BTZS and semi-stand development?

I am currently working in 11x14 and have gone back to brush development in Pyrocat HD and developing by inspection. I have a basic but limited understanding of sensitometry and the zone system but I would like to gain a little more control in this area with the BTZS system.

*Can I use this system (BTZS) in conjuction with semi-stand development?

*Can any members currently using the BTZS system comment on its effectiveness.

Steve Shermans articles and now postings here have piqued my curiosity. I would like to try the semi-stand technique but have a question or two.

*What tubes should I use for 11x14? I have a number of Unicolor and Beseler drums from when I used to develope in tubes, will these be sufficiant?

*What is a good starting point for development times? I was going to use the VC articles that Steve wrote as a refrence point for this or is there new information on this.

Mike A

Mike A said:

I am currently working in 11x14 and have gone back to brush development in Pyrocat HD and developing by inspection. I have a basic but limited understanding of sensitometry and the zone system but I would like to gain a little more control in this area with the BTZS system.

*Can I use this system (BTZS) in conjuction with semi-stand development?

Yes, I use it with semi stand development.

*Can any members currently using the BTZS system comment on its effectiveness.

The BTZS is the best system today, in my opinion. The reason that I say this is that it incorporates more of the componants involved in arriving at a print.

Steve Shermans articles and now postings here have piqued my curiosity. I would like to try the semi-stand technique but have a question or two.

*What tubes should I use for 11x14? I have a number of Unicolor and Beseler drums from when I used to develope in tubes, will these be sufficiant?

I manufactured my own tubes from ABS (black) plastic componants. The important thing is that the sheet of film be totally immersed while standing. A four inch diameter ABS tube would provide sufficient circumfrence of a 11 inch sheet of film if it were fourteen inches long internally.

*What is a good starting point for development times? I was going to use the VC articles that Steve wrote as a refrence point for this or is there new information on this.

I have found that this will depend on the DR that you are developing your film to. That will depend on what paper or in what medium you are printing. For instance developing a negative for pt-pd will be a different matter then a negative on Seagull Grade Two for instance. I believe that it has been published that starting times are about 50% greater then those for continual agitation.

Mike A

Click to expand...

I hope that this will give you help with your questions. I don't understand why you want to use BTZS with developing by inspection...these seem to be at odds with each other.

This method of development (semi stand) requires much larger volumes of developer solution albeit at weaker dilutions. For instance a four inch (ID) tube that is 14 inchs (ID) long will require slightly above 3 quarts of developer solution. If you use Pyrocat HD at 1-1-150 it will require 18.5 ml of A and 18.5 ml of B. Sandy King has recently written that the activity of the developer is maintained longer then initially thought. So one could develop more then one sheet of film by reusing the solution.

I have started testing with homemade 5x4 sized tubes using Prescysol at the recommended dilution 1-5-100. Initial results seem excellent though as you say, greater volumes of developer are needed. My tubes need 225ml to fully cover the film. I haven't experimented with reusing the solution. If economy were that critical to me I would probably mix my own developer rather than risk unanticpated results by developing a film in used chemicals. The cost of home brewed developer works out at 10% of off the shelf Prescysol.

Regards,

Mark

Donald Miller said:

I hope that this will give you help with your questions. I don't understand why you want to use BTZS with developing by inspection...these seem to be at odds with each other.

This method of development (semi stand) requires much larger volumes of developer solution albeit at weaker dilutions. For instance a four inch (ID) tube that is 14 inchs (ID) long will require slightly above 3 quarts of developer solution. If you use Pyrocat HD at 1-1-150 it will require 18.5 ml of A and 18.5 ml of B. Sandy King has recently written that the activity of the developer is maintained longer then initially thought. So one could develop more then one sheet of film by reusing the solution.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info Donald. I planned on dropping DBI in my workflow once I started using BTZS system. I was reading the thread about the extended life of Pyrocat HD, I always cringed when I poured out that stuff after one shot use.

I manufactured my own tubes from ABS (black) plastic componant.
I'm assuming the material being used doesn't matter. I plan on using grey PVC donated from the job site and using screw on end caps.

Thanks again,
Mike A

Mike, Donald is correct in what he has said. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can't for the life of me understand why DBI would be better than BTZS. With BTZS numbers, you will have every possible development scenario the film is capable of seeing. You can "tweak" your system to make a 1/3 stop change in the final print, and know exactly where it will end up before exposing the shot. It will take some time to figure out and understand, but it is worth the effort. Since stand development takes so much time in the soup, you will get a set of numbers rather easily.

I started using BTZS about a year ago, and have no densitometer. It is the single biggest help to my photography that I have found so far. Using minimal agitation or stand development is just the icing on the cake for me. It gives a wonderful sense of freedom, to have at your disposal the information needed for this type of development. The SBR numbers are so much more accurate than a typical zone system approach, and much simpler to use in practice. I've done what Francesco recommended to me two years ago. I just keep a small note book with me to jot down shots in the field, then develop as I need to at home. tim