Barry Thornton's Two Bath Developer question Part 2

[David Allen]

and the situation is even more nebulous when it comes to two-solution Metol-sulfite-alkali development. I've seen virtually no good data, testing, or even sound theory for what most people say.

Sorry Michael, nothing personal meant but I personally have never found densitometer readings, characteristic curves, photographs of Macbeth tests, etc very stimulating - good images is another thing altogether because I look at good photographs with great relish. Of course the developer that you use and gives you the results that you want is the 'best' developer and we are very lucky with our medium in that there are so many combinations out their to suit every taste. As to theory, well Ansel Adams was pretty shaky in many areas quite often getting things quite wrong but, whether you personally like his work or not, the technical prowess and technique cannot be argued with.

However, to suggest that there has been no good testing of Two-Bath developers in general and Barry Thornton's in particular is a misnomer. True there may not have been much in the way of scientific lab-based tests but there are hundreds of thousands of real world practical tests (I prefer to call them successful images that the photographer has chosen to print) that demonstrate that BTTW works exceptionally well for the people who want the results that it gives. In my case it has, for many many years, consistently delivered negatives that suit my image making. It has also been a winner was many of the people I have taught. Not always, of course, because each student has different ideas about what they want. If you want images that look like Daido Moriyama or Anders Petersen the BTTW is not going to get you very far and this is but one of many examples of needing to choose the correct developer for the results that you want to achieve.

I think the key point here is that the OP was asking for advice on how to improve results using BTTW developer. In the main what the OP got was advice not to use this developer which then inevitably leads everyone else to speak up for their own preferred developer. What would be really great is if photographers with experience of BTTW developer could contribute with their own experiences with a clear explanation of how they use it, why the continue to use it or, if after really working a lot with it, they chose to work with a different developer.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This thread was not to discuss the merits of homebrew vs commercial developers.

Perhaps not but there seems to be more questions being posted for non-commercial developers. For those photos that are very important which group of developers do you use?

 

[MrBrowning]

Perhaps not but there seems to be more questions being posted for non-commercial developers. For those photos that are very important which group of developers do you use?

So you hijack my thread to voice your opinion?

To answer your question I use the developer that best suits my needs which 9 out of 10 times is BTTB. I have few exceptions to that but that's not the point.

Now my turn. Why does it bother you so much when someone wants to do something other than what you think is right?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So you hijack my thread to voice your opinion?

Well really it's not your thread. Everyone who posts to a thread becomes part of it. Each thread takes on a life of its own and the OP has little or no control over it. This is as it should be. The more comments that are posted the better chance of a positive outcome. My concern is as it always has been to encourage people to do their very best in the craft of photography. You may be comfortable with BTTB but others may not. This developer is not as well documented as one would wish.

BTW one post out of 32 is hardly high-jacking a thread. But I will refrain from further comment.

 

[MrBrowning]

Well really it's not your thread. Everyone who posts to a thread becomes part of it. Each thread takes on a life of its own and the OP has little or no control over it. This is as it should be. The more comments that are posted the better chance of a positive outcome. My concern is as it always has been to encourage people to do their very best in the craft of photography. You may be comfortable with BTTB but others may not. This developer is not as well documented as one would wish.

BTW one post out of 32 is hardly high-jacking a thread. But I will refrain from further comment.

I'll concede that the word highjack was a bad choice. I should have used derail.

The quantity of comments does not guarantee a positive thread. It's the quality of comments that makes a thread positive.

The whole reason for the thread (and my previous one on this developer) is because it's not a well documented developer so the only way to get more information is to ask. It comes across, at least to me, that you feel this developer is not worth someones time and therefore should never be used. In no way does this help with the questions I posed.

Please feel free to continue to comment if you can help me better understand the developer. I do not want a "pissing match"over whether or not it's a good or bad developer. I would like to learn from people who have more experience with it than I do.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It comes across, at least to me, that you feel this developer is not worth someones time and therefore should never be used.

No, but it's use is more problematic, at least, for me. I prefer to spend as little time in the darkroom as possible. I therefore try to standardize on one or two developers that are well documented in their behavior. I encourage people to do the same taking the advice of Ansel Adams to heart.

I applaud your endeavor to collect information and sincerely wish you success. This is what is needed. Jerry

 

[Xmas]

I'll concede that the word highjack was a bad choice. I should have used derail.

The quantity of comments does not guarantee a positive thread. It's the quality of comments that makes a thread positive.

The whole reason for the thread (and my previous one on this developer) is because it's not a well documented developer so the only way to get more information is to ask. It comes across, at least to me, that you feel this developer is not worth someones time and therefore should never be used. In no way does this help with the questions I posed.

Please feel free to continue to comment if you can help me better understand the developer. I do not want a "pissing match"over whether or not it's a good or bad developer. I would like to learn from people who have more experience with it than I do.

Information is going to be difficult.
Not many people use it, my use was with D25 - because I had a stock bottle.
It has more variables, two independent times instead of one.
The effect of the borax bath may be film dependent, I did not see a large (any) dependency, between the films I tried.
Barry needed to document it better.
You need a half dozen H&D curves for each film you use.
But
If you have a set up shoot avoid high dynamic range. Know where North is plan the shoot time, use reflectors.

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

 

[Bill Burk]

MrBrowning,

I'm a densitometer type, D-76 1:1 and like the simplicity of one bath and the only decision I have to make is how long in it... I won't impose that on a Barry Thornton Two Bath thread...

But is the bright background compositionally important? Maybe it "just doesn't matter" and you can print it paper white. Another choice is to make the child in shade actually appear pictorially as if he is in the shade. And just do a little dodging so he's not impossible to make out from the shadow.

 

[David Allen]

You may be comfortable with BTTB but others may not.

I think this is the gist of this thread that is being missed. The OP stated that he was happy using BTTB developer but wanted to understand other people's experience with it.

This developer is not as well documented as one would wish.

What further documentation is needed? There are a large amount of successful images out there where the photographer has used a two-bath developer. Technical investigation has it's place and, without all of the hard work by technicians at Kodak, Ilford, etc, we would all still be working with films rated at 12 ASA. However, I would suggest that, for photographers actually working out in the field, it is their real world experiences with any given film/developer combination that is far more important.

No, but it's use is more problematic, at least, for me. I prefer to spend as little time in the darkroom as possible. I therefore try to standardize on one or two developers that are well documented in their behavior.

I love to spend time in the darkroom printing but have always found film development something of a boring, if rather essential, chore. That is why I have settled on one developer that gives me the results that suit my needs. Through using a single camera/film/developer combination I have my own documentation of the behavior and characteristics of BTTB developer. That, of course is not much help to others, so I think it would be helpful if I explain what I like about this developer:

• I am not keen on visible grain and this developer delivers fine grain.
• I like my images to look sharp (I generally go for lots of depth of field) and the acutance of this developer suits my work.
• When processed in a repeatable and consistent, manner it gives a predictable result that you can rely on.
• It allows me to achieve a tonality that I like very much (for example many years ago, when I used to do large format landscape work using FP4 and Tri-X in HC110 Dilution B, I found that I almost always needed to use a Minus Blue filter to render the skies how I wanted them and, with BTTB developer I no longer need to use any filters. The skies fall just perfectly on the grey that I like).
• For me I can meter the darkest area that I want on Zone III and then do not have to worry about the highlights burning out (hence my surprise that the OP had this problem).

Not many people use it

May be the case but I personally know quite a lot of people who use it happily. Thankfully, as you can mix it easily yourself, how many people use it is not as important as with commercially made developers that require enough people to buy it for it to remain on the market.

Barry needed to document it better.

In what way? He made the formula available for free for people to try themselves and published many examples of the results that he achieved with it. Given that Thornton (along with many other photographers writing about technique) quite often justified things with not necessarily the correct theoretical basis, I think the popularity of his courses, books and formulae were actually down to people using what he suggested and found that it worked.

You need a half dozen H&D curves for each film you use.

Why?

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[Xmas]

I think this is the gist of this thread that is being missed. The OP stated that he was happy using BTTB developer but wanted to understand other people's experience with it.

You have not read the OPs first three posts or forgotten: the OP had one specific question, which you may well know the answer to but you prefer to dissemble instead.

I'll answer your other queries properly if you decide to help the OP fair exchange

 

[gorbas]

Back to OP question: the best way to have N- development with this kind of developer is with borax in B bath as few other people already suggested. When I tried BTTB first time I found that Kodalk is just too active for my taste. Unfortunately I did not try to lower amount of Kodalk in bath B next time.
And to keep topic of Two bath developers going, does anybody is using two bath developers with bigger capacity tanks, like paterson 5 or 8 - 35mm rolls with out using "dip & dunk method" (open the tank in darkroom and transfer reels to another pre filled tank with solution B).

 

[Xmas]

Back to OP question: the best way to have N- development with this kind of developer is with borax in B bath as few other people already suggested. When I tried BTTB first time I found that Kodalk is just too active for my taste. Unfortunately I did not try to lower amount of Kodalk in bath B next time.
And to keep topic of Two bath developers going, does anybody is using two bath developers with bigger capacity tanks, like paterson 5 or 8 - 35mm rolls with out using "dip & dunk method" (open the tank in darkroom and transfer reels to another pre filled tank with solution B).

Barry's site says sodium metaborate 12gm/l is that Borax or kodalk?
Yes I use 5 and 8 tanks for processing pour out bath A into stock bottle with funnel, pour in bath B borax...
True the bottom film gets longer in solution but I vary by leaving in bath B to completion, and I was using D25.
note do have two tanks moving eight wet reels in dark way to difficult

 

[Xmas]

Sodium metaborate is Kodalk. Borax is sodium tetraborate.

Just to give one example of some test results, attached is an extract from a series of experiments I did (documented in a thread somewhere on here) on divided Metol-sulfite/alkali development. I was trying to test the various variables/controls with the aim of clarifying at least a few things, since there is so much conflicting information around regarding times, agitation in each bath, etc. There are many variables.

In this particular test (using the Stoeckler fine grain formula where bath A is similar to Thornton, D-23, etc., the idea was to keep everything constant except the alkali in the second bath. Note these were sensitometric tests so I did not evaluate differences in image structure.

Hi Michael

Thanks twice over the H&D was more than useful.

Noel

 

[john_s]

Sodium metaborate is Kodalk. Borax is sodium tetraborate.

Just to give one example of some test results, attached is an extract from a series of experiments I did (documented in a thread somewhere on here) on divided Metol-sulfite/alkali development. I was trying to test the various variables/controls with the aim of clarifying at least a few things, since there is so much conflicting information around regarding times, agitation in each bath, etc. There are many variables.

In this particular test (using the Stoeckler fine grain formula where bath A is similar to Thornton, D-23, etc., the idea was to keep everything constant except the alkali in the second bath. Note these were sensitometric tests so I did not evaluate differences in image structure.

Thanks Michael. It looks like a useful speed enhancement as a result of the second bath. I realise that it's a higher contrast but not grossly so. Would I be correct in thinking that the speed enhancement is much more than longer development just in bath A?

 

[David Allen]

You have not read the OPs first three posts or forgotten: the OP had one specific question, which you may well know the answer to but you prefer to dissemble instead.

I'll answer your other queries properly if you decide to help the OP fair exchange

Dear Xmas,

Perhaps you have missed my earlier post #22? - I would regard that as a pretty comprehensive answer covering exposure, the different Bath B solutions and the processing sequence that I use. I could not add more without seeing the original negative.

And that is why when photographers write books about technique, they should simply tell you how they do it and stop there. When they go beyond that and tell you how their techniques work, what the chemistry is doing, etc, they are often wrong. This applies to some pretty big names.

Hi Michael,

I couldn't agree more. Too often one reads that X developer is fantastic because of Y theory without a detailed practical explanation of how the photographer actually uses it (i.e. explaining what film speed is used, how exposure is determined, whether plastic, metal or deep tanks are used, type of agitation given, etc, etc).

It is for this reason why I set out in my post #22 how I do things (given that OP is getting blown out highlights and I do not). I have no in-depth knowledge of the chemistry but know that when I teach people my exposure/processing system and they follow it without making changes, they achieve comparable results to mine. This is also why I set out my processing sequence together with two images explaining how I metered them in the hope that the OP could compare what he does to what I do to identify why he is getting blown out highlights - something I have never observed with either my own negatives or other people that I know who use BTTB developer.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Rudeofus]

Thanks Michael. It looks like a useful speed enhancement as a result of the second bath. I realise that it's a higher contrast but not grossly so. Would I be correct in thinking that the speed enhancement is much more than longer development just in bath A?

Longer development in bath A will give you the results of regular D-23 development - which means a speed loss of about two stops (I'm ready to get crucified by D-23 disciples for stating this :munch. If you look at David Allen's statements, he puts lowest shadow detail into Zone III, not Zone I, which tells me he also loses about two stops (correct me if I'm wrong, David).

We have seen from Michael R.'s low contrast dev threads, that underdevelopment gives much reduced film speed, so I would not over interpret his chart with regard to "Bath A only" development.

 

[David Allen]

If you look at David Allen's statements, he puts lowest shadow detail into Zone III, not Zone I, which tells me he also loses about two stops (correct me if I'm wrong, David).

Not quite Rudeofus as 'a loss of two stops (when using BTTB developer)' depends on whether the box speed is appropriate for one's working methods, the subject matter and also how this compares to other developers. Previously, I have used D76, HC110, a different replenishing two-bath, Perceptol, Crawley's FX-37 and Michael Maunder's Cellar-Stellar. With the exception of Cellar-Stellar, I found that various films processed in all of these developers required more exposure (than indicated by the box speed) IF one wished to retain good shadow detail. I used Cellar-Stellar for a while, when I was working on a project with a Leica M3, in combination with Pan-F (this was in the early 1980s) and my tests indicated a personal EI of 80. The Cellar-Stellar negatives looked rather 'thin' but retained very good shadow detail and printed very easily on Grade III Argenta paper using a Leitz Focomat with condensors

I have undertaken tests to determine the correct EI for Delta 400 in my Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens, my meter (Weston V), my metering method and developed in BTTB developer for 5 minutes in each bath. My personal EI is 200.

My metering method is to meter the area where I wish to retain some shadow detail (note: not the darkest shadow in the scene) and then place this on Zone III:

In the first image on post #22 which is in daylight, I metered the shadow area at the bottom of the chimney and placed this on Zone III. I chose not to retain detail in the doorway at bottom right nor in the reflection of the scaffolding at top right.

In the second image on post #22 which is at night, I metered the shadow area of the tree which is slightly to the left of the centre of the image and placed this on Zone III.

Of course this explains my methodology but doesn't give other photographers much idea of how many stops I 'loose' compared to what they do. To give some idea here is a quick explanation:

In Berlin, on a bright sunny day, there is often a big difference between a grey plastered wall / dirty brickwork in shadow and a white wall in full sunlight (as in the first photograph). Here I will typically find that placing the shadow area where I wish to retain detail on Zone III will result in the white highlight falling on Zone X. I do not worry about this wide subject brightness as experience has shown me that BTTB developer will retain detail throughout. As an indication to other photographers, my typical exposure (such as in the first photograph) will range between 1/125 @ f16.5 to 1/60 @ f16.5 depending upon how much shadow detail I wish to retain (usually quite a lot). In an image containing a lot of shadow area the previous exposures will still apply. However, if the scene comprises of very very small areas of shadow (where it does not make sense to retain detail) and lots of mid-tones and highlights the exposure is more likely to be 1/250 @f16.5.

Hope that explains everything.

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[gorbas]

Michael R, thank you very much for sharing this sensitometric curve. Very interesting results!! It made me very curious, so this morning I mixed fresh batch of BTTB with Kodalk and borax B baths. You are right, more testing is necessary.
I'm one of the photographers that believes that 2 bath developers can deliver in "right situations" better results than any other traditional developer. In mid '80 I needed high energy developer for the project all done with available, tungsten light. It was impossible for me to buy Diafine or Tetenal Emofine so I found some two bath formula and made my own. It had 100g of Potassium carbonate in bath B. In it, I processed ORWO NP-7(movie stock, daddy of ORWO N-74), NP-27 and Kodak Tri-x. Grain wasn't a problem at all even on bigger enlargements. Later, when I had chance to use Neofin and Diafine I noticed they had way more energy then my own home brew. Last year I revisited that project and scan it. You can see results here:https://flic.kr/s/aHsjF21y2k

 

[MrBrowning]

Thank you David and Michael for both of your help.

As I stated before this is the first time I have had and issue with BTTB. I can only assume that somewhere I deviated from my normal routine without realizing it. Last night I developed a roll if Tri-X I had laying around and finally shot and the results were very good as I expected they should be. There was 6 stops between the side of the building I shot and the sky and I had no problems using normal development.

I did mix a new batch before developing this roll. Which makes me wonder if some of bath b had contaminated bath a or if I had developed to many rolls in the last batch would either of those have been the cause of my problem? Assuming I had done everything else right?

Bill,

With some cropping the picture is fine looking however it loses some context.

Again thanks for the help everyone.

 

[David Allen]

I did mix a new batch before developing this roll. Which makes me wonder if some of bath b had contaminated bath a or if I had developed to many rolls in the last batch would either of those have been the cause of my problem? Assuming I had done everything else right?

Yes and yes and no. Contamination of Bath A by Bath B will cause you problems - specifically too much contrast or, if I understand the chemistry correctly, Bath A becoming a developer that advances the contrast too far and then Bath B becoming a redundant extra developer.

Too many rolls through Bath B will not have caused your blown out highlights as putting too many rolls through Bath B will result in underdeveloped negatives/too little contrast. To make this clear, Bath A is capable of processing much more than 30 rolls. However, Bath B is ONLY capable of processing 12 rolls with predictable results. It is for this very reason that I mix 1L of Bath A and 2L of Bath B. I then process 12 films with Bath A and first batch of Bath B then proceed to process another 12 rolls with the same Bath A but with the second litre of Bath B. Bath A could probably work for at least another 24 rolls but why take the chance when the chemicals are so cheap??

Best,

David.
www.deallen.de

 

[Rudeofus]

I have undertaken tests to determine the correct EI for Delta 400 in my Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens, my meter (Weston V), my metering method and developed in BTTB developer for 5 minutes in each bath. My personal EI is 200.

That actually lines up nicely with Michael R.'s latest plot which shows BTTB to be about a stop faster than D-23. With D-23 losing about two stops, this would lead to Delta 400 having 200 speed with BTTB. Let me say, though, that I am a bit puzzled about your statement that FX-37 gave you a speed loss ...

 

[Bill Burk]

With some cropping the picture is fine looking however it loses some context.

Again thanks for the help everyone.

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.

 

[David Allen]

Let me say, though, that I am a bit puzzled about your statement that FX-37 gave you a speed loss ...

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. If your way of working is such that the deep shadow areas are unimportant to you then Crawley's FX-37 is a great choice. It will give you an effective EI that is equal or more than the box speed. However, this is ONLY because you are choosing to ignore the deep shadows (which of course is fine as many photographers like this look and tailor their technique to suit). If you wish to record and use the dark shadow areas then you will need to give more exposure (including FX-37) and this may then give you problems with blown out highlights. Exactly what I meant with my previous post, achieving good shadow detail with most developers requires adequate exposure. If this is not your aim, then there are many developers, such as DDX, that will allow you to sacrifice shadow details but still give you a great negative in terms of the remaining tones.

Horses for courses . . .

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[john_s]

That actually lines up nicely with Michael R.'s latest plot which shows BTTB to be about a stop faster than D-23. With D-23 losing about two stops, this would lead to Delta 400 having 200 speed with BTTB. .................

But don't we generally find that setting meters to a film speed of half ISO about right in just about any normal developer (unless we're in a distinctly low light indoor situation)? I regard half ISO to be the real speed even with Xtol, Pyrocat-HD and, in the past, others.

 

[MrBrowning]

Yes and yes and no. Contamination of Bath A by Bath B will cause you problems - specifically too much contrast or, if I understand the chemistry correctly, Bath A becoming a developer that advances the contrast too far and then Bath B becoming a redundant extra developer.

Too many rolls through Bath B will not have caused your blown out highlights as putting too many rolls through Bath B will result in underdeveloped negatives/too little contrast. To make this clear, Bath A is capable of processing much more than 30 rolls. However, Bath B is ONLY capable of processing 12 rolls with predictable results. It is for this very reason that I mix 1L of Bath A and 2L of Bath B. I then process 12 films with Bath A and first batch of Bath B then proceed to process another 12 rolls with the same Bath A but with the second litre of Bath B. Bath A could probably work for at least another 24 rolls but why take the chance when the chemicals are so cheap??

Best,

David.
www.deallen.de

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.

Thanks again.