Compensate for changing development time

[silvercloud2323]

Hi,
I read in the book 'The Elements of Black and white printing' the following on page 40 (Chapter 3 Changing contrast for the shadows)

"Because changing the development time affects the highlights as well as the contrast, you must compensate for the corresponding increase or decrease in highlight density by changing the exposure. You must increase exposure if you are decreasing development, and decrease exposure if you are increasing development."

Can someone explain what the autor means by that?
It seems that if you change the development time, you have to compensate this change by another exposure change.

 

[Bill Burk]

Simpler terms: Make a new test strip if you change development time because exposure and development interact with each other.


The test strip you made in three minutes won’t be good if you develop the print for nine minutes.

Who would develop a print for nine minutes? William Mortensen recommended it and I tried it once. He swore it created better, more plastic skin tones.

I enjoyed the results but am not sure it was worth the trouble.

Anyway that’s what the advice means.

 

[MattKing]

First question:
Is the quoted passage in reference film exposure and development, or print exposure and development?

 

[Bill Burk]

First question:
Is the quoted passage in reference film exposure and development, or print exposure and development?

Oh right. I was assuming this was a print the author was talking about. Re-reading it seems the subject might be film.

We’re talking about this in another thread.

I would disagree with the author if we’re talking about film.

 

[MattKing]

I would disagree with the author if we’re talking about film.

As would I - except to a very small extent, in some relatively unusual circumstances.

 

[silvercloud2323]

First question:
Is the quoted passage in reference film exposure and development, or print exposure and development?

It is about a print.

 

[MattKing]

It is about a print.

Then it is crazy!
Within reasonable limits, you don't want to vary print development times between your tests and your final prints.

 

[Craig]

As a general rule, development should always be kept to a fixed time. It's a variable you can eliminate when determining if a print needs more or less exposure. I usually use 2 min with Ansco 130 developer, and I have a separate timer just for print development.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ah and then what I said is good!

For reference look to William
Mortensen’s “The New Projection Control” where he makes the unconventional statement that for pictorial reasons you want to develop as long as practical. He defines that as four fifth of the time it takes for the paper to fog.

He says manufacturers pick times that are convenient for commercial purposes.

He says four to nine minutes is what it usually works out to be.

 

[redbandit]

Ah and then what I said is good!

For reference look to William
Mortensen’s “The New Projection Control” where he makes the unconventional statement that for pictorial reasons you want to develop as long as practical. He defines that as four fifth of the time it takes for the paper to fog.

He says manufacturers pick times that are convenient for commercial purposes.

He says four to nine minutes is what it usually works out to be.

pretty sure that the paper being used by mortensen is NOT anything at all like the paper we have on the market TODAY..

 

[IMetodiev]

I always though paper development is supposed to be done "to completion" - i.e. it's not technically a variable you should play with, at least not at a beginner/intermediate level.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer to use Dektol and standardize the development at 2 minutes. That eliminates one variable.

 

[Bill Burk]

I always though paper development is supposed to be done "to completion" - i.e. it's not technically a variable you should play with, at least not at a beginner/intermediate level.

It is done to completeness as a rule of thumb. The question is. Can you get deeper blacks with further time? Mortensen’s claim is based on the logic, not unreasonable, that manufacturers and professional labs choose a practical time as “good enough”. But an artist is not bound by the demands to produce high volume prints.

I am sure there are people here who have both an artistic eye and a densitometer, who can confirm or challenge the development time.

I have tried longer times and the prints were satisfying. The experiment was a success. But so are my prints that are developed for three minutes. So I am not convinced that it was necessary.

 

[snusmumriken]

It is done to completeness as a rule of thumb. The question is. Can you get deeper blacks with further time? Mortensen’s claim is based on the logic, not unreasonable, that manufacturers and professional labs choose a practical time as “good enough”. But an artist is not bound by the demands to produce high volume prints.

I am sure there are people here who have both an artistic eye and a densitometer, who can confirm or challenge the development time.

I have tried longer times and the prints were satisfying. The experiment was a success. But so are my prints that are developed for three minutes. So I am not convinced that it was necessary.

I develop Ilford MG FB in 1+9 Ilford developer for 2 min at 20 deg C. I cannot get a deeper black by extending development.

Ilford claims that longer development will not affect lighter tones. For times of up to 5 min I can’t decide whether it does or not, but I certainly can’t see any advantage.

 

[Bill Burk]

I develop Galerie for three minutes in Dektol 1:2. I think because Ansel Adams wrote it somewhere.

One day I got a collection of Mortensen’s books (except Monsters and Madonnnas) and so occasionally I toy with his ideas.

I could check with a densitometer if there’s a difference.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

It is done to completeness as a rule of thumb. The question is. Can you get deeper blacks with further time? Mortensen’s claim is based on the logic, not unreasonable, that manufacturers and professional labs choose a practical time as “good enough”. But an artist is not bound by the demands to produce high volume prints.

I am sure there are people here who have both an artistic eye and a densitometer, who can confirm or challenge the development time.

I have tried longer times and the prints were satisfying. The experiment was a success. But so are my prints that are developed for three minutes. So I am not convinced that it was necessary.

Bill,

FWIW, my (admittedly empirical) testing of today's VC papers have show that contrast increase with extended development is minimal. What does happen with extending development after the paper has already developed to the point where the curve is stable and "fully-developed," is that the curve then simply moves to the right, i.e., mimicking more exposure. With enough time, the blacks block up and the highlights get too gray. I use extended development to, in effect, add small amounts of exposure when changing the actual exposure time would be inconvenient (say I've got a bunch of complicated burns that I've already worked out that I don't want to re-figure times for). 15 seconds more development is enough to make a visible change; up to five minutes or so is my limit.


Best,

Doremus

 

[Kilgallb]

Hmmm, put a step wedge on a test strip and expose. Develop 2 min

Find the time from trial and error to get full black and some grey in the whites At grade 2 With your standard print developer time.

Expose several strips identically then develop plus 15S, 30s, 45s, and one minute of your standard time. (8 strips)

When dried, cut the strips and view side by side. That will, by eye, no density meter, tell you if your favourite developer needs to be timed accurately.

Your eye makes good judgment of density when viewed side by side.