Just in case anyone on this list isn't also on the Photo3D list...

This Friday Feb. 16 we'll be having one of the more or less bi monthly Manhattan stereo
dinners. The fun starts at 7 pm at La Cocina, a Mexican restaurant located just off the
Northeast corner of 85th and Broadway. Look for the table in the basement with all the
stereo viewers on it. These dinners have been an informal New York tradition for years,
and have always been primarily focused on medium format stereo. What first motivated
me to get into MF was the fact that no one would even look at my 35mm stereo slides
whenever Tom Deering brought out his Sputnik slides.

I ran lots of film through my TL120 during a recent trip to Las Vegas. In addition to Provia
100F, 400F and Kodak E100GX I shot one roll of Ilford PanF which DR5 processed using
their Sepia developer. I'll have all these slides with me.

Jim Harp

Jim Harp writes:

> I shot one roll of Ilford
> PanF which DR5 processed using their Sepia developer.

I won't be able to be there, but sure would like to hear your thoughts on
these images and DR5's process.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

>I won't be able to be there, but sure would like

>to hear your thoughts on these images and DR5's process.

Hi David!

At 06:23 AM 2/14/2007, David Kesner wrote:

I won't be able to be there, but sure would like to hear your thoughts on
these images and DR5's process.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

http://www.dr5.com/

I researched the dr5 process extensively about four years ago and have continued to use David Wood's services since then.  I just shot four rolls of Delta 100 for the dr5 process last weekend.

About four years ago, I set up my tripod in front of an abandoned farm house in St. Jo, Texas, about 50 miles north of where I live and made 220 exposures (110 stereo views, 22 rolls of 120-format) of that one subject, using 5 different B&W films for dr5 processing, totalling 200 exposures and two rolls of Provia 100F to have as a color reference.  Bracketing exposures at -1, -1/2, 0, +1/2 and +1, with the light alternating between harsh and diffuse as clouds passed by overhead all day long, by the end of the day, for each film, I had managed to shoot all five brackets in both types of light for each film type for two different dr5 processing times.

These are the B&W films I tested under dr5:

  Kodak Tech Pan
  Ilford PanF+       
  Iford Delta 100     
  Ilford FP4+        
  Kodak TXP     

Here's the result of that initial testing, with some refinements applied over the past four years:
  
My preference is to shoot Delta-100 when the subject will mask its barely detectable grain.   If grain will be a problem, shoot with TechPan, but only if the ambient light and subject motion will support the slow speed.  Use Pan-F otherwise.

Ilford Delta-100:     
Process dr5 Pushing to ISO 80 from dr5's Normal rating of 64, but shoot it at ISO 100.
 
Kodak TechPan:        
Process dr5 Pulling to ISO 12 from dr5's Normal rating of 25, but shoot it at ISO 16.
 
Ilford Pan-F:                
Process dr5 Normal at ISO 32 and shoot it at ISO 32.

Ilford Delta-100 has tremendous tonality.  This is what David Wood sometimes calls "smoothness":  lots of intermediate greys between pure black and pure white, instead of just a few greys that leave the image looking "stepped".)   Getting this right, means seeing detail in the shadows - something you don't get with Tech Pan, until you pull it down to very low ISO settings. Delta-100 has a spectacular image latitude of 9-stops, in addition to tremendous exposure latitude.  (Image latitude is the luminance range seen in the final image - in this case, within the reversal chrome.  Exposure latitude is a measure of the film's tolerance for incorrect exposure relative to an intended development time.)  In short, I have found that it's nearly impossible to overexpose Delta-100 for the dr5 process.  This doesn't mean you should be sloppy with it - that would be a travesty, because the shadow detail in properly exposed Delta-100 under dr5 processing is stunning.  Bring on the harshest light - Delta-100 in dr5 can handle it.  The shadows are completely unlocked - you can see plenty of texture and detail everywhere.  An incident meter is ideal for use with this film, by the way.  Just hold the meter (set to ISO 100) out in front of the camera and aim the dome toward the front of the lens (not at the light source). 

Kodak Tech-Pan is unavailable, but some people still have stockpiles.  I have to pull it all the way down to 16 to get the contrast lowered sufficiently to open the shadows.  If you like deep, rich blacks, and that famous lack of grain, look for subjects that are perfectly motionless in good light.  Unlike Delta-100, Tech-Pan has very little exposure latitude - much more like Velvia than a black and white negative film, in this regard.

Iflord Pan-F's grain is finer than Delta-100's, though certainly not as good as Tech-Pan's, but to my eyes, Pan-F just doesn't have the "punch" of Delta 100.  It's tones just look kind of "flat" to me.  I've never bothered to experiment with pushing it, to bring up the contrast, because doing so would only increase the grain and I'm already getting what I want with Delta-100, shooting it at ISO 100.  So, for me, Pan-F remains the finer-grained, slower, "flatter-looking" alternative to Delta-100 when there's a lot of open sky (where a finer grain is wanted) or super harsh light (where a low-contrast film like Pan-F can shine).

Here is his somewhat confusing order sheet that you must print, fill out, and enclose when you mail him your unprocessed film:

  http://www.dr5.com/writeup.pdf

I specify the following on his order form:

  Number of rolls (to the left of "Film Type"
  Film type:  Delta 100
  Exposed ISO:  80  (even though I shoot at 100)
  DEV-1 Neutral (not the Sepia toning he offers)
  Check marks for "No Clip", "120", and "Sleeved-uncut"


I would dearly like to see David Wood's business prosper, as he is the only guy out there offering this service.   David also offers contact dupes made with the same film type as your originals. (He probably can't do this for TechPan unless we can provide him with the unexposed film.)

Mike Davis

This is absolutely brilliant!  Your hard work, exacting methodology, and personal investment of time and money will benefit all of us shooting b&w slide film.  I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

Mike Davis writes:

> I researched the dr5 process extensively about four years ago and have
> continued to use David Wood's services since then. I just shot four rolls
> of Delta 100 for the dr5 process last weekend

Thank you very much for this information. I will definitely give it a
try. I am now curious about the developer #2 from them (sepia). Do you
have any results or comments on that?

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

Michael K. Davis wrote:

> I researched the dr5 process extensively about
> four years ago and have continued to use David
> Wood's services since then. I just shot four
> rolls of Delta 100 for the dr5 process last weekend.

Do filters in front Delta 100 (that will be dr5
processed) give similar results as one would expect
to see in a B/W print from the same film in a "normal" process?
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

David,

At 06:26 AM 2/15/2007, you wrote:

>I am now curious about the developer #2 from them (sepia). Do you
>have any results or comments on that?

I've been tempted, but have never tried his sepia developer. He says it's
very nice with Delta-100.

Mike

Hi John!

At 12:03 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote:

>Do filters in front Delta 100 (that will be dr5
>processed) give similar results as one would expect
>to see in a B/W print from the same film in a "normal" process?

Absolutely! When I want to darken blue skies and can suffer the filter
factor, I use yellow-orange filters. Given that I had to buy two of them
for stereo (in 72mm size to satisfy all my lenses), and that I like to buy
only multi-coated filters from the likes of B+W or Heliopan, that's the
only filter I chose to carry for use with black and white films. (I don't
have red, orange, or yellow - I split the difference and went with
yellow-orange). This requires a working ISO of only 40 when it's ISO 100
without the filter. The manufacturer's specs say that it has a filter
factor of 4 (which translates to two stops), but my light meter says it's
only about 1 and 2/3 stops - for both of my filters, so I shoot them at ISO
40, not 25.

A red filter can cost you 3 stops and yellow only 1 stop, if you find that
more appealing - but the affect isn't very dramatic with a yellow
filter. You can also lighten foliage with a green filter or lighten
foliage while also darkening blue skies with a yellow-green filter, but
I've never experimented with any of those.

Here's the yellow-orange filter I use, but in the smaller 46mm size that
you'd want for a TL-120:

B+W 46 mm 040 Yellow-Orange (16) Multi-Coated (MC) Glass Filter

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=7465&is=REG

MFR#: 66040388 B&H#: BW040MC46

Multi-coating is critical in my opinion.

Mike Davis

Mike Davis writes:

> I've been tempted, but have never tried his sepia developer. He says it's
> very nice with Delta-100.

Would you assume the same exposure guide you list for developer #1?

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

Hi David,

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, David W. Kesner wrote:

> Would you assume the same exposure guide you list for developer #1?

I think that's a safe assumption, given that David Wood doesn't suggest
different ISO ratings for his sepia process. I suspect that, if it was
necessary, he has tuned the development times or temperatures of the two
processes to equalize the ISO ratings.

I so like the look of the #1 developer, I think the only way I'll ever get
around to trying the #2 (sepia) is if I shoot some of each for every
scene. I just don't want to come home from a trip to find myself
disappointed.

This is certainly subjective, but I personally think the cliche' nature of
sepia toned images undermines our ability to inject something of ourselves
into our work. It has so dominant a "feel" that it will mask, at least
partially, whatever you may have been trying to achieve through
composition and other techniques. Sepia toning almost dooms a piece to
being stereotyped by those who look at it. I think that when the average
person thinks of sepia toned images, they think of old photographs, or new
ones taken at those costumed portrait shops at tourist traps, where you
and your wife can dress up like a cowboy and a saloon girl (or as a saloon
girl and a cowboy...) So, I fear this predisposition would color their
impression of anything I do in sepia. I'd feel compelled to select
subjects that satisfy the technique (a debasement of self-expression), so
as not to disappoint the expectations of my audience.

But that's just my opinion. The truth is I'm very attracted to it, but
I'm so afraid of its ability to overwhelm the mood of an image, that I'm
just not willing to let it be a part of my oeuvre.

Mike Davis

 
If you want to get an idea of what your images look like with sepia toning without it being part of the film, try different color lighting.  If you're using the small 6 inch fluorescent bulbs (like in Alan's SaturnSlide light box), you can buy different color bulbs with which to experiment.
 
When buying these light kits from the hardware store, the default color that comes with them is something FT45D, which are unusable IMO.  I'm then forced to buy cool white bulbs to replace the FT45D's.  I tried a soft white bulb one time and this, to me, gave my black and white slides a sepia feel to them.
 
I've thought about using filters within the light box for gold toning but haven't pursued this idea yet.  I haven't even thought about where to look for them.  Any ideas?
 
Ted

---

Fit more fun into your day with Flexicon: the crossword game that feeds your brain.   PLAY now for FREE.