Barry Thornton's Two Bath Developer question Part 2

MrBrowning · Jun 21, 2014

Bill Burk said:
MrBrowning,

I could have figured... It sounds like you really wished the negative had been developed N-1 and you probably actually developed it to Normal... I'm surprised by the curves, because it appears the process can give normal contrast and a long straight line... Good advice all around, great thread to follow.

It's a developer that I really like using. I have had great results up until that one roll. From the results I've had in the past normal development has been fine. It just got me thinking if I ever needed it where should I start.

And yes it has been a very good thread.

Rudeofus · Jun 22, 2014

MrBrowning said:
Thanks. I highly doubt I developed more than 15 rolls in it. I had 13 marked down but looking at where I may have made a mistake I thought it was a possibility. As for contaminating A w/ B I doubt it happened but again there is a possibility.

I once measured the amount of liquid being carried over between two bathes in a Jobo 1520 tank. With normal pouring I had about 15 ml liquid carry over, only with prolonged pouring and shaking I could cut this number below 10ml. These experiments were done with empty spindle, so expect even higher carry over when film is on your spindle. If we assume you carry over about 20ml per dev cycle, you will quickly see that after 15 rolls your Bath B will have profoundly changed its composition. Your bath B turned into D-23 with Carbonate/Kodalk/Borax/whatever.

Rudeofus · Jun 22, 2014

David Allen said:
There is a great difference between achieving full detail in the dark shadow areas (IF that is what you want) and achieving a good looking print if the shadows are unimportant to you. If the deep shadows are unimportant for how you want your photographs to look then your criteria in choosing a developer will be different. Crawley's FX-37 gives fantastic separation between the lower mid-tones and the bright highlights.

Modern films can trivially handle many stops of overexposure, remember that single shot cameras contain ISO 800 color negative film and no exposure control at all. Every stop overexposure will give you a stop more shadow detail, but the question is whether you can bring all that detail into a print. Prints can show about seven stops of dynamic range, into which you have to squeeze the 10-15 stops of dynamic range that your film can hold. Since your shadows don't reach brighter tones in your prints, we can safely assume that you don't give them more than three stops of dynamic range in your prints, and that's all your neg needs to hold.

I am a bit confused about your statements that devs which give you full speed lose shadow detail. Isn't the definition of full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure? I accept that you get pleasing results with BTTB and your exposure regime, the results speak for themselves, but this seems to be one of the cases where by coincidence a wrong explanation leads to desirable results.

David Allen · Jun 22, 2014

I am a bit confused about your statements that devs which give you full speed lose shadow detail. Isn't the definition of full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure? I accept that you get pleasing results with BTTB and your exposure regime, the results speak for themselves, but this seems to be one of the cases where by coincidence a wrong explanation leads to desirable results.

Hi Rudeofus,

The point that I was trying to make is that the level of desired shadow detail has a direct impact on how each photographer would define the effective speed of a film in combination with a particular developer and the tonal range that they wish to achieve.

Of the developers that I have used (by no means an exhaustive list) I have only found Cellar-Stella to deliver as true increase in film speed. By a 'true increase in film speed' I mean that it retains the level of shadow detail that I want at a higher EI than other developers give me.

I have found that, insufficient exposure for the important shadow areas results in insufficient shadow detail irrespective of whether I have used D76, HC110, a different replenishing two-bath, Perceptol, Crawley's FX-37 or BTTB. Therefore, for my purposes none of these developers deliver full speed.

However, the point that I was making about FX-37 and other developers that are claimed to be full speed is that, whilst they do not (in terms of what I want to achieve) deliver full speed, they do something else that is very useful. They deliver superb tonality with the remaining information on your film. By 'remaining information on your film' I mean that the photographer has chosen to loose the dark shadow information in favour of being able to get the image that they want and are using a developer that will give them excellent tonal separation across the dark mid-tones to the highlights (this, for example, is something where BTTB does not do a good job and is not the correct developer for this way of working).

Why would photographers choose to lose shadow information but still wish to have negatives with a dynamic tonal range? There are many reasons that range from needing to do this because of low light levels/needing to use a particular shutter speed through to it is how they want their images to look like (i.e. photographs that look like Ray Metzker's high contrast images or Daido Moriyami's or Anders Petersen's, etc). Naturally, this way of working is as equally valid as my, or anyone elses, way of working.

In conclusion, I have found the developers that I have used which claimed to deliver full speed higher shadow detail for a given exposure actually do not deliver this within the terms of what I want to achieve. For a photographer working differently, these developers may well deliver full speed within the terms of what they want to achieve. Everything is relative to what one wants to achieve.

To sum up, for the results I want Tri-X developed in D76 needs to be rated at an EI of 200 with the processing very carefully controlled to avoid blown out highlights. To get results like Anders Petersen you load up Tri-X in your Contax T3 shoot at ISO 400 and stew in in the developer to get a punchy tonality from the darker mid-tones through to the highlights. In my case I would say that D76 delivers half box speed. In Petersen's case he would say that D76 delivers box speed.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Rudeofus · Jun 22, 2014

David Allen said:
To sum up, for the results I want Tri-X developed in D76 needs to be rated at an EI of 200 with the processing very carefully controlled to avoid blown out highlights. To get results like Anders Petersen you load up Tri-X in your Contax T3 shoot at ISO 400 and stew in in the developer to get a punchy tonality from the darker mid-tones through to the highlights. In my case I would say that D76 delivers half box speed. In Petersen's case he would say that D76 delivers box speed.

I'm beginning to understand where you come from: you want good shadow detail and very controlled highlight density, so you can print without much burning&dodging. Since your scene brightness ratio is quite high, you would have to pull process (= underdevelop) with most regular contrast developers. Underdevelopment will give you reduced ISO speed, which explains your Tri-X/Delta400 @ EI200 ratings, and the claimed speed loss with Xtol and FX-37. The film developers which gave you acceptable shadow detail together with reduced highlight density were low contrast developers like Celer Stellar, and two bath developers like BTTB.

Now looking at BTTB, since it uses exhaustion phenomena to reduce contrast while shadows are fully developed, there is no reason that it has to lose a full stop of film speed. The reason it does that is because it starts with D-23, which is a fine grain, speed losing formula, and bath B can only recover some of the emulsion speed that was lost in bath A. AFAIK there are plenty of two bath formulas that not only give full speed, but that would also give full speed for your purposes.

baachitraka · Jun 22, 2014

Did you mean fine grain instead of speed in the last sentance...

Rudeofus · Jun 22, 2014

baachitraka said:
Did you mean fine grain instead of speed in the last sentance...

The way I formulated this was quite intentional: several developers that give box speed to must of us won't give David Allen box speed because he would need to underdevelop in order to control highlight density. A developer like e.g. Diafine would give controlled highlights AND full speed. Likewise, Michael R.'s low contrast developers give full speed and reduced contrast, although with a straight curve.

baachitraka · Jun 22, 2014

Thanks. May I know if I replace sodium metaborate with sodium carbonate(increase in contrast and grain), am I still under developing or what magic do sodium carbonate bring.

Rudeofus · Jun 22, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
I don't know, I'm reading a lot of very questionable things regarding exposure, film speed, shadow detail etc. here.

David Allen is one of these guys who deliver results, regardless of how flawed their underlying theory is. I therefore attempted to shed some light on his theories and what may be the true reason for his observations. Based on that he may be able to improve his process if he cares.

Bill Burk · Jun 22, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
I don't know, I'm reading a lot of very questionable things regarding exposure, film speed, shadow detail etc. here.

I think you're reading a lot of subjective information describing film speed... Where you are more familiar with interpreting sensitometric descriptions.

For instance what I hear when David Allen writes about increased speed with sacrificed shadow detail, sounds to me like something I define as "pushing". Everything he says makes perfect sense in that context. While I wouldn't categorize it as a real speed gain, the resulting prints have a look that many photographers love and the fact is you use a higher Exposure Index setting. So - no matter what you call it - I accept the discussion as a valid description.

When I think of "speed loss" or "speed gain", I think of a sensitometric comparison of film developed to ASA gradient 0.62 in two different developers - standard and the comparison - and the comparative shift of the curve where it crosses 0.10 density above base & fog. I'd expect a real speed loss if I took a standard developer and added Potassium Bromide or omitted Metol. I also expect a real speed loss from decades-old film - due to the fog which some films acquire with extreme old age.

I expect Michael R 1974's tests could show us the real speed loss or speed gain in different combinations of time in solution A and concentration of solution B of Barry Thornton's Two Bath Developer. And I would expect MrBrowning and David Allen could enjoy some real rewards from the graphs because they could help answer the original question, what combinations will achieve N-1 and N+1 development. Personally, I'd use a standard developer for N+1, but it's helpful to have full family graphs with some overlap.

Rudeofus · Jun 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
And I would expect MrBrowning and David Allen could enjoy some real rewards from the graphs because they could help answer the original question, what combinations will achieve N-1 and N+1 development. Personally, I'd use a standard developer for N+1, but it's helpful to have full family graphs with some overlap.

Mr. Browning already stated, that he reused Bath B about 15 times. Michaels test charts are most likely made with fresh soup, so they will not replicate Mr. Brownings results. Mr. Browning's perfect recipe would most likely be: "Use the same recipe as before, but replace bath B after a few rolls of film. If negs are important, use a fresh bath B."

baachitraka · Jun 23, 2014

If negs are important, use a fresh bath B."

I may know how important this statement is...

David Allen · Jun 23, 2014

David would have to show that a developer such as DDX is actually losing speed from a tone reproduction perspective, similar to the push analogy you made. But this is not the case. A developer like DDX shortens the toe slightly (compared with say D-76), and in Zone System parlance, Zone 1 is nearly on the straight line. There is an increase in deep shadow detail.

Michael, I couldn't comment authoritively on DDX or the other developers that I mentioned simply because I have not used them enough. For many years I exclusively used HC110 but, as my subject matter changed (from natural landscapes to urban landscapes), I was unhappy with the results I was getting and so set out to test a bunch of other developers. Generally, I found none of the developers that I tested provided any particular advantage over HC110 in terms of shadow detail, tonality, etc. The one developer that did stand out for me (i.e seemed most suited to my way of working) was a two-bath developer formula (based on a replenishment system). This (rather complicated formula) then became my standard developer until I came across BTTB developer. This gave me the same results as the other two-bath developer but with the added benefit of it being very simple and cheap to make.

I think all David can really say is he prefers to downrate the film because he develops to a lower-than-normal gradient for less burning at the printing stage, which results in a loss in effective film EI (I'm not saying this is necessarily true either, but most of us do it anyway).

I have no idea if I am developing to a lower gradient as I do not undertake sensometric tests. All that I can say is that I process in each Bath for 5 minutes and this gives me negatives that print very easily of Grade III when using an Ilford 500 diffusing head on my enlarger. The prints demonstrate a full range of tones with minimal requirement for dodging or burning. In general, I print on a slightly harder grade for exhibition prints as that is the look that I prefer.

In this example, placing the shadow area under the barbed wire and the underside of the lamp on Zone III placed the white wall in full sunlight on Zone IX - X. Nevertheless full detail was retained throughout on the negative. When I did my first test print (using my tested minimum black time) the shadows and highlights demonstrated both detail and good micro-contrast. For the exhibition print, I did a bit of graduated burning-in on the left side to make the image more balanced and did a bit of burning-in on the bottom right corner to give that area a bit more weight.

I would have thought that, if I was developing to a lower-than-normal gradient, then the image would not demonstrate such a dynamic range and the feeling of intense sunlight. However, as I stated earlier, I am not one to do technical tests with a densitometer but fall in the camp of those who prefer practical tests out in the field (no disrespect for Michael and the others that test differently - it is just how I have always worked).

David.
www.dsallen.de

Bill Burk · Jun 23, 2014

David Allen said:
I would have thought that, if I was developing to a lower-than-normal gradient, then the image would not demonstrate such a dynamic range and the feeling of intense sunlight.

Looks like a print from a well-exposed negative that was developed to a normal gradient... I would bet that you have so much shadow detail that if you look at the negative, you could make out the shape of the light bulb.

David Allen · Jun 24, 2014

Bill Burk said:
Looks like a print from a well-exposed negative that was developed to a normal gradient... I would bet that you have so much shadow detail that if you look at the negative, you could make out the shape of the light bulb.

Hi Bill, that is what I am thinking. I presume that full development in BTTB should give a normal gradient - although I have no way of testing this.

For web use, I re-photograph my exhibition prints with a Sigma SD9 and then adjust to match the prints as well as possible. However, I am well aware that everyone's monitor is different (generally I find that the images tend to look slightly darker and slightly softer on Windows machines in comparison to my Mac). Nonetheless, I would think that the overall dynamic range would come across.

Visually, the exhibition prints tend to look quite contrasty (think perhaps of Adams' later printing style or the typical difference between tonal taste in more eastern parts of Europe / Japan and that of the UK, France, etc) but you can see detail in both the shadow and highlight areas.

Here are two details to show the shadow information from the original SD9 copy of the exhibition print.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Rudeofus · Jun 24, 2014

David Allen said:
Hi Bill, that is what I am thinking. I presume that full development in BTTB should give a normal gradient - although I have no way of testing this.

The term "gradient" assumes that your density curve is a straight line, and that is most likely not the case with two bath developers. You get normal to high contrast in the shadow regions, and decreasing contrast as you go towards the highlight sections.

Xmas · Jun 24, 2014

Rudeofus said:
The term "gradient" assumes that your density curve is a straight line, and that is most likely not the case with two bath developers. You get normal to high contrast in the shadow regions, and decreasing contrast as you go towards the highlight sections.

Maybe but please see the HD's kindly provided by Michael, for his post bath experiments

posts #45 & #53 earlier

Not what Id have expected either

baachitraka · Jun 24, 2014

@Michael: General question, May I ask what is your general opinion on two-bath developers?

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 24, 2014

2 bath developers piqued my interest. I have a couple questions. Ive heard older films have thicker emulsions and these formulas are also old so I'm wondering if that's the case, 2 bath developers don't behave the same on new emulsions? What's the difference between a 2 bath developer vs stand development at a high 1:100 dilution for an hour?

I've had pretty good luck with stand development with HC-110 1:100 for an hour. I only develop with this method for high contrast shots. I've always exposed my film to avoid blowing out the highlights, but sometimes the I have to tame the contrast of the scene.

Xmas · Jun 24, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
2 bath developers piqued my interest. I have a couple questions. Ive heard older films have thicker emulsions and these formulas are also old so I'm wondering if that's the case, 2 bath developers don't behave the same on new emulsions? What's the difference between a 2 bath developer vs stand development at a high 1:100 dilution for an hour?

I understand your comment but the thin emulsion effect does not seem to occur...

Xmas said:
Maybe but please see the HD's kindly provided by Michael, for his post bath experiments

posts #45 & #53 earlier

Not what Id have expected either

maybe not everyone understands H&D curves is the other problem.
They look like nice results...

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 24, 2014

I might consider using Thorton's two bath developer

Xmas said:
I understand your comment but the thin emulsion effect does not seem to occur...

maybe not everyone understands H&D curves is the other problem.
They look like nice results...

This is going to be another tool I'll use. But I gotta test the film/developer combo before it's useful. Sure faster than stand development for an hour. I thinking the grain will be less due to the shorter development time.

David Allen · Jun 25, 2014

2 bath developers piqued my interest. I have a couple questions. Ive heard older films have thicker emulsions and these formulas are also old so I'm wondering if that's the case, 2 bath developers don't behave the same on new emulsions?

I have read this so often in discussions on the internet. The authors state with 'authority' that, because newer emulsions are thinner it MUST be the case (even Thornton made this assertion when discussing the Stöckler formula variant of two-bath developer). Of course it never seems to occur to anyone that this is an irrelevance for T-Grain emulsions as they weren't even around when Stöckler and Adams formulated their developers. I would have thought that the example photographs that I have posted in this thread clearly demonstrate that it works with today's film and delivers excellent results. It might be the case that it doesn't work the same as it did with older films but, nevertheless, it works fine with contemporary emulsions.

maybe not everyone understands H&D curves is the other problem.

This is exactly why I prefer to post actual photographs - other than providing me with very generalised comparative data H&D curves do not 'speak' to me in the way that looking at an actual photograph does. Whenever someone tells me something as a 'fact' I prefer to see examples so that I can judge for myself. For example, if you follow John Blakemore's advice you will have a very good chance of achieving images like his. I personally find Blakemore's printing style too soft for my taste. Therefore, having seen actual examples of his work (in exhibitions and books), I respect his philosophy of approach and recognise his technical command of the medium but would not want to produce my photographs in accord with the tonality that he prefers. Another example was the accepted 'fact' prevalent in the days when I used to be a member of a Photo Club (some 40 years ago) that you should always have a piece of old photo paper in the easel when you focus your negative otherwise you would not get a properly sharp image (due to the difference between negative to easel and negative to paper distance). Now anyone who has needed to correct converging verticals by tilting the easel will know that, at common apertures used for printing, there is a wide latitude within which everything will remain sharp (at least in practical terms).

This is going to be another tool I'll use.

'Tool' is a very good term to use. Every developer has its own characteristics and this is why one photographer will choose one and another photographer a completely different one - after all, there is no point using BTTB developer if you want your images to look like those of Mario Giacomelli.

But I gotta test the film/developer combo before it's useful.

Ultimately this is what all of us have to do. Sure, it is worth reading books and threads on the internet to get an idea of how a particular combo will work and to find what photographers whose work you like use themselves. Once you have seen a range of images using the combo that you are interested in using, then you need to test how it works for yourself.

In terms of testing BTTB developer, if you look at my post #22 I would hope that there is enough information there to give you a good working starting point both in terms of exposure and the processing sequence. If you have your own testing sequence then use this as it will give you results comparable to other film/developer combos that you have previously tested. If not, you can find the sequence that I use here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Best,

David.
www.dsallen.de

baachitraka · Jun 25, 2014

Image Gradation comes to my mind, when considering how important H&D curves are. There is a chapter in 'Beyond The Zone System' book, which may give a perfect idea on this topic.

David Allen · Jun 25, 2014

Michael R 1974
David, the problem is posting a print or a negative tells you very little unless there is something to compare it with. Even then, there are still all the variables involved in getting to the print besides the negative developer. Not to mention the printing preference of the photographer. I don't see any evidence of enhanced shadow or highlight detail in the posted examples vs what could be done with plain old D-76.

Michael, I agree that without direct comparisons (i.e Here is a scene exposed at X processed in Y and here is the same seen exposed at X and developed in Z) the only things that can be assessed from a posted image are:

If it appears to have a full range of tones.
How a particular scene is rendered.

The aim of the posted images were:

To demonstrate that BTTB works.
To illustrate (through image and words) the exposure used for a given scene and that all tones are printable.

I am sure the images that I posted could also be achieved with D-76 or any other brew someone likes.

What, as I have just realised, has not been mentioned so far on this thread is WHY I prefer BTTB. When I used to do large format natural landscapes, I would process in HC110 and adjust development for each individual negative. One of the reasons that I became unhappy with HC110 was that I switched to urban landscapes using medium format. On a given day when I go out to make photographs, I might go through several rolls of film in roughly equivalent light. Other days I might only make a few photographs in varying lighting conditions and then finish the film on another day with completely different lighting conditions. The problem was that, from my previous experience of using HC110, I could adjust the development to compensate for any one of the scenes that I had photographed. What I couldn't do is adjust the processing to suit all of the scenes.

This is where, after testing, I landed on two-bath developers. Whatever the science, or indeed wild claims made by many advocates that two-bath is perfect for everything, my experience is that by exposing for the level of shadow detail I want and processing for a fixed time in BTTB developer, I achieve 100% printable negatives (success rate of seeing images is another question) without having to bracket, do new tests (unless I change my camera - last time was 13 years ago) or worry that they will be difficult to print / be underexposed / have blown highlights / etc.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

baachitraka · Jun 25, 2014

David, is is not giving some sort of expansion and contraction when you shoot at different lighting conditions and process with BTTB.

I presume we do exactly the same if we test and establish the developments time say for N=7 stops SBR with single-bath developer and see where the rest falls(SBR < 7 or SBR > 7).

Barry Thornton's Two Bath Developer question Part 2

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency