Roots Study: alternate version
I went back to this site to reshoot it, for several reasons. For one, the original had a light leak around the lensboard (garbage lensboard provided by Intrepid), which I wanted to fix. I also wanted to vary my process a little bit, so I shot this on Ilford HP5+ and processed it in Rodinal.
Now, I want to say this about how I used the Rodinal: I did a "stand" process of the neg, using Rodinal 1:100 dilution and allowing a slow process of an hour, with only one agitation cycle at the 30 minute mark (plus a 1 minute agitation at the start). I don't usually use the Stand Development process because it almost always introduces artifacts (uneven areas), but that is more an issue with roll film than sheet film, so I felt it was worth risking one sheet of film to try for this shot.
What did I get? Well, the negative is a bit less contrasty overall, with better shadow information and less blocking of the highlight areas. I knew that the reciprocity effect would increase contrast of this scene, as the bare wood (horizontal wedged in the roots) was considerably brighter than most other areas. I expected the stand process would help restrain the bright regions while allowing the shadows to develop more fully, and it seems this is what happened. As I say, I do NOT advocate for this approach to film processing in most circumstances (the mythology of the process is grossly exaggerated, IMO) but with sheet film, it sometimes has benefits. I wouldn't expect to develop a shot that had large expanses of a single value (blue sky?) because some unevenness would likely become apparent.
I've done this with HP5+ in the past and it seems this Ilford emulsion behaves very well in dilute Rodinal and minimal agitation.
Camera: Intrepid 8x10
Lens: Turner-Reich 12" convertible, exposure 25 seconds @ f22
Roots Study: alternate version
I went back to this site to reshoot it, for several reasons. For one, the original had a light leak around the lensboard (garbage lensboard provided by Intrepid), which I wanted to fix. I also wanted to vary my process a little bit, so I shot this on Ilford HP5+ and processed it in Rodinal.
Now, I want to say this about how I used the Rodinal: I did a "stand" process of the neg, using Rodinal 1:100 dilution and allowing a slow process of an hour, with only one agitation cycle at the 30 minute mark (plus a 1 minute agitation at the start). I don't usually use the Stand Development process because it almost always introduces artifacts (uneven areas), but that is more an issue with roll film than sheet film, so I felt it was worth risking one sheet of film to try for this shot.
What did I get? Well, the negative is a bit less contrasty overall, with better shadow information and less blocking of the highlight areas. I knew that the reciprocity effect would increase contrast of this scene, as the bare wood (horizontal wedged in the roots) was considerably brighter than most other areas. I expected the stand process would help restrain the bright regions while allowing the shadows to develop more fully, and it seems this is what happened. As I say, I do NOT advocate for this approach to film processing in most circumstances (the mythology of the process is grossly exaggerated, IMO) but with sheet film, it sometimes has benefits. I wouldn't expect to develop a shot that had large expanses of a single value (blue sky?) because some unevenness would likely become apparent.
I've done this with HP5+ in the past and it seems this Ilford emulsion behaves very well in dilute Rodinal and minimal agitation.
Camera: Intrepid 8x10
Lens: Turner-Reich 12" convertible, exposure 25 seconds @ f22