Developer volume according to Anchell

[Bill Burk]

I should compare my notes with Adrian Bacon, but evidently, I have always developed film with insufficient stock per square inch and have always compensated by developing longer.

 

[john_s]

I should compare my notes with Adrian Bacon, but evidently, I have always developed film with insufficient stock per square inch and have always compensated by developing longer.

So does the compensation produce exactly the same result, or is there some alteration to the characteristic curve or acutance or grain or fog or anything else?

 

[Bill Burk]

So does the compensation produce exactly the same result, or is there some alteration to the characteristic curve or acutance or grain or fog or anything else?

I shouldn't have said compensation because has all kinds of special meanings I didn't intend.

But good question. The fact I am developing for a longer time could be changing some of these things.

If so I think it's very subtle. I wouldn't do it on purpose except that I like to fill the tanks with film.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

If the developer exhausts during development time, there will be a curve-shape change; the shoulder will not be as pronounced. It's called compensating development and is a good tool for reining in highlights in very contrasty situations. It maintains film speed, since the shadows get fairly full development. Extending development time to compensate for compensation helps a bit, but I think that the shoulder would still not be as steep and mid-tones would get a bit more separation.

For "normal" scenes, compensation is neither needed nor desired, hence the admonishment to use enough stock/concentrate to ensure that developer activity does not wane during the development time.

In the extreme case, using too little developer will result in the developer exhausting completely before the highlights are "fully" developed. No amount of additional development time will help here.

Best,

Doremus

 

[esearing]

Wasting lots of film I determined 3.5 ML of pyrocat M or HD part A is the bare minimum in a 500ml tank for a single 4x5 sheet. Then for each additional sheet I add .5ml or 5ML A per 500 (1:100 as suggested) for 4 sheets for "normal" processing. I have used as high as 7ML and it merely raised density overall but not by much. I may try 10ML / 500 next time I have a spare 4x5 just to see what it does. I am moving away from bare minimum these days as I am starting to experiment with alt processes and need a bit more contrast.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For many years I used 180ml of D-76 stock +180ml water for 35mm rolls. My negatives seemed fine. Some time after that, I used 200ml of D-76 stock no matter the dilution, just to be closer to Kodak's recommendation, and my common use during those years was 200+200 (1+1) for 35mm, and 200+400 (1+2) for 120.
Only very few years ago, after a post by Sal Santamaura, I tried 240ml, and I stayed there: I have tested that for 1+0.5, 1+1, 1+1.5 and 1+2, and I've liked 240ml very much. It also works very well for the EI640-800-1000 range with all films. TMax films are wonderful in D-76: I use EI64 for TMX, and EI250 for TMY, when using tripod.
My current use is 240+120 for 35mm (1+0.5) with great grain control, and 240+360 (1+1.5) for medium format.
I don't do sensitometry, but I feel with 240ml everything works better, from tone to image structure/grain.
I imagine a bit less than 240ml can be well used too, extending times as Bill Burk says, if all scenes are not mostly white.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Juan, thank you for confirming that my time is not wasted by posting facts/reality. So many are content to not only engage in crapshoots, but ridicule those who explain the way things really are. It can be discouraging after a while. Your feedback is most appreciated!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Many thanks to you, Sal!

 

[john_s]

If the developer exhausts during development time, there will be a curve-shape change; the shoulder will not be as pronounced. It's called compensating development and is a good tool for reining in highlights in very contrasty situations. It maintains film speed, since the shadows get fairly full development. Extending development time to compensate for compensation helps a bit, but I think that the shoulder would still not be as steep and mid-tones would get a bit more separation.

For "normal" scenes, compensation is neither needed nor desired, hence the admonishment to use enough stock/concentrate to ensure that developer activity does not wane during the development time.

In the extreme case, using too little developer will result in the developer exhausting completely before the highlights are "fully" developed. No amount of additional development time will help here.

Best,

Doremus

We have all used developer exhaustion to control highlight density. I have considered it mostly in the use of very dilute developers so that the developer in the highlights exhausts while the lower densities continue to develop in effectively fresh developer. In the example in the post by Doremus the lower density parts of the negative are developing in partially exhausted developer, not fresh developer. I'm wondering if fresh developer would give better shadow speed.

I'm beginning to think that many developers are becoming partially exhausted in normal use. In Bill's case, above, he is getting some weakening of the developer but probably not enough to spoil the curve-shape to any appreciable degree. D-76 1:1 doesn't seem to be a particularly frail developer. For those of us who use very dilute developers, such as Pyrocat-HD, maybe we should be using a more generous amount of developer (bigger volume, same dilution rate).

 

[Bill Burk]

Sometimes I convince myself it’s not so (what I have been saying) because sometimes I am developing 24 exposure rolls and one reel always only has the six-inch sensitometry strip.

I will try a future experiment to control for proper stock volume per square inch. I really wonder why my times are long.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

As I mentioned above, the easy test is to just develop two identical (similar) sets of negatives, one in your normal volume and one in double that (with the assumption that that is more volume that necessary) and then check to see it there is a significant difference in the highlight densities. EZPZ. If so, then you could go on to determine what is the minimum volume of whatever you're using that delivers the same highlight density as the overkill volume.

Doremus