Barry Thornton's two-bath question about time and temperature

[Alex Benjamin]

@Alex Benjamin: I intend to put some Tri-X through. I have been holding off using it until the Kentmere stuff is used up. I am excited to use Tri-X again. Anyone know if this film has changed during the years?

As far as I know, last time Kodak made changes to the Tri-X emulsion was in 2007. There are a few threads about that on Photrio.

Tri-X: Old vs. New?

I recently read that Kodak re-engineered their classic Tri-X 400 to have less silver content. (No year was given.) The article said that the older Tri-X had a classic "look" to it that has since been lost in the new formula, which is more lifeless. Does anyone know of any images that...

www.photrio.com

 

[What About Bob]

I developed some Tri-X yesterday and made a few sample prints in the wee hours of today.

Camera used was a Yashicamat 124G that I recently bought from a member here. Tri-X was exposed at EI 250, developed in Barry Thornton's two-bath D-23 for 4:30 in both baths, 12 grams of metaborate per liter of bath B and developed at 73F/22/7C. I went with EI 250 because I have been using Kentmere at that EI. Paper was Kentmere VC Select Luster developed in homebrew D-72 at 1:3.

It was an overcast day. I will have to do more testing on a bright sunny day. I have been reluctant with bringing any camera and equipment outdoors because the temps have been in the 20s and lower teens for a little while, with winds. Yesterday was in the 30s and today was in the 40s. This coming Thursday shows sun and temps in the early 40s. This would be the time to get out there for the second testing.

#1 Court House - I didn't notice the guy there. He yelled "HEY!" just before I snapped the picture.
1/30 at f/9

#2 Paul at church - He didn't even know I was there. Snuckaroonie
1/30 at f/13

#3 The Happy Frog - That is one chill frog. One year someone broke into the frog and stole the cash. At that time he was known as the Starving Frog.
1/30 at f/9

#4 Left over pumpkins - Handheld shot. The leftovers that never got sold at the local convenient store that I go to every day.
1/15 at f/6.7

 

[snusmumriken]

I developed some Tri-X yesterday and made a few sample prints in the wee hours of today.

Camera used was a Yashicamat 124G that I recently bought from a member here. Tri-X was exposed at EI 250, developed in Barry Thornton's two-bath D-23 for 4:30 in both baths, 12 grams of metaborate per liter of bath B and developed at 73F/22/7C. I went with EI 250 because I have been using Kentmere at that EI. Paper was Kentmere VC Select Luster developed in homebrew D-72 at 1:3.

It was an overcast day. I will have to do more testing on a bright sunny day. I have been reluctant with bringing any camera and equipment outdoors because the temps have been in the 20s and lower teens for a little while, with winds. Yesterday was in the 30s and today was in the 40s. This coming Thursday shows sun and temps in the early 40s. This would be the time to get out there for the second testing.

#1 Court House - I didn't notice the guy there. He yelled "HEY!" just before I snapped the picture.
1/30 at f/9

#2 Paul at church - He didn't even know I was there. Snuckaroonie
1/30 at f/13

#3 The Happy Frog - That is one chill frog. One year someone broke into the frog and stole the cash. At that time he was known as the Starving Frog.
1/30 at f/9

#4 Left over pumpkins - Handheld shot. The leftovers that never got sold at the local convenient store that I go to every day.
1/15 at f/6.7

Thanks for posting, it's interesting to see these. You don't say what your thoughts/conclusions are?

How did you meter these scenes? I hope this won't seem impertinent, but given the online rendering of these images, it looks to me as though they could do with a bit more exposure. That's very subjective, of course, and maybe you do like the ink black shadows. But it may also influence what others think about this film/developer combination.

Looking back, I've only once developed Tri-X in BT2B, in 2009. I had favoured Tri-X/Emofin for several years before that, but Emofin was being discontinued, and I thought BT2B might make a substitute. So, as for Emofin, I rated the film at 640 ISO, which - given subsequent experience of BT2B - was a mistake. Actually I stopped using Tri-X after that too (because of price), but even at 640 ISO the combination did seem to give good luminous shadows. Not sure whether that will be evident in this posted image (negative scan), but here goes. I have no recollection of whether/how I metered the scene, but most likely I was just at max aperture and 1/15 sec. (I have not attempted to burn in highlight detail in the window, but it is there in the negative and even in the scan.)

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks for posting, it's interesting to see these. You don't say what your thoughts/conclusions are?

How did you meter these scenes? I hope this won't seem impertinent, but given the online rendering of these images, it looks to me as though they could do with a bit more exposure. That's very subjective, of course, and maybe you do like the ink black shadows. But it may also influence what others think about this film/developer combination.

Looking back, I've only once developed Tri-X in BT2B, in 2009. I had favoured Tri-X/Emofin for several years before that, but Emofin was being discontinued, and I thought BT2B might make a substitute. So, as for Emofin, I rated the film at 640 ISO, which - given subsequent experience of BT2B - was a mistake. Actually I stopped using Tri-X after that too (because of price), but even at 640 ISO the combination did seem to give good luminous shadows. Not sure whether that will be evident in this posted image (negative scan), but here goes. I have no recollection of whether/how I metered the scene, but most likely I was just at max aperture and 1/15 sec. (I have not attempted to burn in highlight detail in the window, but it is there in the negative and even in the scan.)

View attachment 385718

This was the first run and I wanted to get the results out there. I do agree that Tri-X would benefit from a tad bit more exposure than Kentmere. EI 200 or even 160 might be the sweet spot.

A lower grade printing filter could also help. Lower grade filters mostly have been used with the Inkpress Multitone stuff, it's the default in my case. I stick with Kentmere papers as much as I possibly can.

Metering was incident using a Minolta IV with dome pointed toward the camera position. The day was sort of in between flat and normal with some shadows being deep.

Don't you just love handholding slower shutter speeds? Your image has excellent details in the ranges of shadows. Have you ever tried Diafine? I never had the opportunity to. Diafine might enhance grain slightly more than Emofin, from what I have read about it.

 

[gorbas]

By my experience Emofin was pinnacle of 2 bath "push" (available light) developers (did not try Oriental 2 bath). Much finer results in every field than with Diafine.
I'm sad that is gone for ever and that we don't have definitive formula of it for home brew. I tried to make "high energy" 2 bath developer, I think I posted it here on one of the threads, but it could not ever match speed I was getting with Emofin.
Very nice result Jonathan! That window can be easily brought down.

 

[snusmumriken]

Have you ever tried Diafine? I never had the opportunity to. Diafine might enhance grain slightly more than Emofin, from what I have read about it.

No, I've not tried it. Diafine isn't easy to get hold of over here (UK), and I've pretty much settled on BT2B now.

Don't you just love handholding slower shutter speeds? Your image has excellent details in the ranges of shadows.

Well, I love getting away with it! It's a shame not to get the best out of a good lens, but sometimes an image has enough interest to carry it off.

 

[snusmumriken]

Metering was incident using a Minolta IV with dome pointed toward the camera position. The day was sort of in between flat and normal with some shadows being deep.

The snow would have influenced the incident reading, perhaps?

 

[What About Bob]

The snow would have influenced the incident reading, perhaps?

Incident measures the overall light coming from the source going onto the scene. Subject reflectivity has no influence.

 

[MattKing]

Incident measures the overall light coming from the source going onto the scene. Subject reflectivity has no influence.

An incident metering dome integrates all the light reaching the meter. So if there is a lot of snow, it often reflects a lot of light toward the subject, resulting in a reduced exposure recommendation.
As a result, you are more likely to end up with an exposure reading that will render snow near mid-gray than white.
The reflected light tends to illuminate the underside of your subject - and that may not be where you want to base your exposure decision.

 

[PicklesFrog]

But I have used no other developer for 15-20 years now

wow! i've been looking through this forums and a lot of people have either
1. never used it
2. used it once or twice
maybe i haven't been looking hard enough but you're the first i've seen that solely uses it.

i've had great results with delta 100 and 400 along with kentmere 400 at 4.5 minutes @ 20C with 30 seconds initial agitation and 5 seconds per every 30 seconds agitation for each solution. my space gets cold in the winter, its about 14-16C at any given day during the late November and early January timeframe, so i either use ilford's temperature chart or a calculator online. i plan to test out pushing and pulling, but im sure itll be fine enough.

note: i havent printed with this developer yet, i've only seen the negatives over a white screen taken a picture with my phone and inverted, but they look fine by me (for reference i've used d76 and d23).
note 2: i used 7.8g of sodium carbonate in solution B as i dont have any metaborate and i cant afford a bottle right now. i used this specific amount since in the darkroom cookbook the subtitution for metaborate is carbonate multiplying the initial volume of metaborate by 0.59. seems to work out fine for what im looking for. not too sure if it messes up the shelf life or how many films i can process in bath b

 

[snusmumriken]

i used 7.8g of sodium carbonate in solution B as i dont have any metaborate and i cant afford a bottle right now.

You don’t need to buy metaborate as such. See this thread.

 

[PicklesFrog]

You don’t need to buy metaborate as such. See this thread.

I have some sodium hydroxide thats from kodak that i got from my professor a few months ago. i have no idea how old it is, but i suspect its at least from the 90s? no real date on it so far as i can see. only indication is a "brooks cameras san francisco" and it closed its doors in 2007.

i saw on that thread that storage will lessen its efficiency. do you think that'll be a problem here? i have borax already.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have some sodium hydroxide thats from kodak that i got from my professor a few months ago. i have no idea how old it is, but i suspect its at least from the 90s? no real date on it so far as i can see. only indication is a "brooks cameras san francisco" and it closed its doors in 2007.

i saw on that thread that storage will lessen its efficiency. do you think that'll be a problem here? i have borax already.

Honestly I don’t know. It absorbs water strongly, so if it appears dry rather than slushy I would conclude it must have been well sealed all these years, and personally I would give it a go!

 

[Chuck_P]

In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?

I have used the no-agitation scheme in bath B, but with 120 film. Of all the films I've developed this past year in BTTB, there has been three or four that came out with slight problems, i.e., what seems to be uneven development on the edge. I say "what seems to be" because I'm not sure if it is, indeed, uneven development or if it comes from a slight light leak on my camera back. I say this because the films—again, a very small minority—that exhibit this problem were from the Bronica SQ and none of the film shot with the Pentax 67 have shown any problem.

I've just got a new Bronica SQ back, so I will test again the no-agitation scheme as soon as I have time to shoot a few picks.

That said, I've also developed quite a few films with just 2 inversions after pouring bath B, followed by two more at the 2 and 4 minute mark and haven't seen a difference, although I didn't do extensive testing.

Thornton remained quite vague about the effects of agitation (and time, and temperature, for that matter) on development with his two-bath formula. I was surprised how much contrast I've gotten from it—without agitation—with a 200 ISO-rated HP5+, but I find these negs very interesting to work with by split-grade printing in the darkroom. Someone else may have different tastes and might prefer a bit less contrast. Again, I haven't tested enough to know if it's time or less agitation in bath A (on which Thornton is also vague) that has the most effect.

Sheet film being the price it is, I wouldn't advise the no-agitation scheme at the beginning, unless you already have exposed film whose images you don't care too much about. If you can afford to waste a couple of sheets, do test it and let us know.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?

P.S. I don't want to leave the impression in my comment above that the negs are "high contrast". Barry Thornton keeps talking about "sharpness" in his book, and that word my indeed be more adequate.

 

[Chuck_P]

P.S. I don't want to leave the impression in my comment above that the negs are "high contrast". Barry Thornton keeps talking about "sharpness" in his book, and that word my indeed be more adequate.

Thanks, I understood it was meant as a relative term to the TTB process. I do not have his book but in watching the Finch YT video on divided development, I "think" it was stated that the TTB uses just 80g of the sodium metaborate in bath B, which is supposed to provide a sharper grain than the 100g used more traditionally, I guess.

 

[BHuij]

In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?

I have not tested large format, all of my tests with BTTB so far have been with 35mm or 120.

I found that with 35mm, the minimum agitation I could get away with was about 1 slow, gentle inversion per minute in bath B. Of the rolls I did with that level of agitation, some came out looking fine, and a couple came out a bit mottled, which I suspect was uneven development specifically due to under-agitation. Unfortunately my gut tells me that mottling like that could potentially be even worse on a larger format of film.

I have a separate thread where I'll write up my final results, but for 35mm, I don't intend to use BTTB anymore. I just didn't see any of the advantages it purported to produce. Perhaps it's better suited for MF or LF, I dunno.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks, I understood it was meant as a relative term to the TTB process. I do not have his book but in watching the Finch YT video on divided development, I "think" it was stated that the TTB uses just 80g of the sodium metaborate in bath B, which is supposed to provide a sharper grain than the 100g used more traditionally, I guess.

The 80 grams is the amount for the sodium sulfite in the developer. The amounts of metaborate for bath B are 7, 12 and 20 grams per liter. Sometimes I use 20 grams. This amount enhances certain scenes containing mostly midtones. Images take on a really solid appearance that I like.

 

[PicklesFrog]

I have used the no-agitation scheme in bath B, but with 120 film. Of all the films I've developed this past year in BTTB, there has been three or four that came out with slight problems, i.e., what seems to be uneven development on the edge. I say "what seems to be" because I'm not sure if it is, indeed, uneven development or if it comes from a slight light leak on my camera back. I say this because the films—again, a very small minority—that exhibit this problem were from the Bronica SQ and none of the film shot with the Pentax 67 have shown any problem.

I've just got a new Bronica SQ back, so I will test again the no-agitation scheme as soon as I have time to shoot a few picks.

That said, I've also developed quite a few films with just 2 inversions after pouring bath B, followed by two more at the 2 and 4 minute mark and haven't seen a difference, although I didn't do extensive testing.

Thornton remained quite vague about the effects of agitation (and time, and temperature, for that matter) on development with his two-bath formula. I was surprised how much contrast I've gotten from it—without agitation—with a 200 ISO-rated HP5+, but I find these negs very interesting to work with by split-grade printing in the darkroom. Someone else may have different tastes and might prefer a bit less contrast. Again, I haven't tested enough to know if it's time or less agitation in bath A (on which Thornton is also vague) that has the most effect.

Sheet film being the price it is, I wouldn't advise the no-agitation scheme at the beginning, unless you already have exposed film whose images you don't care too much about. If you can afford to waste a couple of sheets, do test it and let us know.

I've used catlabs 80 and delta 100 sheet film in a 445 tank. 30 seconds inital and 5 seconds every 30 seconds agitation for both solutions. gentle agitation. came out looking fine. again i haven't printed or scanned yet.

 

[Milpool]

In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?

The characteristics of this type of divided development (ie a first bath which in its own is a complete/functional developer followed by an alkaline second bath) are:

(1) Emulsion speed is maintained if you choose to have a somewhat lower-than-normal gradient - the gradient being controlled by the degree of development in the first bath

(2) A somewhat straightened characteristic curve (ie less shoulder, less toe) regardless of the gradient chosen

(3) Potentially sharper (with corresponding coarser grain) due to reduced development time in the first bath and the action in the second bath - relatively high alkalinity combined with exhaustion which might give enhanced edge effects

(4) Potential uniformity issues - however there are many variables such as the film, processing/agitation methods etc. The larger the film, the trickier this is in general, so some experimentation will likely be required. Richard Henry found he got decent uniformity in his brief testing of divided D-23 (Adams formula). With sheet film it will likely depend a lot on the method (tank, tray etc.) as it does even for standard single bath development.

Based on my own testing, contrast is controlled by time/agitation in the first bath as would normally be the case. The alkalinity of the second bath doesn’t seem to affect contrast but it may affect image structure. Fog will also increase with increasing alkalinity of the second bath as the formulas used for the first bath are not typically “optimized” for the composition of the second bath. Agitation or not in the second bath probably won’t make much of a difference in final emulsion speed or contrast but it might (or might not) affect uniformity. Unfortunately there is relatively little in the reputable literature on “best practices” for this type of divided development so ultimately there will probably be some trial and error depending on your goals.

There are many formulas of this type (Adams, Stoeckler, etc.). The Barry Thornton version is only trivially different than D-23 and is probably as good a starting point as any other variation on the theme.

 

[Chuck_P]

The 80 grams is the amount for the sodium sulfite in the developer. The amounts of metaborate for bath B are 7, 12 and 20 grams per liter. Sometimes I use 20 grams. This amount enhances certain scenes containing mostly midtones. Images take on a really solid appearance that I like.

Yes thanks for the correction,.....bath A contains 20g less sodium sulfite than what is in D-23, for a bit sharper grain.

 

[snusmumriken]

(2) A somewhat straightened characteristic curve (ie less shoulder, less toe) regardless of the gradient chosen

I am not qualified to confirm or question this, but isn’t ‘less shoulder’ at odds with the widespread claim that highlights are restrained by exhaustion of the developer held in the emulsion?

Can you point us to any densitometry that shows the characteristic curves of familiar emulsions in 2-bath developers?

 

[What About Bob]

Based on my own testing, contrast is controlled by time/agitation in the first bath as would normally be the case. The alkalinity of the second bath doesn’t seem to affect contrast but it may affect image structure. Fog will also increase with increasing alkalinity of the second bath as the formulas used for the first bath are not typically “optimized” for the composition of the second bath. Agitation or not in the second bath probably won’t make much of a difference in final emulsion speed or contrast but it might (or might not) affect uniformity. Unfortunately there is relatively little in the reputable literature on “best practices” for this type of divided development so ultimately there will probably be some trial and error depending on your goals.

Going from 12 to 20 grams of metaborate produces a really neat look. A look of solidness or "meatiness" without any added contrast like what you would get from an N+ development. Initially that's what I had presumed would happen by increasing the metaborate Using carbonate for bath B might either enhance this meaty effect further or it might not, that is if the left over developer that is sitting on the film exhausts quicker in the carbonate solution.

When I started out with BT I did one very slow and soft inversion every minute in bath B. Then it was two intervals of one slow and soft inversion within the developing time. Now after pouring in bath B I let the tank sit until the halfway point where I then give one very slow and soft inversion and then let it rest until the time is up. I haven't been able to tell any visual differences between those inversion methods. The no inversion method I haven't tried yet. Thought about it but somewhat wasn't sure if this would cause nonuniformity

 

[Milpool]

I am not qualified to confirm or question this, but isn’t ‘less shoulder’ at odds with the widespread claim that highlights are restrained by exhaustion of the developer held in the emulsion?

Can you point us to any densitometry that shows the characteristic curves of familiar emulsions in 2-bath developers?

I can't point you to any sensitometry besides my own (see attached extract/examples) because I don't know of any, but if it helps at all I'm not the only one who noticed the "straightening" effect - I recall an article Sandy King wrote about his own experiments with two-bath/divided development in which he discussed a similar finding, which led him to opine it might be a useful thing for negatives destined for scanning.

I don't think "restrained highlights" says much on its own. It has to be relative to something such as an overall gradient, emulsion speed, contrast on another part of the curve, etc. I think a better characterization of this type of development is that one can reduce the overall gradient while substantially retaining emulsion speed and without over-flattening of highlights. It's different than what one typically thinks of as "compensation", where there is highlight compression relative to the midtone gradient.