A new way to think about developing film

There is much wonder out there by some as to how long to develop a certain film in a certain developer. I have adopted a way to develop ALL B&W film for the SAME TIME in any given developer by using varying dilutions. I will talk about five basic films and you can interpolate others that are similar to these five groupings (like substituting HP5+ for Tri-X).

First, when I say 'dev %' I mean a certain percentage of your stock solution in a working solution. For example, if I say "33%" I mean one part dev stock and two parts water, giving a working solution containing 33% developer. Or, a "20%" would mean one part dev stock plus four parts water, giving a WS containing 20% dev.

Figure a minimum of 6 ml working solution for each 35mm frame and include the leader in your frame count. Thus, a 36 exp roll would be '40 frames' and would need a minimum working solution of 240 ml ( 6ml X 40 frames ). A 24 exp roll would really be '28 frames' and would need a working solution of 168 ml. (Fewer frames get proportionately less working solution.) I regularly cut off film from the camera rather than force myself to use up the whole roll and use smaller reels (I painstakingly have cut them smaller) and smaller water tight containers (approximately conforming to the smaller reel size) to hold these smaller lengths efficiently).

I agitate by keeping the water-tight tank on its side and continuously turning it during processing (in a tempered water bath) so it is not necessary to have the solution cover all the film at the same time. Perhaps the water bath for B&W might not even be necessary (but I conform to this WB procedure because I also process color negative film at 100 F). Rolling it this way guarantees even development: (The reel is being continuously rotated (maybe one full turn takes about 10 seconds) like a Ferris wheel turns, in one direction.) Personally, I like an ambient temp of 80 F and have NEVER had a problem with this. (Even up to 90 F is OK if all subsequent solutions are at a like temp and EVEN with the old technology films.) Find a temp and a developer you feel comfortable with and keep those data consistent.

Here are the developer percentages I have found to give equivalent contrasts (gamma) with various films I use. I like good shadow detail so I do expose more than most do.

100% with T Max 3200 (rate at EI 500) (for some reason this film demands more development than similar super fast films).

60%: generally the ISO 400 group, including T Max 400 (rate these at EI 250) but also includes the Ilford 3200 (rate at EI 800) and Fuji 1600 (also rate at EI 800).

40%: generally the ISO 100-125 group, including T Max 100 (rate these at EI 64)

30%: Pan F+ and discontinued Kodak Panatomic-X (rate these at EI 16)

25%: discontinued Kodak Technical Pan (also rate at EI 16)

20%: Kodak Imagelink HG Microfilm (rate at EI 4). This film is not perforated so creative ways are going to have to be employed to run this through a normal 35mm camera. I load the film (in the dark) onto the take-up spool (emulsion side down but NOT taped to it, tedious!) and anchor, with tape, the end onto an empty rewind spool that I place into the rewind compartment of the camera. I 'advance' film by turning the rewind crank about 360 degrees to pull the film onto it. The sprockets simply glide over the film and cause no trouble or damage. This film has a very low exposure latitude so don't expect to see that black cat in a coal bin and ALSO, in the same frame, see the detail in a white, sunlit church. Either expose only in low contrast situations (to get a full tonal rendition) or expect to loose much of both the highlights and shadows in contrasty situations. Obviously, changing the EI will maximize the detail with either the shadows or highlights (at the expense of the other).

The development time you will have to ascertain for your own particular developer by clip testing a small piece of one of the aforementioned films at its respective developer dilution. When you do get a proper negative for THAT time, the other films should be OK at the SAME times using their respective developer dilutions. Tweak the percentages if necessary but I doubt if you will have to do that. Of course, if you change developers you will, again, have to determine a proper time for that particular developer, but the percentage will always remain the same. You can speed up developer energy by putting maybe 2g of sodium carbonate per liter of dev STOCK. You can slow down developer by putting maybe 4g of baking soda (sodium carbonate) per liter of dev STOCK. You can MAKE sodium carbonate by putting a little baking soda in a pan and heating it until the air bubbles stop forming (about 3 minutes of intense heat). CAVEAT: the pan gets HOTTER than if boiling water so be VERY careful. Also, do not use more than an ounce or two of baking soda at a time as it might get a bit messy on your stove. - David Lyga

Interesting regimen. Of particular use if your timer is a sand dial.

Interesting.... but I'm struggling to see the advantage. Surely it is easier to change time than to change dilution?

David

Like the other responders, I fail to see the advantage over changing the development time.

Adoption notwithstanding, he does underscore the effect of concentration, and I have some sympathy because I spent a summer once with nothing more than a sand dial egg timer.

It is interesting to read about a new idea, but it may have to be considered on a case by case basis.
For example, Pan F+ in 100% Perceptol gives very fine grain owing to the long time the emulsion spends in the solvent sulfite solution.
The new idea excludes this very fine grain combination as it specifies a 30% concentration of Perceptol,almost 1+3 which the Film Developing Cookbook p55 specifies as a high definition developer.

This would appear to be quite useful as part of an automated development regime where times are not easily adjusted.

Interesting but I'm not sure what the benefit would be. I use the same time for every film now using Prescysol developer. This has the advantage that any mix of films can be developed together. Prescysol needs 10.5 minutes regardless of film type.


Steve.

a roll of 35mm can be shot half frame, so a normal 24exp roll would be 52 frames ?

i do something similar ... but not really ..
i stand develop all my film in a concentrated
soup of caffenol C + ansco 130.
every film i shoot b/w ( and now color )
relaxes and enjoys its cup of coffee for about 24-30mins.
the frames usually chat endlessly about what they saw when they saw the light
i can only stand so much so usually go up stairs and enjoy a cup of coffee as well.

YMMV

It can be 'freeing' to adopt a regiment that leaves variables out. I know I used to correct my times based on developer temperature. Then I had to keep track of both the temperature and the time. Now, I develop everything at 20C, so I no longer have to take notes on that or worry about it.

Varying dilution instead of time seems valid but image character changes depending on different dilutions. I don't see an advantage over varying time.

I would like to standardize all my development on a per-film basis, so if I can see by the film rebate that the film is Neopan 400 I will know that it was developed in Rodinal 50:1 for 8 minutes, for example. I think variable contrast paper eliminates the need to vary development for contrast most of the time, but there are still edge cases like extreme pushes or the need for a very fine-grain developer in my half-frame camera that throws a wrench into my plans.

Arnold Gassan did this in the '70's using standard agitation methods, and published it in his photo textbook, "The Handbook for Contemporary Photography". He used HC-110. It's been discussed several times here on APUG.

Google: 'Gassan contrast dilution HC-110'

Lee

everything old is new again...

And I thought remembering which of my passwords go with each site was tough.

http://jeffreyglasser.com/

jnanian said:

every film i shoot b/w ( and now color )
relaxes and enjoys its cup of coffee for about 24-30mins.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about Prescysol is that it develops to completion (or exhaustion - I'm not too sure) but even if you leave it in for twice as long as you should it still comes out fine.

I did this last week. I was developing a couple of rolls and I received a phone call from someone I had not seen or spoken to for 28 years. The film had an extra 15 minutes stand in the developer whilst we were talking and came out fine.


Steve.

Or just use Diafine!

I agitate by keeping the water-tight tank on its side and continuously turning it during processing (in a tempered water bath) so it is not necessary to have the solution cover all the film at the same time. Perhaps the water bath for B&W might not even be necessary (but I conform to this WB procedure because I also process color negative film at 100 F). Rolling it this way guarantees even development: (The reel is being continuously rotated (maybe one full turn takes about 10 seconds) like a Ferris wheel turns, in one direction.) Personally, I like an ambient temp of 80 F and have NEVER had a problem with

Click to expand...

The only water tight tanks I am aware of are Stainless Steel type. Maybe some of the Paterson type, IDK.

If using a SS tank, the reels may not rotate, just the outer shell. The tank must have some way of holding reels to the tank. The tank should also have some ridges to make the solution move. If its a smooth wall, very little of the solution will move.

JMHO

I do not understand why. Why make things more complicated? Why adopt a new method, for no apparent reason, and go through endless testing to calibrate?

Have I been sniffing too much hypo?

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

I do not understand why. Why make things more complicated? Why adopt a new method, for no apparent reason, and go through endless testing to calibrate?

Have I been sniffing too much hypo?

Steve

Click to expand...

I agree. Not sniffing anything, just why reinvent the wheel?

I've been using dilution only to alter contrast with highly dilute Rodinal for a couple of years now. This is with both minimal agitation using roll films and slosher tray development for sheet films. I find it advantageous because at high dilutions rodinal has a compensating effect and it seems to tame the high values without sacrificing shadow and mid-tone separation. Plus, in my mind (look out!) it's simpler. I mostly contact print and when I enlarge I've never minded grain... I forget where I first read about it, definitely not a new idea. Glad you're enjoying it though, that's what counts.

Lee L said:

Arnold Gassan did this in the '70's using standard agitation methods, and published it in his photo textbook, "The Handbook for Contemporary Photography". He used HC-110. It's been discussed several times here on APUG.

Google: 'Gassan contrast dilution HC-110'

Lee

everything old is new again...

Click to expand...

Cool beans, Lee. Very similar to what I've been doing with Rodinal.

Sirius Glass said:

I do not understand why. Why make things more complicated? Why adopt a new method, for no apparent reason, and go through endless testing to calibrate?

Have I been sniffing too much hypo?

Steve

Click to expand...

Well.... ok, but.... this is APUG: The very site where people post endless threads discussing how to perfect the technique of developing their own home coated emulsion by boiling it in a cup off coffee or letting it stand for three weeks in a developer based on their own urine before printing it using the periscope of a WW2 U-boat onto fogged 1950s Gestetner copier paper - and why not?

I personally haven't seen an advantage in the OP's suggestion, yet, but whatever floats your boat. Maybe we shouldn't be too critical of anyone who does their own thing, for whatever reason, if nothing else it is bucking convention. Taking the opposing view to it's logical conclusion we might end up pondering which was the most popular DSLR to be buying this month :eek:

I don't see a problem. It must be allowed to asked the question (Why?), if one does not see the benefit of a proposal, without calling it 'too critical'. Actually, a few benefits where proposed by some replies. So, there is a healthy exchange. It's all good.

It is a way to think about it, but it is far from new! There has been specific work and publication done on this very topic.

Aside from the specific work, I think that generally, most of us understand this already, though we do not practice it with fixed development times. We often choose a dilution that will give us results that we like, while keeping developing time within a certain range of what we find acceptable. We change dilution to change time. Thus we already know that changing dilution changes the amount of contrast that a film arrives at when it is developed at a fixed time. If it did not, when we changed dilution we would not change our times in order to arrive at a similar amount of contrast as we would get with another dilution.

I can see benefits in using dilution as the variable, while using a fixed time. It would not be much different than changing time. It would allow one to keep agitation exactly the same roll to roll. It would allow one to use a time of ones choosing, and to use it every single time. It is not that it is a bad idea. It is just that I will most likely not ever do the work required to learn how to do this with every film and every developer that I use. I am already pretty set doing what I do, and none of my development times are annoyingly long.

FWIW, I use a couple of main developers, and I do vary their dilutions quite often for different results, and sometimes solely for the purpose of changing developing time. I use Ilfotec HC/HC-110 at 1:15, 1:31, 1:64, or 1:127, all made up from stock solution. I use Rodinal (relatively new to me) at 1:25, 1:50, or 1:100, all made up directly from the concentrate. (I find Rodinal easier to mix from concentrate than HC-110, as it is "runny," and the amounts are easily measured with a small graduate, as opposed to necessitating a syringe, and then having to rinse a thick syrup out of that syringe.) I used to use D-76 straight, 1:1, or 1:3. I have used D-23 (also somewhat new to me) at 1:1, 1:3, and 1:7 (though I have not tried it straight yet). I use D-19 straight, 1:1, 1:3, or 1:7.

I may not use dilution directly to change contrast while using a fixed time, but I certainly understand that one can do this, because I use a change in dilution to change time while arriving at the same contrast.

steven_e007 said:

Well.... ok, but.... this is APUG: The very site where people post endless threads discussing how to perfect the technique of developing their own home coated emulsion by boiling it in a cup off coffee or letting it stand for three weeks in a developer based on their own urine before printing it using the periscope of a WW2 U-boat onto fogged 1950s Gestetner copier paper - and why not?

I personally haven't seen an advantage in the OP's suggestion, yet, but whatever floats your boat. Maybe we shouldn't be too critical of anyone who does their own thing, for whatever reason, if nothing else it is bucking convention. Taking the opposing view to it's logical conclusion we might end up pondering which was the most popular DSLR to be buying this month :eek:

Click to expand...

If someone wants to experiment great, post it! If someone thinks they found a better way, great, post it! I just cannot see an advantage for me, so I posted my comments to see if I had missed something.

Steve

steven_e007 said:

Well.... ok, but.... this is APUG: The very site where people post endless threads discussing how to perfect the technique of developing their own home coated emulsion by boiling it in a cup off coffee or letting it stand for three weeks in a developer based on their own urine before printing it using the periscope of a WW2 U-boat onto fogged 1950s Gestetner copier paper - and why not?

Click to expand...

Phooey. This is just slightly too long to make a good signature quote.

-NT

The effect of dilution on reaction rate in chemistry was documented long ago. So, yes, it will work. But I'll stick with my normal 1:2 XTOL and alter development times because I'm always certain that I have enough stock solution in the tank. And I can always use the same volume and tank size for all films.