This shows that everything we see on the Internet should be assumed to be pure horse crap. It gets crazier everyday. As far as film, follow manufacturer's instructions. Science, peer reviewed robust proofs. We are inundated with so much nonsense on TV, Internet, social media. I have no doubts that crazy empiricism "proves" things, the sun orbits the earth, canals on Mars etc. Click bait.I stumbled upon this blog post not long ago and I can’t help but wonder if it actually carries weight:
http://analoguephotolab.com/find-the-dev-time-for-any-film-in-any-developer/
Has anyone tried this? Does it actually work?
My instinct says it would be so imprecise it would be no more useful than just guessing, but I’m just guessing!
It also seems to me that if it really worked it would be better known. Anything that sounds too good to be true usually is, after all.
Has anyone ever heard of this? Has anyone actually found it to work?
And what do you do when there is no manufacturer's information available?This shows that everything we see on the Internet should be assumed to be pure horse crap. It gets crazier everyday. As far as film, follow manufacturer's instructions. Science, peer reviewed robust proofs. We are inundated with so much nonsense on TV, Internet, social media. I have no doubts that crazy empiricism "proves" things, the sun orbits the earth, canals on Mars etc. Click bait.
Hi all--
I am the author of the blog post you linked above. I thank you all for the comments!
Back in 2015 I was looking for development times and temperatures for very old films that I can't find in massive dev chart or in my books -- Gevapan 30, ORWO TF-8, Ilford Mark III, etc. I was browsing APUG and came across this method. I surely remember I found it on couple of other sites as well. I will check my old notes for the sources. It was also cited by an experienced photographer here https://www.facebook.com/groups/448657628590589/permalink/621157498007267/?comment_id=621580107965006&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"} (that is the only source I remember easily). I am sure you will be able to translate it from Bulgarian.
It could have been a total coincidence that this method gave me a starting point for development several times. I was using very old films and developers like ORWO A-03 and A-49, if that matters.
Now, I will put a link on the post to this discussion here so that anyone can see adverse opinions.
Thank you once again for all comments!
Vesselin
This shows that everything we see on the Internet should be assumed to be pure horse crap. It gets crazier everyday. As far as film, follow manufacturer's instructions. Science, peer reviewed robust proofs. We are inundated with so much nonsense on TV, Internet, social media. I have no doubts that crazy empiricism "proves" things, the sun orbits the earth, canals on Mars etc. Click bait.
Thank you, Vesselin, for chiming in here!Hi all--
I am the author of the blog post you linked above. I thank you all for the comments!
Back in 2015 I was looking for development times and temperatures for very old films that I can't find in massive dev chart or in my books -- Gevapan 30, ORWO TF-8, Ilford Mark III, etc. I was browsing APUG and came across this method. I surely remember I found it on couple of other sites as well. I will check my old notes for the sources. It was also cited by an experienced photographer here https://www.facebook.com/groups/448657628590589/permalink/621157498007267/?comment_id=621580107965006&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"} (that is the only source I remember easily). I am sure you will be able to translate it from Bulgarian.
It could have been a total coincidence that this method gave me a starting point for development several times. I was using very old films and developers like ORWO A-03 and A-49, if that matters.
Now, I will put a link on the post to this discussion here so that anyone can see adverse opinions.
Thank you once again for all comments!
Vesselin
I’m pretty busy over the next several weeks. Hopefully we’ll have other things to argue over in the meantime.I think you should absolutely try it, then post your results and let us all have something to argue over!
Yes we'll always have that on Photrio or probably any forum these days but I'd be interested to see the results of your experiment. As Matt has said, working out times for "old film" where no manufacturer's info is available can be well nigh impossible so if you have hit upon a test that is even close to producing acceptable results then it will have been worthwhile.Hopefully we’ll have other things to argue over in the meantime.
I've done a lot of night photography, and there is a perfect example of adjusting the developing time to control highlights. In this example I cut the recommended time almost in half.I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'.
And this is the reason I was intrigued in the first place. I use fresh film and known, proven times for important stuff but I also like to experiment with old, expired film for fun.* Up until now I’ve done pretty well with educated guessing but I’m open to the possibility that something seemingly hairbrained might work. Since I don’t have high expectations I have little to lose other than a few inches of film, some developer and a bit of time.As Matt has said, working out times for "old film" where no manufacturer's info is available can be well nigh impossible
That’s really pretty clever. Thanks for posting it!I am surprised no one mentioned the following no-assumption method. I know it since I was a teenager, but do not have a reference. You start with a film in a cartridge which has some leader already out, and in the dark pull out a little more, so that the entire length is 15 cm or so. Cut off and load this short piece in a double-spiraled reel, so that it is securely held in place. Now, suppose for a Paterson tank and a 35mm film you need a minimum of 240 ml of developer. Split this into 120, 60 and 60 ml, or use a graduated pickle jar that has marks for these volumes to add from a master bottle. Pour in the 120 ml portion first and develop for 10 minutes, minimal agitation, then pour 60 ml and develop for another 10 minutes and finally the last portion and develop for another 10 minutes. Agitation is minimal, and obviously is not done by inversion. Stop/wash and fix as usual. You will get a piece of film with three density fields, which correspond to 10, 20 and 30 minutes of developing time, wherein the fogged leader shows you the time when it becomes dense and the unexposed portion tells you the maximum time you can develop without fog. From this point you may need to either do 20, 40 and 60 minutes, if the darkest piece of fogged leader is still brownish and transparent, or if the first 10 minute field already has a dense leader, you repeat the procedure using 5 minute increments. This procedure also tells you if you really need an antifoggant, in case you are trying some antique developer and/or film. Obviously, you may need a finer graded third round, too.
It resembles a super simple secret for baking pizza. Sure, when it starts turning black and you see smoke, it will be done, regardless of the specific ingredients involved. But will it taste any good?
YES! THANKS, THIS MADE MY DAY.It resembles a super simple secret for baking pizza. Sure, when it starts turning black and you see smoke, it will be done, regardless of the specific ingredients involved. But will it taste any good?
I worked for Raytheon Appliances (Amana) we had a bunch of really brilliant folks get transferred from Raytheon's Advanced Technology Center in Lexington MA to Amana Iowa in the early 90's .Secret ingredients in the pizza aside, if you timed when you saw smoke, you are on the right track, aren't you?
The pizza and toast mode was a problem. As the toast started to turn dark there was about 3 to 4 seconds to detect it and shut off the lights, any delay resulted in charcoal
I've done a lot of night photography, and there is a perfect example of adjusting the developing time to control highlights. In this example I cut the recommended time almost in half.I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'.
I worked for Raytheon Appliances (Amana) we had a bunch of really brilliant folks get transferred from Raytheon's Advanced Technology Center in Lexington MA to Amana Iowa in the early 90's .
I worked with this group as I was in a material science/technology/chemistry/pot scrubber position.
These guys came up with a cook by light oven that would make a medium rare 24 oz Ribeye in about 2 minutes. Cooked from all sides, 240V 50A.
The pizza and toast mode was a problem. As the toast started to turn dark there was about 3 to 4 seconds to detect it and shut off the lights, any delay resulted in charcoal
The first Raytheon microwave ovens required cooling water for the magnetron tube. There's a spin off company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa called Amtek. They make 40 - 50 kW industrial mw units. All the precooked bacon you buy is prepared this way, continuous belt travels down a 25-30 foot tunnel. 4 inch heated pipe to harvest the drippings . The Raytheon guys were pretty fun. I went to Lexington a couple of times. Diamond windows for missile spectroscopy etc. Amana was the "Russian Front" career wise for these guys. Almost everyone grew to enjoy Iowa.Use a 3.0 ND to slow it down.
I understand that the first Microwave Ovens were so fast cooking that they had to really scale the energy down.
PE
Use a 3.0 ND to slow it down.
I understand that the first Microwave Ovens were so fast cooking that they had to really scale the energy down.
PE
I am surprised no one mentioned the following no-assumption method. . You start with a film in a cartridge which has some leader already out, and in the dark pull out a little more, so that the entire length is 15 cm or so. Cut off and load this short piece in a double-spiraled reel, so that it is securely held in place. Now, suppose for a Paterson tank and a 35mm film you need a minimum of 240 ml of developer. Split this into 120, 60 and 60 ml, or use a graduated pickle jar that has marks for these volumes to add from a master bottle. Pour in the 120 ml portion first and develop for 10 minutes, minimal agitation, then pour 60 ml and develop for another 10 minutes and finally the last portion and develop for another 10 minutes. Agitation is minimal, and obviously is not done by inversion. Stop/wash and fix as usual. You will get a piece of film with three density fields, which correspond to 10, 20 and 30 minutes of developing time, wherein the fogged leader shows you the time when it becomes dense and the unexposed portion tells you the maximum time you can develop without fog. From this point you may need to either do 20, 40 and 60 minutes, if the darkest piece of fogged leader is still brownish and transparent, or if the first 10 minute field already has a dense leader, you repeat the procedure using 5 minute increments. This procedure also tells you if you really need an antifoggant, in case you are trying some antique developer and/or film. Obviously, you may need a finer graded third round, too.
I believe by “double-spiral reel” he’s simply referring to a typical stainless steel reel. There’s a spiral on each side, hence, double spiral.I have read this several times and I am still confused. Can I state what I have made as assumptions and ask questions that do not seem to be covered.
1. When you pull out 15cm in the dark, this is in addition to the fogged(i.e. exposed leader)? So on development for the times stated you have both exposed and unexposed film?
2. What is a double spiralled reel is onto which you feed the film and how does this differ from the usual reel? In the usual reel, using the quantities of developer stated you will get the film developed in stages but in a lateral direction not a vertical direction so for judgement purposes you are relying on one third of 24 mm of film to make the judgement? In a double spiralled reel the agitation is not by inversion so how else do you do it. Do you need a twirling stick which I think only old Paterson reels have? This may be connected to the use of a double spiralled reel, hence my question at the start of point 2. Have I got this correct?
3. Does fogging matter to the extent of establishing a fogging time? Can you not print through fogging as others have stated?
Thanks for your additional coverage of my questions
pentaxuser
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?