A general question on film development.

Hi

At some point I need to actually test my film speed for more accuracy but at the moment I am not quite setup for it. But I have found that rating pretty much any film I shoot by half (e.g. tri-x @200) and develop for the normal published development time for that particular developer, has immensely improved my negative quality so much so that doing a custom speed test has been put on the back burner. In a high contrast scene I will typically pull for 10-15% development time. So with this logic, if i want to shoot say tri-x at box speed should I use the development times for 800 iso? And would the same apply if I wanted to shoot delta 3200 @ 3200 (vice my 1600) by using 6400 development times?

Thanks to all in advance.

I'm sure someone willl give you a more scientific answer than mine but I'm not sure that what you propose is correct. Certainly you can easily print a tri-x negative that has been either over or under exposed by one stop and get an excellent result. Do you plan on exposing an entire roll under the same lighting conditions. For overall consistency I would suggest sticking with your original plan and test each film you plan to use to standardize the effective film speed for your equipment. It is not difficult nor terribly time consuming to do.

I'm not into the nitty-gritty technical aspect of chemistry or films but I have tested the two films I use and have developed techniques that work for me.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

At some point I need to actually test my film speed for more accuracy

Click to expand...

No you don't. The film's speed is printed on the box. Films from the Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford are exactly the speed they say they are. There's no way you can test them better than the factory.

You'll find that you get better shadows with certain developers than you do with others.
I used to rate almost all films at half box speed but I now base my ISO setting more on the lighting conditions and the developer I will be using.

Agitation also plays a part

For long subject brightness range I will rate the film at slower than box speed and reduce development.
For flat lighting I will do the opposite.

Xtol & D76 will give decent shadows at close to box speed with some films.
PMK & Rodinal at the dilutions I use will need a little more generous exposure.

Best thing to do when starting out is stick with one or 2 films and maybe one developer and get to know what it will do for you.

I like shadow detail so I tend to be generous with exposure in alot of cases.

I've done some of those testing out of necessity.

I found, relationship between how much I should DE-rate my film and how much I should shorten my development time varies greatly depending on the exact film, exact format (35mm or MF), developer and dilutions, and the lighting condition. For example, for Tmax400 and with 35mm format, I usually shoot at EI400 and develop with -15% timing using XTOL 1:1. With D76, I can shoot with EI320 and develop -8%. On medium format, I use published time or up to -10%. Using Tri-X, time as shown and D76 and published time. I'm still working on Ilford 3200. These results generally work for me but there are times with extreme lighting conditions where they didn't work.

For each film, size, and developer, I have to repeat this test all over again. It would be nice if I can find "rule of thumb" type thing but there isn't. If anything, I can shoot at box speed and use published timing, and usually come close to pretty good....

Keep in mind, if you are using Kodak chemicals, published times are for diffusion type enlargers. If you are using more common condenser type, you'll have to use -20% and EI of half, according to Kodak. My experiment showed close but I find tuned it further to suit my taste.

Grrrr....

BetterSense said:

No you don't. The film's speed is printed on the box. Films from the Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford are exactly the speed they say they are. There's no way you can test them better than the factory.

Click to expand...

And there's no way that Kodak has tested for exactly my conditions. This is why Kodak say things like the following in the instructions for Xtol.

Kodak J-109 said:

DEVELOPMENT TABLES
The following pages contain tables of starting-point development times and temperatures for developer solutions with and without dilution in small tanks, trays, rotary tubes, and large-tank replenished systems. This information includes processing data for Kodak films as well as for a sampling of other manufacturers’ films. For critical applications, run tests to determine the best development time. Data for nominal film speeds are in bold face type.

Click to expand...

Which includes the phrase 'nominal film speed'. That's the opposite of saying "permanently fixed film speed regardless of shooting and development conditions". Any competent photographer will test under his own conditions and it's impossible for the manufacturers' test labs to have done so for all photographers. Kodak and other manufacturers consistently say that testing for both film speed and development time should be done for optimal results.

Have you read PE's posts recommending shooting color negative films at 1/3 to 2/3 stop slower than 'box speed'?

Lee

BetterSense said:

No you don't. The film's speed is printed on the box. Films from the Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford are exactly the speed they say they are. There's no way you can test them better than the factory.

Click to expand...

The three companies all use different ways to determine a film's speed, Agfa used another. Kodak deviated from the ISO standard when they released Tmax films, they wouldn't pass the ISO speed tests which have since been changed slightly. Ilford use a practical system, not sure about Fuji now.

When you do your own personal film speed tests it's quite different to the manufacturers tests because it's taking into account your equipment and way of working, and any variations in shutter speeds, apertures, light metering, choice of developer & dilution/volume as well as agitation agitation and then most importantly aim point, what paper (or scanner) you are using for printing.

All those factors can affect the personal EI you use for a film.

Ian

Padraigm, the manufacturers recommended times, temperatures and dilutions will put you in the ballpark, but there are many variables you can use to get the results you want. Not knowing the degree of experience you have in the darkroom, I will tell you what I have told others I have taught - first, follow the directions. Kodak, Agfa, Ilford and others didn't spend millions in process research just so you could get a poor result. Their times, temps and dilutions were achieved with much time and money. Until you get comfortable with processing and exposures, the less variables the better. Just my opinion.

padraigm said:

Hi

At some point I need to actually test my film speed for more accuracy but at the moment I am not quite setup for it. But I have found that rating pretty much any film I shoot by half (e.g. tri-x @200) and develop for the normal published development time for that particular developer, has immensely improved my negative quality so much so that doing a custom speed test has been put on the back burner.

Click to expand...

Film testing IMO is just a way to match "the way you meter" to "the film's physical characteristics".

You are just learning to place exposure and whatever works for you is right.

padraigm said:

In a high contrast scene I will typically pull for 10-15% development time. So with this logic, if i want to shoot say tri-x at box speed should I use the development times for 800 iso? And would the same apply if I wanted to shoot delta 3200 @ 3200 (vice my 1600) by using 6400 development times?

Thanks to all in advance.

Click to expand...

A "higher than normal contrast" scene (+1 stop) has a larger than "normal" difference in the brightness values between the black and white points.

Reducing development on any film lowers the density/contrast of the image a given amount of light will create on the film. You can think of it like two sets of stairs with the same total rise but different numbers of steps.

The high contrast scene needs lower contrast development to make room for the extra stop/step. All the steps need to get a bit closer together (lower local contrasts).

Theoretically this helps you to print normal and high contrast scenes on the same paper grade without burning and dodging and keeps the important parts of the image off the toe and shoulder.

If you routinely need to go so far as to half rate your film in order to get decent negs, then – barring major calibration issues with your camera's meter, shutter speeds, or apertures – I don't think you are paying enough attention to metering in conjunction with the lighting in which you are shooting. If you use a directly-read in-camera meter, or a hand-held reflected meter pointed at the entire scene, half rating is simply a way to cover your butt from this inherently-flawed method of metering, and that is why so many people do it as a matter of course. Lots of people learn to do this. At some point, someone who did not feel like going to lengths to explain proper metering technique simply threw this easy-to-remember and practically helpful rule of thumb out, and it stuck. It helps with those situations in which these averaging reflected metering methods would lead to underexposure, and one can easily recover from the overexposure it causes in many situations, so it is easy to think that it is a miracle technique that fixes everything. In short, many people do this as a work around to exposure problems that simply are not caused by using the film at box speed, but by the manner in which metering is performed. However, unless you have major equipment issues, it does not lead to better exposures across the board (simply more workable ones in cases in which underexposure would have occurred if the film had been rated normally), and definitely does not teach one how to go about determining ones ideal exposure for the image being shot.

In other words, before rerating a film so severely as a way to get workable exposures on the film, make sure your metering technique is perfect. IME, that is the number one cause of major exposure issues. Minor ones can be caused by individualized parameters, but major ones are almost certainly caused by major user and/or equipment error. I have never had to half rate a film to get good exposures, unless I was using an automated camera (such as my Yashica Electro). In these cases, the half rating is simply a compromise that I deal with because I want to protect myself against gross underexposure with the averaging automatic exposure system. It is a compromise I only make when the desire to use the Yashica for its certain benefits (low weight and mindlessness of use) trumps the need or desire for ideal exposures.

Developing a 400 film at a time listed for the film at 800 will increase contrast, no matter how the film has been exposed. If you are half rating and developing normally, then you would be using times for the film at 400.

FYI, Delta 3200 and T-max 3200 are ISO/DIN 1000/31. Thus, the times listed for exposure at EI 3200 are a 1-2/3 stop push over normal development. Oddly enough, the manufacturers do not list development times for the 1000 EI that matches the ISO/DIN numbers; the only nearby times they list are for 800 and 1600.

padraigm said:

At some point I need to actually test my film speed

Click to expand...

I always smile when someone says this as they are just making work for themselves. There are so many variables in photography which work against this concept. For example, camera shutters are notoriously inaccurate and inconsistant. (If anyone doubts this then let them have their shutters checked and look at the results.) In addtion film age, lighting conditions, development, etc all have their effect.

If you find that, for your personal technique, your negatives are consistantly a bit thin/dense then just adjust your exposure accordingly.

There is a least one website that obcesses about this, telling the reader that they must shoot many rolls of film at all shutter speeds and lens apertures, lighting conditions, etc. Then draw up graphs. It's all a waste of time. Film manufactures test each batch of film for consistency and any tests they do are far more accurate than the user can achieve.

I would say forget testing and do what is right for you. If you want to rate your 400 film @ 100 and push the limits in development to achieve more contrast and get more grain, etc, do it. If your vision supports it and that's what's going to make your images stand out and unique, do it. Exposure and development can be discussed ad nauseam but the truth is that there is no right or wrong.
Lately, on bright sunny days, I have been rating my Tri-X @ 100 and develop in Rodinal 1:25 for 13 minutes. I am beating the crap out of it and I like it. I am also not carrying a meter and use the sunny 16 rule for the most part. I want to think about what I am shooting and be a little more dramatic, gritty and grainy, with no concerns for "shadow detail" or being politically correct to my precious film. The highlights are pushed to the limits this way but they are not blown, and the images do jump. Some people like them, some don't. I do.
It helps to think outside the box sometimes and, as long as you also do understand what it takes to work within fixed parameters, everything else is game. Don't forget to have fun!

Max

Gerald C Koch said:

I always smile when someone says this as they are just making work for themselves.

Click to expand...

I agree. just experiment with real pictures and after a while you will get something you like.

MaximusM3 said:

I would say forget testing and do what is right for you. If you want to rate your 400 film @ 100 and push the limits in development to achieve more contrast and get more grain, etc, do it.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you actually meant push development but using an ISO 400 film at EI 100 would be giving it 2 stops more exposure which would require a pull development, not push. A reduction of about 40% of the ISO 400 time would be close.

Steve.

In contrasty light the tones are more spread out than in flat light and to give the same exposure to the shadows when using average metering the set film speed can be lowered.The development time can then be reduced to give the same highlight density.
Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton p86 gives suggested amounts dependent on subject contrast.

Steve Smith said:

Not sure if you actually meant push development but using an ISO 400 film at EI 100 would be giving it 2 stops more exposure which would require a pull development, not push. A reduction of about 40% of the ISO 400 time would be close.

Steve.

Click to expand...

Steve,

True, but like I've said, I am not looking to be "correct" but simply achieving a certain look for my images. The "published" time (Digital Truth anyway) is 7 min for Rodinal 1:25 @ ISO400. so you can imagine what the 100 would look like. I have been souping it for 11-13 min with three inversions every two minutes. Sounds drastic but it works for me. Yes, there is grain but that's what I want. If you look on my Flickr page, I have posted a bunch of images (and here as well), if you'd like to get a visual.

Best,

Max

MaximusM3 said:

Sounds drastic but it works for me. Yes, there is grain but that's what I want.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, both the points you have raised are much more important than getting it 'by the book' right. If you like what you are doing then you are doing it right.

And by the look of the images on your Flickr pages, you are certainly doing it right!


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

As far as I'm concerned, both the points you have raised are much more important than getting it 'by the book' right. If you like what you are doing then you are doing it right.

And by the look of the images on your Flickr pages, you are certainly doing it right!


Steve.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Steve! Interestingly enough, I am actually writing an article about this very subject. I believe that in general we all get too hung up on being correct, following published times, dilutions, etc, and in the process end up being a bunch of clones. I do want to stretch the fact that it's okay to be a little daring and come up with one's style/voice by deviating from the norm. Obviously, much has been said and done before so this sounds easier than it is. Ralph Gibson overexposed and overdeveloped routinely and that's what made his images unique in terms of tonalities. Others follow different routes but in the end, every photographer we come to admire has done something bold and different in and out of
the darkroom to stand out a bit in some way.

Max

MaximusM3 said:

I am actually writing an article about this very subject. I believe that in general we all get too hung up on being correct, following published times, dilutions, etc, and in the process end up being a bunch of clones.

Click to expand...

When I moved back to film from digital about six years ago I started reading articles on finding your personal film speed. Some methods were quite complex and included multiple exposures of grey cards and densitometer readings of the negative.

I noticed that in most cases, the conclusion of the tests was to rate the film at half its box speed and decrease development byt 20% - 25%.

I am grateful to the people with the patience to do these tests as their conclusions allowed me to just try it out on real pictures and see if I liked it - which I did.

For a while my standard MF film was Ilford HP5+ at EI 200 and DD-X developer for 80% of the ISO 400 time.

I have since changed to Prescysol developer for everything. This is a two part developer which has the same development time for any film. The time is not that critical and you can't control development with time like you can with a normal developer. In fact, keeping it in for twice the recommended time doesn't appear to alter anything. This developer suggests box speeds for all films so I have gone back to exposing the film as the manufacturer recommends.

Using this developer, my negatives have never looked better.

http://www.monochromephotography.com/section255920_83798.html


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

When I moved back to film from digital about six years ago I started reading articles on finding your personal film speed. Some methods were quite complex and included multiple exposures of grey cards and densitometer readings of the negative.

I noticed that in most cases, the conclusion of the tests was to rate the film at half its box speed and decrease development byt 20% - 25%.

I am grateful to the people with the patience to do these tests as their conclusions allowed me to just try it out on real pictures and see if I liked it - which I did.

For a while my standard MF film was Ilford HP5+ at EI 200 and DD-X developer for 80% of the ISO 400 time.

I have since changed to Prescysol developer for everything. This is a two part developer which has the same development time for any film. The time is not that critical and you can't control development with time like you can with a normal developer. In fact, keeping it in for twice the recommended time doesn't appear to alter anything. This developer suggests box speeds for all films so I have gone back to exposing the film as the manufacturer recommends.

Using this developer, my negatives have never looked better.

http://www.monochromephotography.com/section255920_83798.html


Steve.

Click to expand...

Hey Steve,

I've sort of gone through the same and started to settle on few constants recently. Prescysol sounds very intriguing, and I've heard great things about it. Will have to give it a try one day.

Best,

Max

padraigm said:

Hi

At some point I need to actually test my film speed for more accuracy but at the moment I am not quite setup for it. But I have found that rating pretty much any film I shoot by half (e.g. tri-x @200) and develop for the normal published development time for that particular developer, has immensely improved my negative quality so much so that doing a custom speed test has been put on the back burner. In a high contrast scene I will typically pull for 10-15% development time. So with this logic, if i want to shoot say tri-x at box speed should I use the development times for 800 iso? And would the same apply if I wanted to shoot delta 3200 @ 3200 (vice my 1600) by using 6400 development times?

Thanks to all in advance.

Click to expand...

What you do is test the film so that it works for you, your lighting conditions, your metering technique, your camera's shutter accuracy, your developer, your developing technique, etc. There are many variables that play into making good negatives.
So, shoot a test roll where you bracket at EI 800, 1600, and 3200. Process the film according to the manufacturers' instructions. Judge the negatives by printing them to see which of them will yield 'acceptable' shadow detail. Then use that speed for an entire roll. When you develop it, cut the length of the film in three pieces and now proceed with developing one piece at a time. If the first clip comes out too thin, add 20% time. If it's still too thin, add another 20%, etc. Do this until you have reasonable negatives.

Then, of course, different lighting conditions require different exposure and development. A low contrast scene without pure black in it can take some underexposure, because there simply are no deep shadows that need to be shown detail in. Then you develop longer to yield normal contrast.
A high contrast scene will require plenty of exposure and then that you hold back development, once again to yield a normal contrast negative.

Getting a feel for all of this comes with use and practice. None of it can be had for free, unfortunately. It does require some testing if you want perfect negatives, negatives that make printing easy.

Or, you can arbitrarily shoot the film the same way regardless of conditions and simply live with the fact that a lot of your negatives will be less than ideal to work with. It's a trade-off between hard work and how much you want to compromise.

Numbers are numbers, and knowing the theory behind all of this is good.
Then, of course, in the real world knowing intuitively what to expect is important, and you have to be good to instinctively react to a scene in front of you. Experience is the only way to develop that 'sense'. Especially if you're dealing with hand held shooting where the shot is there one moment, and gone the next.

BetterSense said:

... The film's speed is printed on the box. Films from the Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford are exactly the speed they say they are. There's no way you can test them better than the factory.

Click to expand...

Unless you use a different developer and process than the factory did, which most of us do.

Kodak also printed a second film speed in their excellent original data-sheet for Tmax 100, and that was 50 EI if you wanted better tonality and shadow detail.

What's being missed is that if you get the negative exposure & development right you can then print a negative any way you want, get it wrong and you spend hours wasting paper trying to get a decent print.

Ian

What does "better tonality" mean?

Unless you use a different developer and process than the factory did, which most of us do.

Click to expand...

If you use a different process or different developer than the factory, that doesn't magically change the ISO speed of the film. The film's speed is the same. I just don't understand the logic of people who think that the film's speed is changing when their metering or processing is changing. No, the film's speed isn't going anywhere; your metering and processing are.

On the other side of the coin, I don't understand the value of knowing the film's exact speed, because all that matters is your results. But if you ever want to know what it is, it's printed on the box. I don't understand the advantage of re-rating the film speed, as if the film manufacturer does a poor job at it. But then, I don't really use light meters either, so maybe I should leave the film-testers and densitometrists alone to do their thing.

2F/2F said:

What does "better tonality" mean?

Click to expand...

In the case of Tmax 100 it meant you actually got some shadow detail

Kodak had big problems with Tmax, first it failed the then ISO standard tests, it's own outside consultant was reporting it's true useable ISO was 50.

Kodak got around the issue by getting the B&W ISO standard changed, fast tracking Tmax developer research and putting the 50EI recommendation in smaller print in the datasheet.

My own experience at the time was that Agfa AP100& then APX 100 were great at 100 ISO, but that to get the same tonality I needed to use Tmax 100 at 50 EI. My speeds were found by testing and heavy use but many others found exactly the same.

I prefer a good negative with a full range of tones that prints on Grade 2, that way I have loads of options to print softer or harder.

Ian