compensating developers, why not always use them?

pierods · Jul 2, 2008

If compensating developers fix exposure mistakes, wherever there are any, why not use them exclusively?

Is there a tradeoff maybe? Also, can a traditional dev, say id-11, be used in a compensating way?

Paul Howell · Jul 2, 2008

In low contast light a noncompensating developer such as Edwal 12 works best me.

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 2, 2008

Compensating developers are useful for reducing contrast in high contrast lighting situations and in some cases for extra speed in low light. Under normal lighting conditions, though, you don't want to reduce contrast, and if you have enough light, you don't need extra speed and may not want it.

df cardwell · Jul 2, 2008

Then there is the reality of compensating developers;
it is HOW they are used rather than what they are.

Rodinal, for instance, can give a gentle harmonising shoulder,
or a push a long straight line through the highlights,
depending on how it is agitated. Depending upon the film.

The term "Compensating Developer" is one of the old legends of photography,
nobody knows what it means, everybody likes it when they need it,
and yet it has no real significance.

Almost any developer can give some form of compensation if treated properly,
yet capable technique never sold product,
and the marketing folks and magazine editors depend upon magical thinking.

Ian Grant · Jul 2, 2008

Many of us do use mildly compensating developer like Pyrocat, Rodinal etc. But as Paul & David have said it's a case of ensuring your negatives contain the correct contrast range to allow you to obtain the tonal range you require in your prints.

ID-11 or D76 can be used as compensating developer, you dilute 1+3. My own experience is that 1+2 gave me better negatives, I found the images were bland at 1+3.

Ian

Anscojohn · Jul 2, 2008

I favor what Ansel Adams long ago called "a semi-compensating" devoper. I use straight D-23. It makes it easier to give full development for the snap I want in the middle tones; and more shadow detail than I need; without too much tendency to block up the highlights. I believe in KISS; and keeping it simple, especially with roll films, works for me.

Rob Archer · Jul 2, 2008

The best way for me is to find a method that works for almost everything. 90% of my photography in on HP5+ in ID11 1+1, which technically slightly compensating but, more importantly for me, is consistent. I only ever change it if the subject is of very high (use at 1+3) or very low contrast (increase development) or I need a particular effect (e.g lots of grain).

Rob

Lowell Huff · Jul 2, 2008

The basic principal of a compensating or accutance developer is to keep down the overall contrast in large areas while maintaining good contrast control of the fine details (mid tones). This provides for the widest latitude developer. Wide latitude capability allows for optimum development of films that have been exposed in less than optimum conditions and excellent development of those that were exposed properly.

Snapshot · Jul 2, 2008

I don't find using compensating developers to be an advantage until I get high-contrast situations. I feel it's better to use a developer you are very familiar with rather than worrying it is compensating or not.

gainer · Jul 2, 2008

I agree that nobody knows what is a dyed-in-the-wool compensating developer. IMHO, the best developer for all purposes would have a long straight characteristic curve for each developing time, and all the curves should intersect at 0 density. This is in fact what would satisfy the requirements of compensation, and would be useful for any other necrophilia one might want to do. I do NOT want a developer that causes a droop in the curve at the bright end or a lump at the dark end, as the blurb for Acutol used to promise, but never actually did. Think about it. This behavior would mean that the greatest activity occurs at the least exposure.

dancqu · Jul 2, 2008

gainer said:
I agree that nobody knows what is a dyed-in-the-wool
compensating developer.

Hold on, I know! Gerald Koch, has posted many times
this NG. His expertise is respected. In an article published
in one of Patrick Dignan's collections of formula and comment
he defines compensating development and explains it's working.
Very dilute developers coupled with bromide restraint in areas
of most exposure produce compensating development. Dan

df cardwell · Jul 2, 2008

Dignan's commentary

Even so, Dignan's example is incomplete. Taking Rodinal as an example,
1+25, 1+50, 1+100, and 1+300 can in most cases produce robust highlights with no 'compensation' whatsoever. Unless agitation is limited, allowing sufficient time to pass for the development to release the bromides from the film and stop the reduction of the highlights until there is another agitation cycle, there is no "compensation".

All Rodinal dilutions can produce "compensated" negatives if given minimal agitation; the only limitation being the low dilutions giving such rapid development that highlight 'exhaustion' cannot take place. The only effect of high dilutions is to slow the process, not to cause 'compensation'.

The earliest account of compensation that was not ridiculed by 'technical experts' was Ansel Adams' description of dilute HC-110, in conjunction with reduced agitation, in "The Negative", 1981. Adams' formidable reputation held the nay-sayers at bay.

2F/2F · Jul 2, 2008

Think about what you said: "If compensating developers fix exposure mistakes, wherever there are any..."

This is ludicrous. That is not what compensating development does. Where did you pick up that little gem? How would a developer know if there was an exposure mistake or not? The way you have explained it, compensating = automatic. Compensating development simply keeps your highlights down. That's all it means. In certain cases, this could fix exposure mistakes, but fixing exposure mistakes is not necessarily their mission.

The only thing "compensating development" means is "contrast-reducing development", so any developer can be used. Some reduce contrast more and/or differently than others, but all developers can be manipulated to reduce contrast from what you will get with normal development.

pierods · Jul 3, 2008

Thanks to everybody for the answers.

pierods · Jul 3, 2008

Rob Archer said:
The best way for me is to find a method that works for almost everything. 90% of my photography in on HP5+ in ID11 1+1, which technically slightly compensating but, more importantly for me, is consistent. I only ever change it if the subject is of very high (use at 1+3) or very low contrast (increase development) or I need a particular effect (e.g lots of grain).

Rob

Rob,

is the following correct then:

Say regular dev time for hp5 with id-11 1+1@ 20 C = 13mins (ilford recommendation)

1 - dilute your developer@manufacturer's recommended time = lower contrast (higher grain, higher acutance as side effects) at recommended dev time (id-11, 1+3, 20 C = 20 mins @ilford recommendation)

2 - concentrate your developer@manufacturer's recommended time = higher contrast (finer grain, lower acutance as side effects) at recommended dev time (id-11, stock, 20 C = 7.5 mins@ilford recommendation)

3 - increase dev time OVER manufacturer's recommended time = even higher contrast, side effects according to dilution [let's ignore speed change for simplicity]

So for example,

3a - [lower dilution] id11, stock, hp5 20C, 7.5 + 2.5 = 10 minutes ->much higher contrast, finer grain, lower acutance

3b - [higher dilution] id11, 1+3, hp5, 20C, 20 + 2.5 mins = 22.5 mins ->much higher contrast, higher grain, higher acutance

4 - decrease dev time UNDER manufacturer's recommended time = ? what happens?

Sorry for the ton of questions....

2F/2F · Jul 3, 2008

Seems like you now pretty much understand what effects you will get by using various dilutions and times.

"The Negative" is worth reading just to get the basic ideas. It is not the be all and end all of photo books, as some treat it, and it is not extremely detailed, but it is a great "crash course plus". It gives you everything you need to figure things out yourself, instead of just giving you a ton of raw information like some books. The greatest thing about it is how well written, and thus easy to read, it is.

pierods · Jul 3, 2008

2F/2F said:
Seems like you now pretty much understand what effects you will get by using various dilutions and times.

"The Negative" is worth reading just to get the basic ideas. It is not the be all and end all of photo books, as some treat it, and it is not extremely detailed, but it is a great "crash course plus". It gives you everything you need to figure things out yourself, instead of just giving you a ton of raw information like some books. The greatest thing about it is how well written, and thus easy to read, it is.

Thank you 2F.

Ideas about #4 - decrease dev time UNDER manufacturer's recommended time?

I think Barry Thornton advocated it, but, with all due respect to his mastery of the photographic process, impeccable sharpness of his photos and superb tones, I don't like his photographs, so that "balances it out" for me...

2F/2F · Jul 3, 2008

#4 is by far the most common way to use compensating development.

I am sure that no one recommended using compensating development in all cases, but only when needed/wanted. Barry Thornton probably just explained it, not necessarily advocated it. It doesn't matter what you think of the pix...it's just a useful tool that anyone can use. Technique is entirely separate from the final impact on viewers the same way the hammer used to build a house is separate from the act of living in the house. Just because you don't like living in the house doesn't mean the hammer was bad...just the architect!

RobC · Jul 3, 2008

Pierods,
What I suggest you do is spend half a day with your spot meter. Go out with just the spot meter and walk around. Take readings from lots of subjects and write down what their subject brightness range is. So from an afternoon of looking at varied subjects, you will have maybe 40 or 50 subject brightness ranges. The more the better. Don't pick subjects for the sake of being extreme, pick subjects that you might actually want to photograph. Then work out what the average SBR is for those subjects and come back and tell us what the average is and the highest and the lowest and whether you think you need to use a compensating developer for any of them and how many. You might learn something useful.

pierods · Jul 3, 2008

rob champagne said:
Pierods,
What I suggest you do is spend half a day with your spot meter. Go out with just the spot meter and walk around. Take readings from lots of subjects and write down what their subject brightness range is. So from an afternoon of looking at varied subjects, you will have maybe 40 or 50 subject brightness ranges. The more the better. Don't pick subjects for the sake of being extreme, pick subjects that you might actually want to photograph. Then work out what the average SBR is for those subjects and come back and tell us what the average is and the highest and the lowest and whether you think you need to use a compensating developer for any of them and how many. You might learn something useful.

I'll do that.

A question though, can I use the spot meter of my camera (nikon F80), i.e., its meter on spot, or I need an actual hand spot meter?

To me it's the same, right?

RobC · Jul 3, 2008

you can use your camera spot meter. A longer lens will give you a narrower angle and be more like a 1 deg spot meter.

edtbjon · Jul 3, 2008

... and to bark along with robbie doggie ...
Do press the button all the way while you're at it. As you keep notes, a picture on the side will make the notes even more valuable. You will probably get some good pics too.

//Björn

gainer · Jul 3, 2008

dancqu said:
Hold on, I know! Gerald Koch, has posted many times
this NG. His expertise is respected. In an article published
in one of Patrick Dignan's collections of formula and comment
he defines compensating development and explains it's working.
Very dilute developers coupled with bromide restraint in areas
of most exposure produce compensating development. Dan

The problem as I see it is this: the film record is the only source of information recovered from a scene. That information is in the form of differences in density from one point to the next. If you are saying that highlight information is not needed, so we can afford to lose some or all of it by compensating development, then why bother? The printing paper will do that for us, while keeping the contrast up in the shadows. But we know that many scenes that the eye tells us are memorable are actually two or more scenes, such as a window scene. Yes, you can develop the film so that everything the camera sees can be made to fit on the paper, but not without flattening the window contrast so that it becomes necessary to do dodging with contrast filters, and information has ,even so, been lost from the film record of the window scene. The best bet would be to take advantage of the ability of the film to store more than one "paperful" of contrast, as long as dodging or burning is going to be necessary in either case, and develop as near a linear record (logarithmically linear) as possible.

Compensating development is not the same in any way as the adaptation of the human eye as it scans a scene. The eye is a strange beast. It sees clearly less than one degree subtense at a time and is blind during saccadic movements from one lookpoint to another. Sleight of hand experts bank (literally) on that fact.

dancqu · Jul 3, 2008

gainer said:
If you are saying that highlight information is not needed,
so we can afford to lose some or all of it by compensating
development, then why bother?

You've got it bass-ackwards. In fact the only purpose of using
a compensating developer, AFAIK, is to save highlight detail;
restrain much expsosed areas from development thereby
maintaining their printability.

Overly long development in a compensating developer will
eventually produce great density in areas of much exposure.
Gerald Koch alludes to this in the article HE wrote and earlier
mentioned. The classic compensating developer has a high ph,
so speeding development. Of course there all degrees
of compensation. Dan

Paul Verizzo · Jul 3, 2008

Have to disagree

Lowell Huff said:
The basic principal of a compensating or accutance developer is to keep down the overall contrast in large areas while maintaining good contrast control of the fine details (mid tones). This provides for the widest latitude developer. Wide latitude capability allows for optimum development of films that have been exposed in less than optimum conditions and excellent development of those that were exposed properly.

A so-called compensating developer is not an acutance developer, at all, at least in intent.

My own definition of a compensating developer is one that, er, compensates for over exposure, locally or otherwise. Puts a shoulder on the curve. And often brings up shadow detail. As said above, no standard definition.

compensating developers, why not always use them?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency