D76 vs Thornton's 2 Bath HD developer, Ilford Delta 100 in 4x5

[Milpool]

Stand development and variations on that theme (ie dilute developer, long development time with minimal or no agitation) are extreme procedures so generalization regarding the sensitometry / curve shape is problematic. It will depend on the film but also likely be quite variable depending on the developer composition and dilution. One developer/dilution might tend toward compression at one or both ends of the characteristic curve while a different developer/dilution might not do that. Repeatability is also somewhat less straight forward than people might assume.

When I first saw Milpool’s straight, linear divided-development curves, I thought: ‘Great. This is what I think I want!’

I read about how testers do not like the slow toe on Tri-X, as it doesn’t give them adequate separation in the shadows.

At the same time, it seems that there is the expectation that a compensating developer will deliver an even slower shoulder. Stand development is seen to deliver a high degree of compensation.

In one of his very informative videos (on Youtube), Analogue Andy created a curve for stand development in a Pyro developer. The curve was described as similar to wet spaghetti thrown against the fridge. This curve is not at all linear, and in the high values it shows the totally opposite of a shoulder. You can probably fit this part of the curve with an exponentially increasing curve.

(101) Pyrocat HD: Edge Effects Via Stand & Semi-Stand Development - YouTube at 1:08 into the video, he looks at the curves.

From a curves-viewpoint, it is not what I expected, but maybe my understanding is limited. It seems that only the mid-tones are compressed. In any case, I wish that I had seen Andy’s curves before trying stand development. His video also demonstrates key points regarding the frequency of agitation. Very informative.

I assume that users are happy with the result of stand development and the associated shoulder/highlights representation. If Andy’s curve is anything near usual for stand development, I would conclude that the straight line divided-development curve also would be acceptable from a high-lights viewpoint.

Currently, I am thinking that I want my developer to yield a long straight, linear curve without too much contrast. Then, for a particular film, I could use only one EI and one development process. For the contrasty scenes, exposure could be placed on Zone VIII and for the rest of the scenes Zone III would be used.

Maybe it would be similar to using Kodachrome 200 (long time ago) or a digital camera at ISO 200, converted to monochrome afterwards. I don’t know about the linearity of Kodachrome, but I think of the digital sensor as having very linear curves in use.

Looking at the various recipes (Stoeckler, D-23, BT2B), I agree with Milpool that they are all very similar. I have been thinking of using bath A at 1:1 (with the same agitation!) to get longer, more controllable development times. Or instead maybe adding a small amount of Potassium Bromide.

I have unsystematically been using the higher definition Kates version with Tri-X and HP5+ and I have not noticed any issues regarding uniformity, but would like to learn more about this.

It seems that there are a number of old threads about Divided-Development that I need to read.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I do see a slight difference when I switch back and forth between the two. I see it in the contrast of the belfry shutters and the shadows under the shrubs, but both pictures are very, very close for sure.

not enough difference for me to deal with a two-bath developer.

 

[Alan Townsend]

This thread is interesting to me because it touches on several issues that have been on my mind. Developer preference is a complicated thing and based on many ideas. What is being photographed and how do we want that to look, how are we printing our negatives and what process do we use for that, and which film do we use, among many others including our states of mind and body, which can also change over time. Too many variables.

In recent years, I am a woodland photographer. In the woods we have mostly low ket situations with mostly darker tones with occasional clouds in the sky or sunlit patches of earth among shadowy details. I like compensating developers because they raise the contrast in the lower tones, which is mostly what I have in my photography. The high tones are not as important but do need some control to avoid muddy looking overall low contrast development. That's my interpretation of this dilemma.

My developer of choice for many years has been D23 at a 1:3 dilution. This gives a very compensating curve that I like along with excellent edge effects and mackie lines that emphasize the complex texture of the woodland. I print using alt processes using enlarged positives/negatives that I make in my darkroom. I recently decided this developer was too compensating, so began experimenting with other metol based developers such as Suzuki's DS1 and DS2 developers and most recently Gainers Original MC developer. My negatives are having the blahs now. Low contrast muddiness to include all the tones without any emphasis. These viatamin C developers have much finer grain, but are also much less compensating and have lower acutance as well, which go together.

Over the last year, I've been mostly experimenting with developers and doing much less really good photography, at least in 35mm. For my 35mm woodland photography using Kentmere 100, I've returned to using D23 at 1:3 which gives the best results for my case. However, for HRU xray film that I shoot in 4x5 I have switched to Gainers MC original developer. This Xray film likes a low contrast development where it approaches a strait line film curve. It likes D23 just fine, but that is too expensive for this film in large format in my opinion. That's another factor.

Experimenting with films and film developers takes lots of time and is usually not as productive as time spent photographing. But from time to time it has to be done.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This is the issue I refer to in #7 and I think the root cause of the problem is that people easily conflate "density" and "contrast". It's nice if you're printing that the highest values have densities that aren't too ridiculously high. But the question is whether there will still be sufficient gradation to allow for textures to print well. I think this what @bernard_L is referring to.
I personally think there's a difference between an easy print and a pleasing print. Of course, ideally, you get both.

It must be remembered that with a condenser enlarger, the greater the density, the greater the contrast. So, the same interval of density at a low value will be less than that of the same interval at a greater density. Thus, a compensating developer is ideal for condenser use.