Any truth to this?

[Pentode]

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?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Never heard of this. I nearly laughed out loud when I read it.

There is a method in which you can make a wild guess at the TOD by using a strip of film that has been fogged, but it is a WAG. I may have even posted it here, but I would have added precautions. He may be wildly misquoting that.

It involves looking for development on the BACK of the film, not the front. And, I have found that you need some sort of image, not overall fog.

PE

 

[artonpaper]

And if one considers the old adage, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights," this has nothing to do with producing good, printable negatives.

 

[Ian Grant]

There was a technique based on the initial emergence time, usually used for printing but it would work for films as well, probably OK with old pre WWII emulsions which were typically give more exposure and longer development than we do today. I think the factor varied depending on the developer type.

Ian

 

[Rick A]

I once tested a clipping in this manner, to see if my developer was still active. It did not get lighter at first, it only got darker, until it reached max density. I think this will turn into internet mythology.

 

[Pentode]

I think this will turn into internet mythology.

Well, he posted it back in 2016 so it’s escaped myth status so far!

Honestly, I had no fantasy that this really worked but I had to ask.

 

[Ian Grant]

I once tested a clipping in this manner, to see if my developer was still active. It did not get lighter at first, it only got darker, until it reached max density. I think this will turn into internet mythology.

Some (most) unexposed film will look darker dry and if immersed in water will become lighter, it's similar to dry down with some papers, it's the same when immersed in developer before there's noticeable development.

It's not a myth, you can find the technique in many old books.

Ian

 

[Truzi]

I vaguely remember some threads similar only in describing how to find development times. They were nothing like that article, though, and required careful examination of a test strip after dry-down.

 

[pentaxuser]

He says he started analogue 3 years ago so depending on the date of that part of his website it suggests that he found the method on APUG as little as 3-4 years ago. He mentions Argentine pesos as well so is he an Argentinian who visited APUG a little over 3 years ago. Is it possible to interrogate Photrio to find Argentinians who may have asked questions leading to replies that lead to his method of working out development time?

For someone who only came to analogue 3 years ago he certainly has done a lot

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I vaguely remember some threads similar only in describing how to find development times. They were nothing like that article, though, and required careful examination of a test strip after dry-down.

I have a similar recollection.
But I can't find them.

 

[jvo]

i can personally attest that it works,,, also, that pigs fly!!!

 

[Photo Engineer]

When you soak a film in any liquid, it will become lighter in color due to the leaching out of the many dyes incorporated into it during manufacture. This is normal and is not related to development.

PE

 

[Arklatexian]

Never heard of this. I nearly laughed out loud when I read it.

There is a method in which you can make a wild guess at the TOD by using a strip of film that has been fogged, but it is a WAG. I may have even posted it here, but I would have added precautions. He may be wildly misquoting that.

It involves looking for development on the BACK of the film, not the front. And, I have found that you need some sort of image, not overall fog.

PE

Well now, PE, if Kodak would reintroduce Verichrome (not Verichrome Pan), by using a red safelight, you could develop by inspection, maybe by watching the film base. I would gladly forgo that pleasure if they would just bring back Verichrome Pan 120 and forget about Kodachrome........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

i can personally attest that it works,,, also, that pigs fly!!!

So do houses and horses!........Regards!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

sorry but, I didn't understand this part:Take 50 – 100 ml of the developer you would like to use and pour it in a glass. Put half of the film in the developer and start the clock. First, the part of the film in the developer will become lighter and lighter. As the time goes, the developed part of the film will get darker. At the moment when wet and dry parts get similar at their density, stop the clock

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I once tested a clipping in this manner, to see if my developer was still active. It did not get lighter at first, it only got darker, until it reached max density. I think this will turn into internet mythology.

that makes more sense.

 

[KN4SMF]

In his book series The Amateur Photographer's Handbook, Aaron Sussman, Morgan and Morgan, described a procedure for determining development time in a manner that didn't seem so hairbrained as the link in this thread. It's been many years, but I do recall a page where he even provided a table. I remember as a teenager in the early 70's brimming with vigor for photography, where I tried it. It did work. I read the procedure in the link of this thread. Didn't think much of it.

 

[baachitraka]

sorry but, I didn't understand this part:Take 50 – 100 ml of the developer you would like to use and pour it in a glass. Put half of the film in the developer and start the clock. First, the part of the film in the developer will become lighter and lighter. As the time goes, the developed part of the film will get darker. At the moment when wet and dry parts get similar at their density, stop the clock

It was confusing for me at first, then it is like dipping a part of the film into the developer, turns the film lighter at first and over the time it becomes darker...

 

[Ian Grant]

When you soak a film in any liquid, it will become lighter in color due to the leaching out of the many dyes incorporated into it during manufacture. This is normal and is not related to development.

PE

While that's true for many modern films just dampening the emulsion will usually cause it to lighten.

Ian

 

[Rick A]

I just ran a clip test using three pieces of film. I placed two in water, one emulsion side up and the other emulsion side down. The piece with emulsion up did not appear to change color, while the one with emulsion down did appear to lighten a bit. After one minute in water both looked the same. After three minutes I removed both from the water and they still match the dry piece, no discernable change.

 

[removed account4]

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?

I've heard of it, never tried it. It might work. The blog you linked to is nearly 3 years old, why not write to the author and see how well it worked, or burn a roll of film and test it ?

 

[BMbikerider]

And if one considers the old adage, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights," this has nothing to do with producing good, printable negatives.

I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'. I only very rarely changed the developing times except for other reasons. The reasoning for this being if the shadows had detail enough to print well, then the highlights could always be burnt in afterwards. This is largely what I tried to do with my non AF cameras The Matrix metering of the AF ones nearly always seemed to do the job reasonably well.

 

[vesselingeorgieff]

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/448...d=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

 

[baachitraka]

Do you use any light source to visualize the densities...

 

[vesselingeorgieff]

Do you use any light source to visualize the densities...

No, just the normal light of the room.