Compilation of Developing Charts

[Chriscc123]

This has probably been asked before, but has anyone ever made a developing chart listing all current films/major brands? I know it would be huge, but it would still be nice to have if it existed

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here it is!

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

 

[Jostie]

type this into google

massive dev chart

 

[Rick A]

Digital Truth, and click on the Massive development Chart.

 

[Chriscc123]

thank you very much, this will be of great use to me

 

[Anon Ymous]

Before saying anything else, I'd like to stress that the manufacturer's datasheets are always the best source of information for such purposes, and it's your tests that matter more than anything else. Nevertheless, I think that Phototec's development time calculator is quite good. They have collected some data and they made a mathematical model, which calculates the development time for different EIs, temperatures, agitation methods etc...

Entwickler is developer and if an option has the word "Stamm", it means stock solution (like D76 Stamm, undiluted).
Gradation is the contrast you'd like to have. G 0,62 is for normal contrast and box speed. "Hold" 1 and 2 is for pull processing and exposure to 1 and 2 stops more than box speed. I assume you all know what "Push" means.
Kipprhythmus is the agitation method (every 1', 30'', ...).

Example: Some months ago, I tried to find the development time for APX100 at EI 50 (1 stop pull) in D76 1+1. According to my test, 9' does the trick, with 5'' agitation every 30'', at 20°C. The calculated time from Phototec is 8:43, quite close to what I found.

But in any case, the manufacturer always has the most reliable information out there, not "any" site, which might also have outdated information.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Massive Development Chart is not a very good resource unfortunate as there are far to many anomalous entries, no standardisation of techniques, so many recommendations aren't even in the right ball park. As the chart grows this gets worse not better as there's no cross checking or correcting.

The manufacturers figures are the only reliable starting points.

Ian

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

The Massive Development Chart is not a very good resource unfortunate as there are far to many anomalous entries, no standardisation of techniques, so many recommendations aren't even in the right ball park. As the chart grows this gets worse not better as there's no cross checking or correcting.

The manufacturers figures are the only reliable starting points.

Ian

I agree completely. Stick with the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point.

 

[pentaxuser]

I had a look at the Phototec site and while it quotes the same time as Ilford does for Neopan 400 in Perceptol and DDX, times for HP5+ in Perceptol differ substantially. Phototec quotes 2 mins less (15%) for HP5+ at box speed whereas Ilford doesn't quote for box speed at all. If we look at Phototec's hold one stop(EI200) to get a proper comparison with Ilford (EI 250) then Phototec's time drops to 8.5 mins while Ilford's time remains at 13 mins. Given that Ilford's time is for EI 250 and not EI 200 then the 4.5 mins difference would be a little more for EI 200.

A difference of 4.5 mins is substantial. Either Ilford or Phototec has got this wrong.

I am now a little concerned whether Phototec is any more accurate than the Massive Development Chart. My knowledge of German isn't good enough to say what evidence Phototec has used to arrive at its times but it would seem some caution in using its times may be advisable.

pentaxuser

 

[Anon Ymous]

...I am now a little concerned whether Phototec is any more accurate than the Massive Development Chart. My knowledge of German isn't good enough to say what evidence Phototec has used to arrive at its times but it would seem some caution in using its times may be advisable...

As I said, sites like these aren't the best choice anyway. From what I've seen, they gathered information from film & developer manufacturers and just used a simple mathematic model to make that calculator. Some of their data is outdated, some films have changed.

On the other hand, the difference between normal and 1 stop pull is 23% less time according to their model, regardless of the film/developer/dilution combination. Is that always correct? No, even the same film will behave differently with the same developer in different dilution (most of the times), but it's probably quite close for many of these aforementioned combinations. If you don't have a contrast/time chart, or something similar, you'll guesstimate anyway. They also did something similar for the different agitation methods. Switching from 1' to 30'' will reduce development time by 13%.

BTW, the case of HP5+/Perceptol proves how doubtful these sites are. They either messed with their data, or based their data on their own experimentation. In any case, we don't know...

 

[ozphoto]

I guess what would be ideal is a chart that lists the *actual* data from the film manufacturers and developer manufacturers that is updated on a regular basis.

As the films change, so too should the processing data (if any changes are necessary).

But that would take an awful lot of time to compile and keep updated - maybe when I retire I can investigate to keep me busy. . . . . . .

 

[nick mulder]

Massive dev chart - yup, not too sure about Arista Ultra Edu 200 in HC110 Dil B

3.5mins ?

4.5 mins gave me the results I would expect from normal processing...

It can be interesting to see the general trend of times comparing similar ASA films with a particular developer in the instance that the manufacturers specifications for either film or developer don't reference each other

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The Massive Development Chart is not a very good resource unfortunate as there are far to many anomalous entries, no standardisation of techniques, so many recommendations aren't even in the right ball park. As the chart grows this gets worse not better as there's no cross checking or correcting.

Ian, that has not been my experience. You are right
that there are some seemingly anomalous recipes in
it. The solution is to read the chart with care, and
think about the numbers you are seeing -- a judicious
selection from the myriad of options has been in the
ballpark every time I've resorted to it.

 

[ic-racer]

B&W film development times are like printing times. You can't expect to use someone else's time and get the results you want.

Your initial development time is a guess, and the Massive Development Chart can make that guess more educated, but its utility is the same as a hypothetical Massive Printing Time chart.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, that has not been my experience. You are right
that there are some seemingly anomalous recipes in
it. The solution is to read the chart with care, and
think about the numbers you are seeing -- a judicious
selection from the myriad of options has been in the
ballpark every time I've resorted to it.

Those of us with experience can do that, however a great many people can't and expect it to be accurate.

That's why I never advocate using it as manufacturers published times are a better starting point.

Ian