correct. a bit of sensitometry work doesn't hurt any, but expectations should not be too high.
Exactly. The OP will learn something that is going to be meaningful to him - it won't mean nearly as much by just reading literature on the subject. Let him be!
Be systematic. This means, expect to do a lot of work...
Determine which development times and agitation schemes you will use for each developer. In doing so, you may want to standardize on a specific gamma/contrast for each film tested across all developers. After all, it won't make much sense to compare e.g. HP5+ developed to a gamma of 0.8 and to a gamma of 0.5 in terms of grain appearance, and then concluding it has something to do with the different developers used. You'd have to develop to the same gamma in both instances - or alternatively use a single developer for both contrasts to say something about grain.
In other words, you seem to be focusing on "developer" as the independent variable of your investigation, but you'll have to think about other factors that influence the end result as well ("confounders"). If you don't control for these, there will be no end to the discussion about whether you did it right (which, arguably, you wouldn't have) and the results will never quite convince.
So one of the first steps will be to establish a development process for each developer and film combination that gives the same gamma - and you'll have to do some assumptions (and standardize on those, too) in determining gamma, since the curve shape produced by the different developers will be a little different. Reading up on sensitometry and densitometry will be required, and you will have to fashion some kind of densitometer and provide for a means to expose your film in a controlled way (this can be with a step wedge, contact printed with a known/stable light source) in order to perform sensitometry.
Another issue worth mentioning is the choice of dependent variables. What kind of differences will you be looking for? Presumably something like granularity, H/D curve shape, effective film speed, rendering of fine detail (or whatever proxy of 'acutance' you may choose) and perhaps one or two more things. Having picked those, you'll have to operationalize, which means choosing the indicators you'll use to measure/observe these variables. How are you going to observe or measure granularity in such a way that it allows for a systematic comparison?
I also concur with the comments made by others to very critically review the scanning process and perhaps even do what @Steven Lee suggests: skip it altogether. It'll still leave you with the challenge of making the comparison visible, but in part you can solve this through measurement (e.g. curve shape, densitometry). In part, it's quite feasible in the darkroom since it's straightforward to make identical prints from similar negatives, and you won't have any black box of scanner software and firmware (auto exposure!!!) that can spoil the broth.
Putting all this in a conceptual model can help spot the (1) complexity of the task and (2) prepare for the project by identifying the various factors that can influence the end result. A partial model could look like this:
View attachment 365761
Mind you; you can debate whether certain variables are moderator or independent variables (/antecedents), and the model is also not quite complete, since it omits for instance anything related to measurement of the end result. What it does show is the risk of the 'capital offense' of picking a developer, not minding about the rest, making some scans and then proclaim that "Developer X does Y on this film". So much happens in-between and around that (very indirect) relationship as to make any such conclusion void, really.
Alternatively, don't mind all this, just soup some randomly exposed film (street scenes or so) in whatever developers you fancy and have some fun doing it. It'll be a whole lot easier and probably a lot more fun, but please, if you choose this approach, don't draw any conclusions from it. I hope the argument above and in particular the (partial) conceptual model explains why this wouldn't work well.
If you want to proceed with the project, I'd suggest to keep it simple and limit the project to ONE type of film and 3-4 developers, max. Standardize all the rest, and be super clear and consistent on the choice of variables and indicators and your observation/measurement methods. Consider that if you add just one more type of film to the list, the table of all possible combinations explodes since it'll be based on the cartesian product of the factors chosen. One film and four developers is four options, provided you standardize all the rest in a sensible manner. Two films and four developers already makes eight options, and so on.
Finally, since setting up the whole shebang concerning control variables (determining development process parameters so you get comparable outcomes) and indicators, I'd suggest splitting up the project into two parts: a preparatory project in which you determine the test procedures and conditions, and a second phase where you can do the actual work. If you do phase 1 properly, phase 2 will be a straightforward taks and the results will basically just roll out of the project.
Hope this helps. Also, feel free to just go out and have fun with your camera instead. Ask yourself what the added value is of knowing that developer X gives slightly tighter grain on film Y when scanned in scanner Z. It's not going to make a better photograph. Then again, if you find this kind of systematic test fun (which I can very well imagine, and to an extent I even share that inclination), by all means go ahead.
Steepness of the H/D curve. You measure it by plotting the H/D (exposure vs. density) curve and then determining the gradient of the curve. This involves making an assumption of which part of the curve you'll assess.
That's perfectly fine. The outcomes of the test will be wildly debated if you publish them, so you'll just have to accept that as a matter of course. It's still fine, evidently.
Most of what you get in a negative is baked into the film, choosing a developer can enhance, contrast (tone, dynamic range), film speed, shadow detail, accuance (apparent sharpness and grain. Some developers have more or stronger sliver solvents that can made grain more produced. The downside is that the greater gaps between the remaining silver in the gain means that the edge become ragged or look less sharp. Middle or the road developers such as D76, ID11, HC110, Xtrol provide a balance of film speed, shadow details, film speed and grain. Other develops much as microdol X, Edwal 20 (no longer made) and ILford Perceptol are solvent developers, they were popular in the 50s to the early 80s when fast films such as TriX and HP5 had larger grain. Developers know for sharpness like the Crowley and Acufine have less solvents and provide shaper images with larger gain. Then are developers that a used to extend contrast range, such as Photographers Formulary DI 13 which is Phil Davis low contrast developer used for Tmax 100 in the BTZ system
I would set up classes such as general propose such as D76, HC 110, Extol, and their clones, ID 11, ILford Tech HC, then a class for developers used for acuancy, the Crowley formulas, Rodinal, DK 50, Acufine, then staining developers. Then you have divided developers, like Diafine, Divided D76, and D23. Then there are the odd balls like Edwal 12 and MCM 100. You also need to research to find a bench mark to judge you results. ILford, Kodak have specialized units with equipment to measure resolution, grain size, speed, and contrast.
Not my experience which I have written about on Photrio many months ago. I found it went to a pale straw colour as opposed to colourless. At that stage it isn't quick as efficacious as new but still produces very reasonable negatives on which if I recall correctly, Matt King suggested that an increase in dev time might well compensate for
How much more yellow you can afford to allow Xtol to become I have no idea as I had already had over 15 months usage and decided to dump it
pentaxuser
X-Tol doesn't change colour when it loses capacity.
But other than as a consequence of some earlier, some packaging related problems, it does last well. I've had no problem with X-Tol lasting more than the recommended 6 months, but it is reasonable enough in cost to make it a policy to discard any unused portion after 6 months.
With any test, one first needs to determine the dependent and independent variables of each test.
Will you be testing for speed, granularity, sharpness, dynamic range or something else?
How will you measure the parameters for which you are testing?
Many properties of film are affected not only by developer composition, but also by gamma.
How will you ensure gamma stays the same throughout the test?
One can attend a wedding and enjoy the wedding OR on can photograph a wedding. Similarly one can test films and developers OR one can enjoy photography. One or the other but one cannot do both.
This is a completely futile task which will tell you nothing.
Why is equal contrast so necessary? What if the differences in contrast were interesting?
The test could be to shoot all the film at box speed and use typical dilutions for each developer. That will tell us something, even though it would confound some other comparisons., like "image quality", as in post #15. Contrast could be adjusted in printing, and that would simplify the procedure in #15.
As mentioned several times, the amount of effort depends on what differences are important to the photographer.
Well, no. He will learn to what degree image traits are "baked in to" films, and how much (or how little) influence the choice of developer has on the outcome. Some would say "but we already know how the choice of developer affects image qualities! There's nothing new to be learned here", and strictly speaking, this is true.
But if the OP wants to see these things for themselves, why would you want to discourage the OP from pursuing this experiment??
Paul Howell has a good suggestion: "I would set up classes such as general propose such as D76, HC 110, Extol, and their clones, ID 11, ILford Tech HC, then a class for developers used for acutance, the Crowley formulas, Rodinal, DK 50, Acufine, then staining developers. Then you have divided developers, like Diafine, Divided D76, and D23."
I'd compare D-76 (the standard for which all films are calibrated - a solvent formula), Rodinal (or HC-110), PMK (or Pyrocat HD), one of the Divided (two bath) developers like Divided D-23 (Or Thornton), and maybe FX-15 (or FX-37). Choosing a representative from each of the distinct classes of developers will tell you more than comparisons between developers of the same class.
It's to some extent natural for many of us (incidentally including many of us who have gone down these rabbit holes) to discourage this sort of endeavor for various reasons. However I don't think "holy grail"/"go make some pictures" is the right discouragement angle. Unless I missed it I don't think OP's goal is to find the best silver bullet whatever, but rather to learn something. If the experiments are done carefully, things can be learned, and the process itself can be interesting. The fact most careful workers will come out the other end of the tunnel more or less back where they began, isn't necessarily a reason not to do this work.
Exactly. The OP will learn something that is going to be meaningful to him - it won't mean nearly as much by just reading literature on the subject. Let him be!
I think we have all fallen for the search for the holy grail of film/developer combinations. One thing I have noticed is that my best negs were not the result of some magical film/developer combination but came about because of exquisite lighting. I'm pretty boring these days. FP4+ with D 76 1:1. A boring scene won't be saved by some mythical film developer combo but if you manage to photograph the right scene in the right light it won't matter what film and developer you are using, you'll probably come home with some negs that will be worth printing. I brought a densitometer years ago and did the obligatory Saint Ansel film tests. At the end of the day the old school advice to rate your film 1 stop less than advertised (Tri X at EI 200) and develop about 10-15% less than the recommended will get you good negatives. Another thing I've learned in my 40+ years of B&W is to forget about the idea that a good neg prints on grade 2. I have negs that are killer on grade 4. Trying to tailer development to get a good print on grade 2 is a path to misery. Just my 2 cents worth.
Define your goals. You can easily spend the rest of your life testing film, developers and the development process. If this is something you want to do, great. There are very good books on sensitometry and I would recommend starting there.
You can take a more pragmatic route of, say, finding a combination of film and developer that works best for you and your style of photography. You might find that measuring a few characteristic curves and then taking a few test shots to assess grain, sharpness, acutance etc. is all you need. While a sensitometer and densitometer simplify this task, you can totally do without these expensive instruments and get away with a calibrated step wedge and a camera. Alternatively, find a good lab that can expose your film in a sensitometer and measure the densities for you. This will eliminate a lot of uncertainty in your results leaving just those that come from your film processing.
where can i find a list of al ldev types? how can I identify and solvent from non solvent type devloper? a geenral purpose from specialty developer?
Probably the best resources are one of two books. First is Way Beyond Monochrome by Ralph Lambrecht (who also posts here) and Beyond the Zone System by Phil Davis - any of the 4 editions is fine. Either of these will tell you much about the way film speed is developed and defined and how to determine contrast and why it matters.I'm prob not going to do all of this, I'm gonna run the test and look for the ~vYbE~~. if I like the ~vibe~ I'll stick with that developer. however, I am interested in learning bout gamma and all that stuff but tbh I'd rather take a class or something. unless you have some documents you can point me toward?
I'm afraid you'll be spending a lot of time and effort to find nothing new. What are you trying to accomplish? Go out and create some images instead. I know what I'm talking about,having been an atestomaniac myself
did yo udraw this whole diagram just to express your point? if so thank you that is very kind an very thorough
I used the hammer of my scientific education to drive in nails to the coffin of my own work as an artist because that was what I could do best.
correct. a bit of sensitometry work doesn't hurt any, but expectations should not be too high.
I can't help but think the whole process will become a circular inner monologue. So decide on the photographers you like and follow up on their techniques and materials, it can be done on a wet weekend smashing the internet instead of in the darkroom.
hello all. I'm planning to buy many developers and running an experiment that will test the differences in all of them.
I was hoping for some advice and ideas on how best to run the experiment.
I'm planning to use a filmomat 2020 to develop the films
and scanning on an imacon 848 (making the levels flat from end to end)
I'm going to shoot one or two scenes and was planning on using TX400 possibly hp5, and tmax as well.
I also have an hs1800 but feel that the imacon will produce less biased results (per film) but lmk if that's not true.
I'm planning on having:
perceptol
tmax dev
hc110
ilfotech-3/ilfosol 3 forget the name
DDX
photographers formulary (like three)
d76
cinestill monobath powder version
and any other suggestions would be welcomed.
thank you!
thinking about this a bit more, would it be me, I would ask one of the new AI software for support. Chat GPT or Brutus AI are very good at this kinda thing! If you lack access, let me know and I'll do it for you andsend you the answer. rlambrec {at} ymail.com. just saying.
Seriously, who would recommend surfing the web instead of doing some honest work in the darkroom, on THIS forum?? Am I reading this right??!
Yes you are reading it right. Why is it necessary to make work harder than it needs to be? I mean if you want to learn the Zone System you read a book don't you? If you want to mix your chemicals you read the instructions don't you? You don't experiment based on a vague theory (maybe you do?). I was suggesting getting a head start and then focus only on the developers and film that match the type of images the OP likes, not buying lots of developers in a scatter gun approach.
Steve, the OP has also had very intelligent recommendations to get a copy of A&T's Film Cookbook, which I think is a very wise next step. At least he will go into the experiment well-armed with the right information. I see no reason not to pursue his experiment, for the sake of seeing for himself what A&T discuss in the book.
So cookbook or wider delve into the internet, the principle is the same, so what the hell does it matter that you that you decide to kick off?
One film and two rather different developers kept me busy enough.
Get The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop. It will answer all these questions.
The Film Developing Cookbook
Probably the best resources are one of two books. First is Way Beyond Monochrome by Ralph Lambrecht (who also posts here) and Beyond the Zone System by Phil Davis - any of the 4 editions is fine. Either of these will tell you much about the way film speed is developed and defined and how to determine contrast and why it matters.
My thought exactly. I had a densitometer and sensitometer among other things and did a lot of systematic testing myself. In the end it told me to just not overdevelop my film (which I tended to earlier) and stick with very basic things and slightly optimize from there but mainly stick with manufactureres recommendations. Had I invested that effort into my creativity and skill as a photographer it had payed off much better.
But I used the hammer of my scientific education to drive in nails to the coffin of my own work as an artist because that was what I could do best.
Yes, I did. Thanks, and no, it's not very thorough; it's in fact rather quick & dirty and quite debatable, but mostly meant to make more tangible what you're up against. For instance, it shows that some informal tests like you're planning will show differences for sure, but these differences aren't really attributable to the developer used unless you control for a couple of key factors. If you don't, all you can say is "I developed this film differently than that one" and that'll be it. To reproduce any desirable outcome, you'd have to reproduce the exact way of working with the same materials the next time. So not only are the theoretical gains of informal experimentation limited, they often also have severe limitations from a practical perspective.
Mind you, it can still be fun and I encourage you to go ahead - see what you can pick up in terms of knowledge in the process, as it will certainly help your understanding one way or another. Having said that, I'd like to emphasize, in big, bold and flashing letters the following bit:
To clarify - there's nothing wrong with that, either - if you set out to be a competent coffin maker.
Seriously, who would recommend surfing the web instead of doing some honest work in the darkroom, on THIS forum?? Am I reading this right??!
Yes you are reading it right. Why is it necessary to make work harder than it needs to be? I mean if you want to learn the Zone System you read a book don't you? If you want to mix your chemicals you read the instructions don't you? You don't experiment based on a vague theory (maybe you do?). I was suggesting getting a head start and then focus only on the developers and film that match the type of images the OP likes, not buying lots of developers in a scatter gun approach.
Gentlemen, please.
Not sure if OP is still around but Kodak’s Basic Sensitometry Workbook (Tech Pub H-740) would be a useful read.
[Regarding the Film Developing Cookbook] I wish it included the formula for microphen though.
I think we're on seperate pages in terms of I'm not concerned about being scientifically objective
Good news: It has the formula for what some believe is Microphen, but it's under a different name: "Ilford Replenishing Developer", on page 164 of the 2nd edition.
I suggest comparing it with the formula for ID-68 given on the prior page.
If you mix it with tap water, you can prevent cloudiness (precipitation) by adding 1 g/L of disodium EDTA.
Mark
That's fine. It reminds me a bit of how "research" works different / has a different meaning in the arts world. From a scientific perspective, artistic 'research' is meaningless. I imagine from the viewpoint of an artist, scientific research likewise is doomed to yield very little insight in true meaning!
I think perhaps the one thing I'd like to add to all this, is to reflect for a bit what you might want to learn in the process. Not literally what you'll learn, of course, because then you wouldn't have to even get out of you chair. But what kinds of things, along which lines, so to speak. This may give some direction to your experimentation. There's so much stuff you could do when it comes to testing/evaluating materials - and so much of that is just plain uninteresting, boring, tedious legwork. I think it make sense to cherry pick the bits that appeal to you, specifically. You've got the liberty to do this, after all, so best enjoy it, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?