chemistry to counteract incompetency .. "silver bullet" ?

Photo Engineer · Oct 19, 2014

Actually Truzi, you can make life easier with some dilutions of chemistry or some levels of use and testing. For example, using Dektol at 1:3 is better than 1:1 because the prints come up to fast and so does fog. And you would be unhappy with a 1 hour development time to get "normal" results and a 2 hour time for "super" results. This is avoided in the industry for obvious reasons. I might add that a 30" development time is just as bad because it can cause non-uniformity in most any size negative but 35mm.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 19, 2014

georg16nik said:
Stone is walking the walk, he went from hybrid shooter to traditional workflow. For 2014 that's amazing!

He said something incompetent about John's favorite dev. (from his teen years) ouch; BIG DEAL!

APUG should be supportive, not criticizing members in such way.

I agree.

I think we need to leave Stone alone. He's in school. He's still learning. As are we all. Including the OP. Never-ending targeted divisive threads are just ugly. If one doesn't agree with something someone says, just say so respectfully, give your reasons or evidence to the contrary, and then just move on. No need to obsessively repeat the process over and over.

This is unbecoming of APUG...

Ken

DBP · Oct 19, 2014

Diafine is what I use when I'm tired, or can't remember what speed I rated the film at, or am having temperature issues in the darkroom... Can't screw up time or temp.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 19, 2014

DBP said:
Diafine is what I use when I'm tired, or can't remember what speed I rated the film at, or am having temperature issues in the darkroom... Can't screw up time or temp.

I've also heard this before from multiple sources. But I admit I don't understand the mechanism of how this can possibly be. Any time/temp? Surely there must be boundaries to those normally variable conditions. And trade-offs for exceeding those boundaries?

Perhaps someone could explain it to me?

Thanks in advance,
Ken

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2014

georg16nik said:
Stone is walking the walk, he went from hybrid shooter to traditional workflow. For 2014 that's amazing!

He said something incompetent about John's favorite dev. (from his teen years) ouch; BIG DEAL!

APUG should be supportive, not criticizing members in such way.

gerog16nik

did i ever say i was unsupportive ?
i am very happy he has found his niche
and he is doing 8x10 and printing.
i couldn't care less about my teen years or my favorite developer
its not my favorite developer by far, but i use it from time to time. big deal
i have never heard of a metol free d76 clone being used
to mask incompetency. it is news to me. and this is from his professor, not him
so who knows, it might be true. and THAT is why i asked people who know
OODLES about developers, people who create developers, know photochemistry back and forth
to explain if this is true, can be true or isn't true at all.

i couldn't care less about walking the walk, i don't even know what that means and this isn't about
stone or what he does or doesn't do, or what he is doing next but about if it is actually TRUE and PROVEN that metol free developers
are able to mask incompetent handling of film and incompetent development methods.

not every post i make has anything to do with stone and what he is up to. all i know is
he is printing and learning and that is good.

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2014

DBP said:
Diafine is what I use when I'm tired, or can't remember what speed I rated the film at, or am having temperature issues in the darkroom... Can't screw up time or temp.

i have not used diafine, is it metol free?

Photo Engineer · Oct 19, 2014

Michael, diffusion rates change with temperature, and this alone will eliminate temperature as a variable you can ignore. Gelatin thickness will change the amount of chemical absorbed and therefore eliminate the "exhaustion" of the "A" solution in the coating as a useful variable.

No, 2 part developers are not a magic bullet and don't solve anything. In fact, they create their own "universe" of problems.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 19, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
No, 2 part developers are not a magic bullet and don't solve anything. In fact, they create their own "universe" of problems.

Then perhaps what about the classic water-bath regimen? Fully activated developer in the first bath, water in the second? A similar universe of new problems? I hear mottled development is often one. But I've never tried it.

Ken

Photo Engineer · Oct 19, 2014

Yes, water bath development creates problems all its own.

Each process condition has pluses and minuses. Only you can judge which is best for you and without exacting comparison you cannot say that one is better or worse than another, only that it works for you and that you like it. You need enlargements from identical negatives for comparison of grain and sharpness for example.

PE

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
It doesn't contain metol.

hmmmmm

and i have used caffenol c in similar ways ... stand develop for x minutes
no special treatment and bingo, great negatives.

maybe there is some truth to the metol-free, silver bullet ?

MattKing · Oct 19, 2014

A developer that forced someone to think and maybe confer with others and come to a considered opinion before sharing it would be an excellent silver bullet in a case like this.

My guess is that some of the students have been over-diluting or over-using the Sprint developer, and the resulting bad results have been used to support a conclusion that they don't really support.

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2014

michael

how am i supposed to get to the bottom of this

there HAS TO BE some truth in it, why else would a teacher tell students this, he was
the person dispensing the kernels from what i gather was posted.

i am not going believe that it was just posturing ... i mean
not knowing the developer was mail order, i can see that, unless you go to the website how would you know
thinking they are the same developer well who knows they smell the same and look the same
and dilute the same and without reading the safety data sheets or going to the website, again, whoknows ..
and suggesting the film developer is made to mask errors in development, it is in schools and beginners use it alot
so i cansee that being true too ...

the last thing about it masking mistakes could be true, couldn't it ?
i mean i use caffenol c and ansco 130 together and in split developing, and they stain and maybe fog the film
same recipe + time for every film, every iso, every push/pull
so flaws might not be easily seen ...

so it could be true that the recipe has some sort of magic in it
that makes things not as bad as they might be otherwise ... and if you are good at processing and don't need anything masked
well, they make your work look very nice as well ...

polyglot · Oct 19, 2014

I drank D76 and it didn't help my incompetence.

(the fact that some developers and films are less sensitive to process variations and therefore more suitable for beginners should not be contentious)

Photo Engineer · Oct 19, 2014

There is no magic bullet that makes a developer more resistant to error. They all resist error to some extent simply due to their simplicity and ordinary chemistry.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 19, 2014

polyglot said:
(the fact that some developers and films are less sensitive to process variations and therefore more suitable for beginners should not be contentious)

removed account4 · Oct 19, 2014

polyglot said:
I drank D76 and it didn't help my incompetence.

(the fact that some developers and films are less sensitive to process variations and therefore more suitable for beginners should not be contentious)

polyglot

i have used the developer in question on and off since 1981.
my experience seems different than the teacher( and the student ) i have never noticed it masked bad performance
( i saw plenty of poorly processed film that i did, as well as fellow students over 10 years ) .. and the developer
has always seemed to be just as sensitive to process variation as anything else out there that i have used ( xtol, dk50, tmaxrs, gaf universal, polydol. caffenol and probably a few others ).
the developer in question has detailed instructions to modify the developer's use / time for a variety of
different situations (push/pull flat lighting, plastic lens, low quality camera, electronic flash, high contrast, cold light
color light head, poorly stored film, outdated film &c as well as starting times for every film made) as i mentioned in the other thread
if you like to rate your film at a lower iso ( like 80 instead of 125 for plus x, or 200 instead of 400 for tri x ) it gives a great negative
without blown hightlights (even if you over develop for a nice thick negative).
most developers don't do that, you over develop your film, you are hozed. and most developers make the user fend for themselves,
and the user has to figure out what do to if they use a cold light or color light head, or plastic lens or need to push or pull their film
and don't have any information for use, so if you were to ask me this stuff is more versatile and more useful, and the producers did their research to make it easier to use.
all this said, i am still trying to understand what the teacher and student meant
by the statement in the first post in this thread because honestly, it doesn't match up with the developer.
if the things i have mentioned above are what the teacher / student thought sucked, then maybe all developers suck because it is pretty much
like D76 or most any other developer out there, but its in a bottle and is an easy to use liquid concentrate. maybe that is what sux?
it is easy to use detailed instructions so students and other users don't screw up their film ( that cost $$ ) ?
i don't know, it makes less sense every time i think about it ...

Bill Burk · Oct 19, 2014

Nobody mentioned Monobaths yet? Those are supposedly a mix of developer and fixer balanced so that the fixing starts to do its work when the development has already finished.

Sort of like Polaroid but in liquid form. And I have read accounts that they are very practical and successful, just haven't tried them myself.

I think what qualifies D-76 for idiot proof standing... is how long you can leave it in a bottle and it still works as well as when you first mixed it.

Truzi · Oct 20, 2014

polyglot said:
I drank D76 and it didn't help my incompetence.

Arklatexian · Oct 20, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Michael, diffusion rates change with temperature, and this alone will eliminate temperature as a variable you can ignore. Gelatin thickness will change the amount of chemical absorbed and therefore eliminate the "exhaustion" of the "A" solution in the coating as a useful variable.

No, 2 part developers are not a magic bullet and don't solve anything. In fact, they create their own "universe" of problems.

PE

PE, back in the 1950s, some local professionals started using D-23 with Kodalk on their Super Panchro Press, Type B sheet film. It seemed as if they could make no errors. Was this the film of those years or is this 2 part developer somewhat forgiving. This is in no way to be taken as criticism of what you wrote. I am asking for information as I plan to try this developer again as soon as I get my darkroom back up and running.,...Regards

polyglot · Oct 20, 2014

jnanian said:
polyglot

i have used the developer in question on and off since 1981.
my experience seems different than the teacher( and the student ) i have never noticed it masked bad performance
( i saw plenty of poorly processed film that i did, as well as fellow students over 10 years ) .. and the developer
has always seemed to be just as sensitive to process variation as anything else out there that i have used ( xtol, dk50, tmaxrs, gaf universal, polydol. caffenol and probably a few others ).
the developer in question has detailed instructions to modify the developer's use / time for a variety of
different situations (push/pull flat lighting, plastic lens, low quality camera, electronic flash, high contrast, cold light
color light head, poorly stored film, outdated film &c as well as starting times for every film made) as i mentioned in the other thread
if you like to rate your film at a lower iso ( like 80 instead of 125 for plus x, or 200 instead of 400 for tri x ) it gives a great negative
without blown hightlights (even if you over develop for a nice thick negative).
most developers don't do that, you over develop your film, you are hozed. and most developers make the user fend for themselves,
and the user has to figure out what do to if they use a cold light or color light head, or plastic lens or need to push or pull their film
and don't have any information for use, so if you were to ask me this stuff is more versatile and more useful, and the producers did their research to make it easier to use.
all this said, i am still trying to understand what the teacher and student meant
by the statement in the first post in this thread because honestly, it doesn't match up with the developer.
if the things i have mentioned above are what the teacher / student thought sucked, then maybe all developers suck because it is pretty much
like D76 or most any other developer out there, but its in a bottle and is an easy to use liquid concentrate. maybe that is what sux?
it is easy to use detailed instructions so students and other users don't screw up their film ( that cost $$ ) ?
i don't know, it makes less sense every time i think about it ...

I think you're reading way too much into offhand generalisations.

Of course there are no silver bullets, but equally some developers like D76 are less sensitive (in terms of development rate and their propensity to drop shadow detail or block highlights) to variations in temperature or agitation. They are therefore more suitable for the oblivious user than something which requires much tighter control to obtain an easily printable negative.

tkamiya · Oct 20, 2014

I only have two developers under my belt. D-76 and XTOL.

Between the two, I found D-76 to be far easier to use. For one, there is this nifty "turn to brown" indicator (cough) that tells me the developer is likely expired. XTOL does not do that. Also, based on my experience, D-76 is far more forgiving when it comes to temperature control and development time. So, for me, D-76 is a "safer option" for me.

tbreslow · Oct 20, 2014

Dare I suggest to use Diafine? It is very tolerant to temperature and time. As long as you are in the range 70-85F and 3-4 mins for each step (A & B) you will get good results. Within reason you will have to work hard to screwup. Be sure to take note of the EI for the film you plan to use.

JW PHOTO · Oct 20, 2014

tbreslow said:
Dare I suggest to use Diafine? It is very tolerant to temperature and time. As long as you are in the range 70-85F and 3-4 mins for each step (A & B) you will get good results. Within reason you will have to work hard to screwup. Be sure to take note of the EI for the film you plan to use.

I think it's an excellent suggestion! And I think it's as close to a "silver bullet" as you can get with a commercial film developer. I've never had what you would call "bad" results with Diafine. Some films do seem to work better with it, but none of the films I've tried are what I'd call bad in Diafine. It's certainly great for somebody in a hurry or the slightly careless type. So simple! John W

benjiboy · Oct 20, 2014

I misread the original post and on first reading thought it said "chemistry to counteract incontinence "

JW PHOTO · Oct 20, 2014

benjiboy said:
I misread the original post and on first reading thought it said "chemistry to counteract incontinence "

Let me know what that formula is 'cause at my age I could use some. John W :confused:

chemistry to counteract incompetency .. "silver bullet" ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency