Any truth to this?

[mshchem]

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?

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

And what do you do when there is no manufacturer's information available?
vesselingeorgieff's post makes it clear that the method arose out of the desire to figure out a way to determine times for old and unusual films whose manufacturers are no longer in existence - some of which have no information available.
It is certainly possible that this method predicts workable results for some films in some developers. The predictive ability of the method may be well founded in science and general in application, it may be well founded in science but only valid for certain combinations, or it may be an unpredictable coincidence that can't be relied upon.

 

[mshchem]

I developed 6 sheets of 5x7 Plus-X film the other day expr. 1983. Followed the instructions for XTOL, worked perfectly, of course the perfectly developed images had at least 2 stops of fog on the entire sheet.
I'm a scientist, so I will stand by my statement. People who are playing can do whatever pleases.

Get out the instant coffee and a Ouija board. .
Peace, Mike
P.S. By my own definition, I am full of crap.

 

[mshchem]

Professional Logician

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php

 

[removed account4]

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

Hi Vesselin
Thanks for the post ! It's great to hear that you were able to get a starting point from the suggestions. Whether it was a coincidence or not, it worked, and that is what's important. Unfortunately the world is full of skeptics and often times the skeptics don't try things to see if they work, they just say things don't work...

Nice blog BTW !
John

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.

Sure there are people who make stuff up, but that happens in the science community as well ( 7 cities of troy, mercury in childhood innoculations &c ). I can't tell you how many posts I have read about "golf ball sized grain" &c from using Dektol or Ansco 130 to process film, and it is about as far from the truth as it gets. Also claims that BW film HAS TO BE refrigerated or frozen or it goes bad. There are a lot of people who peddle, nonsense, and some of the nonsense has been peddled for decades.

I have a somewhat novel idea ... how about when people hear of something, even something outlandish that sounds crazy, well, they try it on their own to see if it works instead of suggesting its all hogwash?

YMMVFTSOTW
John

 

[artonpaper]

I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'.[/QUOTE]
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.

Bicycle Tracks in the Snow

• artonpaper
• Mar 11, 2011
• 15

Shot with a 4 x 5 Toko view camera. Enlarged on Forte Warmtone, gold toned.

 

[Pentode]

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

Thank you, Vesselin, for chiming in here!

While the entire process still seems rather empirical and rife with variables (how accurately can we judge the color of the emulsion, etc...), your success has me curious enough to experiment a little; when I next have time I’ll try two or three emulsions that I already know the development times for and see how close this method gets. If it lands within +/-20% I’d say that’s close enough for a rather loose starting point.

Now, before any of you start freaking out and insisting that if I don’t follow the manufacturer’s express instructions the world will stop spinning, please understand that when I develop my film I do just that (when such information is available). This test would be for fun, entertainment and curiosity only. Such a test will be far from scientific so I promise the results will not threaten your conventions in any way.

 

[Pentode]

I think you should absolutely try it, then post your results and let us all have something to argue over!

I’m pretty busy over the next several weeks. Hopefully we’ll have other things to argue over in the meantime.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hopefully we’ll have other things to argue over in the meantime.

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.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'.

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.

Bicycle Tracks in the Snow

• artonpaper
• Mar 11, 2011
• 15

Shot with a 4 x 5 Toko view camera. Enlarged on Forte Warmtone, gold toned.

[/QUOTE]
Outstanding !

 

[Pentode]

As Matt has said, working out times for "old film" where no manufacturer's info is available can be well nigh impossible

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.

*Who am I kidding? It’s all for fun.

 

[Pixophrenic]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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?

 

[Pentode]

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.

That’s really pretty clever. Thanks for posting it!

 

[Pixophrenic]

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?

Secret ingredients in the pizza aside, if you timed when you saw smoke, you are on the right track, aren't you?

 

[Sirius Glass]

From the website, read the last paragraph:

Technical February 28, 2016
Find the dev time for any film in any developer

A method I found on http://www.apug.org and am using since then goes like that: take a 5 – 10 cm piece of the film you want to test. It shall be completely exposed to light. 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. The time, in seconds, multiply by 20. This is you development time for this film and this developer in seconds.

After a discussion on www.apug.org (now www.photrio.com) that this method is not a trustworthy one, I feel like you shall know all opinions there. Here is the link to the thread:


https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/any-truth-to-this.166454/#post-2166295​

 

[mshchem]

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.

 

[mshchem]

Secret ingredients in the pizza aside, if you timed when you saw smoke, you are on the right track, aren't you?

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

 

[removed account4]

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

Maybe if it was cooked by "test strip" as detailed in the OP or above the technologists might have been able to do it. They could have put the equivalent of a ND filter infront of their light source, like those weirdos who use film cameras do with those fractional-stop and shutter thingies, so their light sensitive film strips don't get too much light.

 

[KN4SMF]

I always read it as 'Expose for the shadows, let the highlights take care of themselves'.

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.

Bicycle Tracks in the Snow

• artonpaper
• Mar 11, 2011
• 15

Shot with a 4 x 5 Toko view camera. Enlarged on Forte Warmtone, gold toned.

[/QUOTE]
Man I like that. Tell us how you metered it. Where you metered at the scene. Anything else you can recall. What kind of meter could even work in darkness like that? Camera used, film, developer. Everything.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

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

 

[mshchem]

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

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.

 

[removed account4]

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

They sure did! and they kept melting the operators candy bars.

 

[pentaxuser]

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 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

 

[Pentode]

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

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 read it pretty much the way you did. I assumed the agitation would just be a twisting motion. Since this is intended to arrive at a rough starting point I’m not sure the agitation is all that mission-critical. There would have to be some fine tuning in the long run anyway.

What I’m really wondering is whether this method or the one I linked to in the OP really saves any time or effort over simply guessing at a starting point based upon similar emulsions with known, available data.