And no one is surprised. The point of the video is to illustrate that if a film didn’t get enough light at capture, developing longer won’t save the shadows but will blow the highlights.
@@adamkencki good question. Like I said in the video, I lean towards the contrast of the fp4 shot more. So if we didn’t have the Tmax negative side by side to show that a greater dynamic range was possible, you could believe the Fp4 shot was both correctly exposed and developed… What I’ve learned from this test about fp4, is that in high contrast situations, it needs to be rated lower than iso100, but for flat scenes, iso 100 and even 125 would be fine and deliver a nice, punchy negative.
I still dont understand what the point of your video is. There is 3 minute developing time difference between those two films (12 and 15 minutes). You dont even say which one is developed right. It seems you dont really know what you are doing.
@@tomasnovotny4108 He makes the point of the video clear. He shows that the FP4 hasn't received enough light for its response curve (the shadows have less detail than one might like) but simultaneously cannot be pushed further in development (the highlights have already been blown). The comparison with the TMax image was purely to illustrate what kind of detail *could* have been captured in the FP4, if the FP4 had been exposed more but developed less. The fact that the Tmax and FP4 happened to have been exposed the same and developed the same (in terms of timing, not in terms of N factor) is a bit of an irrelevant albeit fun detail here. It would have been a little more explanatory I think to show the same film (e.g. FP4) exposed and developed differently, rather than two different films (Tmax & FP4) exposed and developed using the same timings.
When I used to shoot T Max, I used the special Kodak developer. [This was 20 years ago.] When I tried 'Normal' developers, the negatives were poor. But your results look good here.
I’m 100% pleased with Tmax 100 in rodinal, but I have recently started playing with Tmax 400 and I’m not getting the same pleasing tones. This film/developer combo needs taming.
I think this rule of thumb is more applicable for sheet film-not roll film, unless of course all of the exposures on the roll were shot in the same lighting with the same highlight requirements. You could of course decide to sacrifice images on the roll for one exposure that you want to properly develop. One way you could manage this is by having multiple backs for each development process, so you could have a back for N+1, N+2, N-1, N, and so on. You would have to meter each exposure and determine the contrast range and development requirements and use the appropriate back. For this type of processing sheet film is the way to go, that’s one of the advantages of large format cameras; however, one has to store each exposed sheet in the proper box for development or at least make notation on the film holders for the development requirements. But if one is exposing random scenes on a roll back and thinks they can develop for the highlights they will be disappointed.
Todays B&W films are far less sensible to development time than in the past. Even in the end of the 70's Ansel Adams was very angry against Kodak that changed several times Tri-X formulation without any notice to customers, being less and less sensitive to development time. This sensitivity is very dependent from the type of film/developer and developer dilution. The development time has also to be fitted to the type of enlarger. In practice I experienced very good results with only 3 times (3 rollfilm back) .
Adjusting easily development times with sheet film is more or less theoritical because for economical and time reasons development is made in 4 to 6 sheets tanks. If you change the tank film load consistency is no more there. And if you develop individually in trays consistency becomes more difficult to control.
Coming from the 35mm world, what I do is to bulk load my film with each cassette having about 6 exposures. Then be sure to mark the cassette with the needed development process. Phoenix, AZ
I rate FP4 at ISO80 and develop 10min in Rodinal 1+50. In the video I think I did 11min at ISO100 and you can see that the highlights are starting to get overdeveloped. Agitation : slow inversions for the first 30sec then two slow inversions every minute.
Wonderful video, I’ve been trying to grasp this concept and this was super helpful! I’m still a little bit confused about one thing though - the idea of how this concept combines with pushing or pulling the film. Pulling makes more sense to me, but pushing…I get confused. If I’m shooting a low contrast scene with film normally rated for 400 at 1600, and exposing for open shade, you’re saying if I then push two stops in development it won’t blow the highlights because I’m (1) underexposing, and (2) the highlights are fairly close to the open shade values?
Hi Drew. I think you got it : when you’re pushing 2 stops and still metering for open shade, you bump the contrast but should still retain highlight detail if the scene was flat. I’d say considering the dynamic range distribution of most films, a 2 stops push for a flat scene is more likely to yield blocked shadows than clipped highlights. But of course the final word is down to you, with your specific film, developer and technique… That’s why some photographers take notes. Try to push 2 stops on the next cloudy day and see how that works.
It would be better to place a (half way cut and inverted) Kodak Grey Scale in the subject and make the two exposures on the two different B&W films. The best way to check the ISO, the process and the contrast.
To assess ISO for you own workflow you have to expose a whole rollfilm with a graycard at different Zone II exposures in 1/3 stops, and then search for the first real darkening of the developped film base. The procedure is explained in Ansel Adams book "The Negative"
well, everything is very personal, as well our taste depends on our perception. the right image with much more pleasant shadows looks much more real than the left one a little bit flat and has an HDR look. Additionally, for the right explanation of the "Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights" rule better to take the same camera and same emulsion, but to use different settings not different films. Otherwise, you're just comparing different films.
Yes, it’s definitely not recommended. But with high dilutions, times differences tend to get smaller, so I took a chance with a time that was a bit too short for tmax100 and a bit too long for Fp4. The extreme example would be stand development at 1+100 where you just use the same time of 1h regardless of the film… This isn’t something I would normally do, but it’s a happy accident that provided a visual illustration of how exposure and development work together to create a good negative.
They do. The fp4 in this situation received too much development (see blown highlights). The reason I made this video is to show that this extra development did not recover the shadow detail but only blown the highlights. I guess I’ll have to make another video down the line about pushing film, comparing two rolls of the same film because this video isn’t clear enough.
Thanks! I love the tones in that picture too. Just a basic tip, before worrying about film choice or exposure/development, consider the light and contrast levels of whatever pic you want to emulate. Too often do I see people who wonder how to get the same look as other people’s images, and their inspiration is shot at golden hour under beautiful sunlight while they’re trying to emulate it on the greyest day of the year… No film or treatment can make a sunny day look like moody fog, or a grey morning look like a sunset 🤓
You're nuts. the picture on the right is the PERFECT exposure and image. the image on the left is flat and has no depth to it. it is not a good image, but the image on the right is literally perfection. you cant get any better than it. the image on the left is just not correct. the shadows and highlights all blend together and make for a lifeless flat image that is not at all appealing.
I’m glad you enjoy the picture :) The pic on the right is fine, but keep in mind this is a medium contrast scene, shot through a mellow Hasselblad lens. The increased contrast of the film on the right might suit it better than the more flat rendering of the film on the left. But if you had these two films available to you, would you always pick the one on the right, regardless of scene contrast? I do prefer fp4 in my day to day use. But it’s nice to know that a flatter look is available with Tmax if I need it. Sometimes contrast needs to be bumped, sometimes it needs to be tamed. It’s important that we have both tools in our toolbox. ;)
Absolutely fantastic insight. Thank you for your time on this!
Good walk through. Looking forward to the upcoming video!
Excellent.
T-Max 100 and FP4 125 have different development time (checked with D76 1:1), not a surprise to see such a difference.
And no one is surprised. The point of the video is to illustrate that if a film didn’t get enough light at capture, developing longer won’t save the shadows but will blow the highlights.
but you exposed both films correctly? you just developed it wrongly...or am I wrong?
@@adamkencki good question. Like I said in the video, I lean towards the contrast of the fp4 shot more. So if we didn’t have the Tmax negative side by side to show that a greater dynamic range was possible, you could believe the Fp4 shot was both correctly exposed and developed…
What I’ve learned from this test about fp4, is that in high contrast situations, it needs to be rated lower than iso100, but for flat scenes, iso 100 and even 125 would be fine and deliver a nice, punchy negative.
I still dont understand what the point of your video is. There is 3 minute developing time difference between those two films (12 and 15 minutes). You dont even say which one is developed right. It seems you dont really know what you are doing.
@@tomasnovotny4108 He makes the point of the video clear. He shows that the FP4 hasn't received enough light for its response curve (the shadows have less detail than one might like) but simultaneously cannot be pushed further in development (the highlights have already been blown). The comparison with the TMax image was purely to illustrate what kind of detail *could* have been captured in the FP4, if the FP4 had been exposed more but developed less. The fact that the Tmax and FP4 happened to have been exposed the same and developed the same (in terms of timing, not in terms of N factor) is a bit of an irrelevant albeit fun detail here. It would have been a little more explanatory I think to show the same film (e.g. FP4) exposed and developed differently, rather than two different films (Tmax & FP4) exposed and developed using the same timings.
When I used to shoot T Max, I used the special Kodak developer. [This was 20 years ago.] When I tried 'Normal' developers, the negatives were poor. But your results look good here.
I’m 100% pleased with Tmax 100 in rodinal, but I have recently started playing with Tmax 400 and I’m not getting the same pleasing tones. This film/developer combo needs taming.
Thank you Nico :)
3:53 I was wondering why your window was closed... now I see why!
I think this rule of thumb is more applicable for sheet film-not roll film, unless of course all of the exposures on the roll were shot in the same lighting with the same highlight requirements. You could of course decide to sacrifice images on the roll for one exposure that you want to properly develop. One way you could manage this is by having multiple backs for each development process, so you could have a back for N+1, N+2, N-1, N, and so on. You would have to meter each exposure and determine the contrast range and development requirements and use the appropriate back. For this type of processing sheet film is the way to go, that’s one of the advantages of large format cameras; however, one has to store each exposed sheet in the proper box for development or at least make notation on the film holders for the development requirements. But if one is exposing random scenes on a roll back and thinks they can develop for the highlights they will be disappointed.
Todays B&W films are far less sensible to development time than in the past.
Even in the end of the 70's Ansel Adams was very angry against Kodak that changed several times Tri-X formulation without any notice to customers, being less and less sensitive to development time.
This sensitivity is very dependent from the type of film/developer and developer dilution.
The development time has also to be fitted to the type of enlarger.
In practice I experienced very good results with only 3 times (3 rollfilm back) .
Adjusting easily development times with sheet film is more or less theoritical because for economical and time reasons development is made in 4 to 6 sheets tanks. If you change the tank film load consistency is no more there.
And if you develop individually in trays consistency becomes more difficult to control.
Coming from the 35mm world, what I do is to bulk load my film with each cassette having about 6 exposures. Then be sure to mark the cassette with the needed development process.
Phoenix, AZ
To be fair, it's a great shelf. And yellow.
That bird was so random😂😂😂
Believe it or not, my bird is highly trained, and everything he does on camera is scripted… 😂
@@nicolaslevy2657 🤯
how much time are you using with Rodinal for fp5? (and how do you shake?) great video
I rate FP4 at ISO80 and develop 10min in Rodinal 1+50. In the video I think I did 11min at ISO100 and you can see that the highlights are starting to get overdeveloped.
Agitation : slow inversions for the first 30sec then two slow inversions every minute.
Wonderful video, I’ve been trying to grasp this concept and this was super helpful! I’m still a little bit confused about one thing though - the idea of how this concept combines with pushing or pulling the film. Pulling makes more sense to me, but pushing…I get confused. If I’m shooting a low contrast scene with film normally rated for 400 at 1600, and exposing for open shade, you’re saying if I then push two stops in development it won’t blow the highlights because I’m (1) underexposing, and (2) the highlights are fairly close to the open shade values?
Hi Drew.
I think you got it : when you’re pushing 2 stops and still metering for open shade, you bump the contrast but should still retain highlight detail if the scene was flat.
I’d say considering the dynamic range distribution of most films, a 2 stops push for a flat scene is more likely to yield blocked shadows than clipped highlights.
But of course the final word is down to you, with your specific film, developer and technique… That’s why some photographers take notes. Try to push 2 stops on the next cloudy day and see how that works.
@@nicolaslevy2657 Thank you for responding! That makes sense and lines up with what I was thinking, excellent and good to know. Appreciate you 🙏🏻
It would be better to place a (half way cut and inverted) Kodak Grey Scale in the subject
and make the two exposures on the two different B&W films.
The best way to check the ISO, the process and the contrast.
To assess ISO for you own workflow you have to expose a whole rollfilm with a graycard at different Zone II exposures in 1/3 stops, and then search for the first real darkening of the developped film base.
The procedure is explained in Ansel Adams book "The Negative"
E+D- yes but don't forget gamma on grey 18% level base.
this video got a Wes Anderson vibe to it
I liked pic on the Right side before you even said anything.
You haven't mentioned how the exposures were taken.
Same speed and same aperture for both pics, through the same camera.
well, everything is very personal, as well our taste depends on our perception. the right image with much more pleasant shadows looks much more real than the left one a little bit flat and has an HDR look. Additionally, for the right explanation of the "Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights" rule better to take the same camera and same emulsion, but to use different settings not different films. Otherwise, you're just comparing different films.
How could you develop two different film in same tank with the same developer? they have different developing times.
Yes, it’s definitely not recommended.
But with high dilutions, times differences tend to get smaller, so I took a chance with a time that was a bit too short for tmax100 and a bit too long for Fp4.
The extreme example would be stand development at 1+100 where you just use the same time of 1h regardless of the film…
This isn’t something I would normally do, but it’s a happy accident that provided a visual illustration of how exposure and development work together to create a good negative.
@@nicolaslevy2657 what developer did you use? And what dilution for these developing process?
@@MrRomunas
This was Rodinal (R09one shot) at 1+50 for 12min. 20degrees. Standard agitation (30sec at the start then 10sec every minute)
Repeat the test with correct development times. Until that any discussion is pointless.
but each film requires different developing time for given ISO and developer..? 1:34
They do. The fp4 in this situation received too much development (see blown highlights). The reason I made this video is to show that this extra development did not recover the shadow detail but only blown the highlights.
I guess I’ll have to make another video down the line about pushing film, comparing two rolls of the same film because this video isn’t clear enough.
I love this picture th-cam.com/video/YQUSTP-7N_0/w-d-xo.html .. this is what I want my B&W to look like...
Thanks! I love the tones in that picture too. Just a basic tip, before worrying about film choice or exposure/development, consider the light and contrast levels of whatever pic you want to emulate. Too often do I see people who wonder how to get the same look as other people’s images, and their inspiration is shot at golden hour under beautiful sunlight while they’re trying to emulate it on the greyest day of the year… No film or treatment can make a sunny day look like moody fog, or a grey morning look like a sunset 🤓
@@nicolaslevy2657 You're absolutely right.. The light matters..
Rays a laugh not sure people outside of Birmingham understand that book sorry
Gatekeeping a photobook lol
Mind your cameras; they are collecting dust and bird shit.
You're nuts. the picture on the right is the PERFECT exposure and image. the image on the left is flat and has no depth to it. it is not a good image, but the image on the right is literally perfection. you cant get any better than it. the image on the left is just not correct. the shadows and highlights all blend together and make for a lifeless flat image that is not at all appealing.
I’m glad you enjoy the picture :)
The pic on the right is fine, but keep in mind this is a medium contrast scene, shot through a mellow Hasselblad lens. The increased contrast of the film on the right might suit it better than the more flat rendering of the film on the left.
But if you had these two films available to you, would you always pick the one on the right, regardless of scene contrast?
I do prefer fp4 in my day to day use. But it’s nice to know that a flatter look is available with Tmax if I need it.
Sometimes contrast needs to be bumped, sometimes it needs to be tamed. It’s important that we have both tools in our toolbox. ;)