilutions and times on negatives? or is it all just practical trial and error? i really admire how meticulous and calculated you are to the artform (not to mention, a very creative eye) thank you for your time, for these videos, for your input x
Thank you so much for your kind words. All of Ansel Adams books are a good starting point -- yet much has changed since they were written. Practical trial and error and bit of experimenting got me where I am now, I highly recommend it! :)
Really excellent video.
thank you!
Curious why you add more time for HP5 and rodinal? I use it at 1-25 at 6 minutes and find it’s great but super curious what you found the benefit of a longer development time. Great video by the way!
Thank you! I just prefer a negative that is slightly denser, that's why :)
But how do you calculate the times in such processors for the development?
I used the times i've always used and set the processor to that time :)
Super Video, hab so einiges mitgenommen. Congrats!!!!
Danke Dir!
Bidde! Besonders dein Tipp mit der Fixierzeit muss ich ausprobieren. Habe bislang nie länger als 3 min fixiert beim tri-x! Gruß aus Meidling ;)
Hey! I think the film curling up might be a different factor i tried a long fixing time with tri-x and its still curling up. That being said i don’t have acces to a drying cabinet. Might that be the factor making a big difference? (I just airdry the film, with weighted clamps)
Hi there, oh interesting, thank you for your feedback into this! Hmm, yes, the cabinet could also make a difference, perhaps the heat keeps the film more "loose" and with the weight it "stretches" it into flatness .. I could also be very wrong though :D
@@doyoudevelop thank you for your response. that would make a lot of sense. I think Longer fixing time did make the curling occur a bit less then before, in my case. And along with some other tips you shared i got my negatives to be a bit denser. So thank you for sharing!
@@dailyreflectionsv absolutely! Glad this worked out nicely for you :)
let me thank you for your efforts but let me give you an advice as well: you spent most of the 16 minutes speaking about your method for comparing the two films. Ok I appreciate the efforts for having a scientific approach. Then some good explanation about how to judge in general film density. In the end you showed just ONE image. One image only and not particularly complext for comparing the whole technical and expressive capabilities of the two films. Wouldn't have been better limiting the description of the method to the first 2 minutes, 3-4 minutes to the density and different developing and the rest for comparing at least 5 different images? one with street elements, one with a portrait, one with landscape, one with conntained contrast indoor image maybe a still life.. one to complete maybe street again.. whatever...? Sincerly I got nothing that gives me a visual idea of the two.
Appreciated! The video was more about the developing method and creating an environment for controlled developing. Much could have been done to further improve the testing, like the use of a densitometer to compare the actual depth of the negative and if the developing times match the output .. :)