Criteria for new developer formulations

[Ray Rogers]

They used 28 observers to subjectively rank image quality,graininess and sharpness. (They were actually studying different films).

I don't know about everyone else,
but I'm not going to trust 28 strangers to tell me what I thnk is best!

 

[Ian Grant]

The Jacobson's both father & son (Curt/Kurt & Ralph) are probably two of the best writers on photography techniques outside of the manufactures own, Haist, Mason etc. Both did some extremely interesting work, and "Developing" first published in 1940 or 41 ran to 18 Editions many with reprints, Ralph joining his father to expand the book in later editions.

Perhaps Alan is right to highlight how perception of an image can be measured using no photographers eyes, which is what eclarke was also hinting at. We need to remember that Edwin Land himself became more interested in this field in later life.

It's the balance of skills that's important as a photographer, and some writers forget that.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Alan;

I was both a subject in these types of tests at EK, but also a "gofer" helping the person conducting the test distribute prints and collate results. I am quite familiar with them in gruesome detail.

I have to say in response to Sandy, that I agree and disagree that testing is difficult. I think it is complex but easy, or difficult but not complex, depending on how the tests are set up. I have the expensive test charts Sandy refers to. They are evaporated metal on glass. The problem I have is making the exposure properly in the darkroom onto film.

So, the exposure would be difficult but the experiment would be easy, involving developing and printing 2 sheets of film as an example, up to several magnifications.

Getting the characteristic curve and speed would involve two in-camera exposures of a film. One is processed to perfection in the reference developer and the other is processed to the same density overall as the reference. Again, easy but it may take a dozen trials to get the right degree of development or to tweak the developer to give the right densities compared to the reference.

It is a matter of developing the workflow. BTDT!

More to the point is that I am willing to take anyone through any or all of the test procedures step by step.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Perhaps Alan is right to highlight how perception of an image can be measured using no photographers eyes, which is what eclarke was also hinting at.Ian

I too had to participate in that sort of research testing and I hated it!
I do understand the importance of the research however... I just did not like/agree with what the average person frequently found best! Skin tones especally... but there were other things as well.... BTW, few people in such tests tend to favor low key images so there certainly is a difference between "artistic" and "best".

Anyway, I do agree with Ian, Allan and eclarke.

 

[sanking]

I have to say in response to Sandy, that I agree and disagree that testing is difficult. I think it is complex but easy, or difficult but not complex, depending on how the tests are set up. I have the expensive test charts Sandy refers to. They are evaporated metal on glass. The problem I have is making the exposure properly in the darkroom onto film.

PE

I hate to quibble about words, but in communication words are all we have. I did not say that the testing was difficult, nor complex. What I said was that it is "very complicated, and ultimately somewhat subjective."

The workflow itself is neither difficult nor complex as any one of the criteria is relatively easy to test, provided one has the equipment to do so. The complication lies in how to evaluate and interpret the results. And the ultimate result is the print itself, which no two people will see through the same eyes.

Take grain, for example. How many threads have we seen where some people express the opinion that grain is better than toasted bread, while others hate it.

Sandy

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sandy,

Nothing is better than toasted bread, and that's final!

 

[Ian Grant]

Crumpet/Pikelet (various regional names) in England toasted with butter is an experience you've missed out on then Thomas, kick up another gear

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

How about Strumpet?

Anyhow, yes, Sandy I understand what you are saying and much of the evaluation of prints is subjective. This is why some prefer Kodak film and some prefer Fuji film when it comes to color, and the problems with the Kodachrome market evaporating has something to do with subjective preference as well.

As I said, when it comes down to the wire, you are going to sell someone on a photo, not the curves of the material used to make that photo. I am merely pointing to some objective factors or tests that help one go in the right direction.

PE

 

[Alan Johnson]

In the paper I mentioned I assume the 28 observers are representative of the public.It is interesting to note they reached the same consensus opinion about perceived quality as might a group of photographers.
In the case of low noise (low film speed) perceived quality of images correlated with sharpness as the prime parameter.For images of relatively high noise (lower)graininess is the prime parameter in perceived image quality.
It appears that the public likes acutance and fine grain developers for the appropriate films.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Many people purport to have new developer formulations. This is GREAT!

However, to pass the test of time, Kodak and others have established a method for determining if a developer is better, the same, or worse than previous developers.

It requires running an experiment in which the new developer is exactly compared to the old developer, say D-76 or the like.

1. Is the contrast the same? If it is not, then the subjective speed may be different.

2. Is the speed the same at the same contrast? If not then you are fooling yourself.

3. Is the grain the same at the same speed and contrast?

4. Is the sharpness the same at the same speed and contrast?

These 4 factors are used to determine if the new developer equals the current reference developer. To be better, the new developer must be better than 2 or 3 of the above.

So, a new developer presented to you as being "better" should have:

1. Reference pictures to an older reference developer.

2. Be better in 2 or 3 of the above characteristics.

If not, then the developer is questionable, and if there is no reference, then the new developer tests are totally meaningless in that you have no comparison to make with the new developer.

PE

Interesting points, but are you referring to the development of regular B&W films? :confused:

There are times when standard developers are not suitable for some films and a specially designed developer is required.
Technical-Pan is an example of a film that needed special processing to produce acceptable contrast and gradation similar to general use films.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am referring to any film actually but mainly B&W.

Whether you use a specialty developer or not, the criteria I mention and those others brought up are still valid and important.

PE

 

[nworth]

I agree that creating a developer without comparing it to something else is pretty pointless. At best you find that it develops film. You really want to know more about what you did. Gadget goes too far in his conclusions. You don't need to test your new concoction against everything. You just need to compare it to something you know well, and preferably something that most everyone knows well. The developer you test against should obviously be for the same kind of work as the new developer. It makes no sense to try to compare a lith developer to D-76. PE is a bit too limited in his criteria, however. You may want to create a developer with special characteristics, and as long as it doesn't do unacceptable harm to grain, speed, or sharpness, you will be happy. Sandy King's Pyrocat-HD was created primarily to get a pyro type developer that was more stable toward aerial oxidation. It worked, and it had some added benefits as well, while retaining good grain and sharpness and not losing too much speed. Several of Gadget's developers have explored using low or no sulfite. Ron's Liquidol paper developer had long tray life as one of its design objectives. You still need to compare your new work to a standard to see if you have met your design objectives and not unacceptably degraded any of the Kodak criteria.

Ideally, a new developer should be designed like any other engineering work. First you develop objective specifications, next you design the developer against those specifications (which may take some well designed experimentation) and then you test the new developer against the specifications. Most of us in APUG approach new developers from the point of view of a curious hobbyist, however. We wonder what some formulation would do it you tried X; so we try it. That's fine. But in order to find out what you did, you still need something to compare it to. Memory is very faulty when it comes to testing. It's real easy, more informative, and more fun to run parallel tests against a standard.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nworth;

Very well put. Thank you for your contribution.

You are right, I did limit my criteria but many people helped with excellent suggestions to fill those gaps. I constrained myself to quantifiable items, but the subjective items and other quantifiable aspects are just as important.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Nworth;

Very well put. Thank you for your contribution.

You are right, I did limit my criteria but many people helped with excellent suggestions to fill those gaps. I constrained myself to quantifiable items, but the subjective items and other quantifiable aspects are just as important.

PE

nworth put together much better what I was trying to say in my post. In your OP, you were suggesting that a `new` developer should be measured against a standard developer such as D-76. The point I was trying to make was that although D-76 could be used for regular B&W films such as FP4, Tri-X, T-Max etc, it wouldn`t be a good choice for processing a special-purpose film such as Kodak Technical Pan, hence the need for a specially formulated developer. Now do you see what I meant?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Dear Ian;
have you posted the formulae for Agfa's Fine Grain MQ and Ansco 17? I'm vaguely familiar with both but have never used either and have not seen their formulae. I believe your point is well taken about developing a standard all can agree on.
Denise Libby

I`m not quite sure, but I think that the Agfa and Ansco 17 developers are the same formula. The other formula that Ian mentioned was the Adox Borax M.Q.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I don't know about everyone else,
but I'm not going to trust 28 strangers to tell me what I thnk is best!

How else can you determine such subjective things when one's own personal reality is so biased? You can't do a double blind study with just person.

 

[sanking]

Ron,

I believe you know that I am not against careful testing when such testing can clearly show some of the objective differences between developers. By that I mean such things as film speed, curve type, and average gradient with a certain type of development. I have done this type of comparison testing with all of the Pyrocat variants against D75 1:1 with a wide range of films. And I did the same comparison recently with the one solution Pyrocat-Uno formula that I introduced.

However, grain, sharpness and image quality are factors that have a large subjective component and because of this are inherently more difficult to evaluate. So we inevitably get into an area of subjective opinions. At this point I guess it is pretty much a "buyer beware" issue and some opinions turn out to weigh more than other opinions because of credibility.

Sandy King

How about Strumpet?

Anyhow, yes, Sandy I understand what you are saying and much of the evaluation of prints is subjective. This is why some prefer Kodak film and some prefer Fuji film when it comes to color, and the problems with the Kodachrome market evaporating has something to do with subjective preference as well.

As I said, when it comes down to the wire, you are going to sell someone on a photo, not the curves of the material used to make that photo. I am merely pointing to some objective factors or tests that help one go in the right direction.

PE

 

[Formulary/Bud Wilson]

28 strangers

I don't know about everyone else,
but I'm not going to trust 28 strangers to tell me what I thnk is best!

I think we have 28 strangers in Washington DC (they call them CZAR"S)
telling us what we think is best.

Sorry off topic but couldn't resist

 

[Photo Engineer]

I`m not quite sure, but I think that the Agfa and Ansco 17 developers are the same formula. The other formula that Ian mentioned was the Adox Borax M.Q.

I agree that the developers should be matched, as you will note that I said that contrast and speed should mach. Therefore a specialty developer for a special film would have to have it matched in comparison.

However, the criteria of speed, contrast, grain, and sharpness are items that are still valid comparisons, and that is what I was trying to say in reply.

So, I am in total agreement.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron,

I believe you know that I am not against careful testing when such testing can clearly show some of the objective differences between developers. By that I mean such things as film speed, curve type, and average gradient with a certain type of development. I have done this type of comparison testing with all of the Pyrocat variants against D75 1:1 with a wide range of films. And I did the same comparison recently with the one solution Pyrocat-Uno formula that I introduced.

However, grain, sharpness and image quality are factors that have a large subjective component and because of this are inherently more difficult to evaluate. So we inevitably get into an area of subjective opinions. At this point I guess it is pretty much a "buyer beware" issue and some opinions turn out to weigh more than other opinions because of credibility.

Sandy King

Sandy;

This is absolutely correct and that is why you must have objective evaluation of prints made from the negatives. This is the 28 strangers . At Kodak we often used several hundred internal people and several hundred external evaluators. And, as individuals, neither of us can do that essential part of the testing, but we do the best we can.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

On the other hand, they do say that love is blind...

How else can you determine such subjective things when one's own personal reality is so biased? You can't do a double blind study with just person.

I wasn't talking about true scientific research...
IDK, perhaps I feel those studies are more a form of market research than anything else....

What "I" think is best is my evaluation of the various options...
I would hope that I make those evaluatons... Eyes Wide Open!

Double blind research is of immense value, but it is not for every situation...
Waist and cup sizes might point one in a certain direction,
but the final choice appears to be based on other criteria!



On the other hand...

 

[gainer]

As you may have noticed, I try to make my own developers simple to make and use. I wouldn't use them more than once if they didn't suit my needs, and in that case I wouldn't recommend them to another. A little reminder of part of my background may give a clue. I have said several times that I was an oboist, and a serious one at that. All the oboists I knew made their own reeds. I seldom had two reeds that were exactly alike. A certain amount of time was spent in reed making, some of which was experimental, some of which was directed toward making the sound quality that seemed appropriate to the music for the next concert.

The developers that I use have been predominantly of my own design, although until I ran out of sulfite one day they were MQ-Sulfite or PQ-Sulfite. I used ascorbic acid as a substitute for sulfite before XTOL was released and published my results for "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques."

Enough already. You may like to know that I am currently playing with exploiting the solubility of p-aminophenol in glygol or glycerine to attempt to get the essence of Rodinal with, perhaps, some more flexibility. When it gets worth reporting, I shall.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Pat - what's the draw to the oboe? Is the duck-like quack it makes, or the penguin-like squawks? Maybe instruments with two reeds are just going too far, one works well for the clarinet and the saxophone?

I can't say I'm a fan of that instrument, I guess there's just too many square waves in the sound.

Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Ray Rogers]

Square waves...

In the paper I mentioned I assume the 28 observers are representative of the public.It is interesting to note they reached the same consensus opinion about perceived quality as might a group of photographers.

And of course, we, as a group of photographers ourselves, agree on just about everything!

 

[Ray Rogers]

Alan...
Sorry, I don't mean to keep picking on your documented and content rich post!

It's just amusing to watch the subjective interacting (arguing?) with the objective.