Developing time for FB paper

[xkaes]

You want to test the paper without filters, because filters will change whether or not you reach maximum black. A high contrast filter will not give you a blacker maximum black, but it will turn your ALMOST maximum black into maximum black.

"Almost maximum black" is like "almost pregnant" -- it is or it isn't.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. So much redundant complication to arrive at a fairly simple visual answer. And I own some nice densitometers.

 

[Pieter12]

You want to test the paper without filters, because filters will change whether or not you reach maximum black. A high contrast filter will not give you a blacker maximum black, but it will make your ALMOST maximum black into maximum black.

"Almost maximum black" is like "almost pregnant" -- it is or it isn't.

I think you are misinterpreting. A higher contrast filter will crush the blacks, rendering Zone I and maybe even Zone II as Zone 0.

 

[xkaes]

I'm not misinterpreting anything. A higher contrast filter increases contrast, so the almost blacks get blacker. The already maximum black does not get any blacker.

Similarly, the almost white gets whiter. The already maximum white does not get whiter.

Using a lower contrast filter will make your maximum blacks no longer maximum black -- and your maximum whites not longer maximum white.

That's why you test for maximum black without any filters.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm not misinterpreting anything. A higher contrast filter increases contrast, so the almost blacks get blacker. The already maximum black does not get any blacker.

Similarly, the almost white gets whiter. The already maximum white does not get whiter.

Using a lower contrast filter will make your maximum blacks no longer maximum black -- and your maximum whites not longer maximum white.

That's why you test for maximum black without any filters.

Then I don't understand your previous response. "Almost pregnant" is an oxymoron, "almost black" is a real phenomenon.

 

[eli griggs]

I ask questions about how people do things in the hope of learning something new. That usually involves follow-up questions when people do not adequately explain why they do what they do, or give inconsistent responses.

I've been doing photography since '74, my own darkroom work as well as very skilled commercial photographers and I've compounded my own developers and other solutions for a fair number of years, but I'll still ask others how they are doing their own processes, because I do no know it all and there are many ways, good or bad, to run a process.

IMO, ask questions as you need to, but study up on what your basic photo knowledge requires, before deviating from that secure base, touching every base and no skipping steps until you've done it all on your own.

 

[Pieter12]

I've been doing photography since '74, my own darkroom work as well as very skilled commercial photographers and I've compounded my own developers and other solutions for a fair number of years, but I'll still ask others how they are doing their own processes, because I do no know it all and there are many ways, good or bad, to run a process.

IMO, ask questions as you need to, but study up on what your basic photo knowledge requires, before deviating from that secure base, touching every base and no skipping steps until you've done it all on your own.

Well when the member (not you) asks, "So development to completion means development to taste?" "When does overdevelopment occur and how do you determine that?" and later states he has been printing for 50 years, he should know by now what development to completion or overdevelopment looks like. You have to wonder if he is trolling.

 

[eli griggs]

Well when the member (not you) asks, "So development to completion means development to taste?" "When does overdevelopment occur and how do you determine that?" and later states he has been printing for 50 years, he should know by now what development to completion or overdevelopment looks like. You have to wonder if he is trolling.

I prefer to tend to take membersat their word, about their experience, belief and opinion, unless it simply is so factually outrageous that it requires a response, IMO.

No ever opinion expressed needs responding and I doubt he's trolling for fun.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

At normal dilutions & 20°C/68°F , typical time for FB paper is 2 minutes as a starting point. As they say, YMMV. It's of course tied to your negative and exposure. I use Ansco 130 and LPD and frequently develop past 2 minutes..."to completion" as they say. But it depends on the highlights. 2min with the products you've mentioned would be a good target.

Yes,but independent of negative. FB paper needs to develop to completion to reach Dmax and that is anywhere between 90-`20s in standard dilution.Anything less will end up with weak blaxks and grayish midtones.

 

[BMbikerider]

Is the wash aid Photo Flo? If so I use it on my negatives. It's what I have. Do I just add a drop of wash Aid in my water while the prints soak? I think I've been over soaking them like 2-3 hours I'm not sure what that does to the paper. I did a lot of research before I joined this site and I know it's all over the internet but some of my questions are hard to find. I always thought you develop as the time recommended. I get images so I leave it at that. I'm not technical I don't know about fogging and and cutting your developing time in half or increasing your developing time. I'm sure I can get those answers just asking online. But back to wash aid? Is Photo Flo a wash aid? If so just a drop straight out of the bottle for my prints when they are soaking?

Photo-flow is designed to be used with B&W negatives only as a final rinse and I have use both the Kodak and Ilford versions. Photo-flow can also be added to paper developer to aid, in breaking down down the surface tension of the water, it helps to ensure that the developer covers the emulsion surface evenly. That is not strictly necessary and I don't use it regularly, only on 16x12 prints.

Wash aid is used to reduce the washing times of fibre based paper by converting residual fixer in fibre papers so reducing the washing times quite significantly, so saving time and water.

To be perfectly honest the wash aid I have came from a pro photographer' darkroom who passed away and his business closed down. I bought a 20 litre drum of the stuff in a sale. That was a long time ago and the name of the manufacturer had dropped off the drum. It may possibly have been Tetenal?

 

[Don_ih]

The half of the print out of the developer will continue to develop until it is rinsed or immersed in stop bath.

hold half your print out of the dev for 20 seconds then see how long it takes for both halves to look the same.

I assumed people understood "hold" as "prevent". I was saying, put half the print in the developer and then put the other half in 20 seconds later and see how long it takes for the second half to catch up with the first. (Don't cut the print in half or anything - hold it out of the dev for 20 seconds.) There's no "continue to develop" - I meant don't get that half wet. But I should have phrased it more clearly. However long it takes for the two halves to look the same is how long it takes to develop to completion, for that paper, in that developer.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I assumed people understood "hold" as "prevent". I was saying, put half the print in the developer and then put the other half in 20 seconds later and see how long it takes for the second half to catch up with the first. (Don't cut the print in half or anything - hold it out of the dev for 20 seconds.) There's no "continue to develop" - I meant don't get that half wet. But I should have phrased it more clearly. However long it takes for the two halves to look the same is how long it takes to develop to completion, for that paper, in that developer.

Thanks, that’s a very simple test. I plan to to test my process next session to see if I’m significantly over developing (might as well regain a few seconds if I can). What tones finish up developing last?

 

[xkaes]

Then I don't understand your previous response. "Almost pregnant" is an oxymoron, "almost black" is a real phenomenon.

Put on your thinking cap. You either are pregnant or you aren't. You either have maximum black or you don't. There is no in between. There are simple tests for pregnancy and for maximum black. If you can't achieve maximum black in your prints, you are not pregnant -- photographically speaking.

 

[Don_ih]

What tones finish up developing last?

Highlight detail seems to be slowest to fill in - but I don't know that it's actually much slower than middle values. It's only an observational test, though, just to get an idea of a minimum time for developing.

 

[Pieter12]

Put on your thinking cap. You either are pregnant or you aren't. You either have maximum black or you don't. There is no in between. There are simple tests for pregnancy and for maximum black. If you can't achieve maximum black in your prints, you are not pregnant -- photographically speaking.

I did misinterpret the original post. Obviously if a print is not getting maximum black at a certain exposure and developing time, a grade change would not be a factor.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Boy, there sure is a lot of confusion out there about "maximum black" and how to achieve it. So let me add to the fray

You can get maximum black (D-max) from any negative with any contrast filter. Just expose long enough. The image may be totally worthless, but you can get as black as you like with enough exposure. Heck, I don't even need a negative or even an enlarger to get paper to D-max; just turn on the room lights and toss it in the developer. D-max is a result of two things: adequate exposure and adequate development - period.

The adage that a fine print must contain a maximum black and a maximum white (just paper-base white) is about as valuable as many other photographic generalizations. Yes, most successful prints have good blacks and good highlights and lots of nicely-separated midtones in between. Some don't and that's just fine too if that's what the goal of the photographer is. I've got a couple of prints with nowhere near D-max in them on purpose. They work well IM-HO.

Besides, achieving a print with a full range of tonalities is really all about the negative that you start with. The idea is to have a negative that has a full range of densities in the right proportions to deliver a fine print when printed on a medium-contrast paper grade or filtration setting. That's why we spend so much time on film exposure and development.

The whole point of exposing a clear area of the negative for enough time to get D-max (or close enough to it to be visually indistinguishable) is to see if you are exposing and developing your film properly. Making the "proper proof" is a down-and-dirty way of checking to see if your negative has enough exposure and the proper range of densities to get print tonalities that correspond best to the scene (and how the photographer visualized it).

Yes, developing for a too-short time will not allow the paper to reach D-max. This is not good, so develop your prints long enough. Finding how long to develop your prints so they are not underdeveloped is pretty straightforward; read the directions that come with your paper and print developer.

Overdevelopment of prints happens only when fogging starts to occur. That takes a pretty long time with most papers - say 8-10 minutes or longer before any ill effects are noticed. I've developed prints for five minutes and more with no fogging. The upshot here is that the window of development time where you can achieve a maximum black and still have no fogging is really large, somewhere between 1.5 and 6 (or more) minutes for most fiber-base papers.

As mentioned before, extending development time beyond that which is needed for the paper to achieve a maximum black and the characteristic curve shape has stabilized only speeds up the paper. That's just like adding a bit more exposure at the enlarger, nothing more.

So the inevitable conclusions: Expose your paper long enough to get the blacks you want in the print and develop it long enough for those black to appear.

It's good to standardize on a print development time that falls within the window between under- and overdevelopment just so you can make consistent changes in exposure with exposure time at the enlarger. A refinement of that is to use development time to make, in essence, small tweaks of exposure, which might be inconvenient to make with exposure time. This comes when making the final adjustments to a print; not when starting out.

If you print for good, "realistic" midtones and highlights and can't get a decent black, it's not the paper's fault. It's your underexposed and/or underdeveloped negative that is the problem. Similarly, if you need to use extreme contrast settings a lot to get decent prints, you really need to refine your film exposure and development.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I am private where I am located in Oregon but thank you for the advice. Again another frustration. I do not have a wash aid. But that's fine right? I don't exactly need one? What's the difference between a wash aid and a wetting agent? Well someone said I can use photo flo for prints and you say I don't need one. That's the part that is frustrating me. I need in person training I can't handle forums and online stuff very well. It gives me panic attacks and that's why I'm so on edge in this group. It would be very difficult for me not too be on edge in here but I'll be more respectful. You are close to me in Oregon so if you want to send me a personal message go ahead. Thank you!

PK,

To answer your question first: Wash aid allows fixer residue and by-products from fixing to be washed out of the paper faster. It is a real help when processing fiber-base papers. If you don't have any, you don't have to use it, but you will need to wash your prints longer and then, still, they might not be washed to the point of optimum permanence.

Photo Flo is a wetting agent; a kind of surfactant/detergent that keeps water from beading up on surfaces (your film). It will not help speed up washing of prints, so don't use it for that. It's main purpose is as a final rinse for film, to prevent water from forming droplets on the drying film and causing spots. You do not need it for processing prints.

That's fairly simple to grasp, so there need not be any frustration here.

If you feel you would like a wash aid, they are readily available from any usual source. Look for Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent or Ilford Wash Aid. You will likely have to order them online, like you likely did for your developer, stop and fix. Maybe, however, you can find it at a local photo dealer. If you live in the Eugene, OR area near me, as you indicate, then go to Dot Dotson's on Willamette St. or the University of Oregon Bookstore. They likely have Hypo Clearing Agent or Wash Aid in stock.

Also, if you need some hands-on and personalized advice, look up the Eugene Darkroom Group. They teach classes at the Maude Kerns Art Center and have a community darkroom with experienced people who can likely answer your questions.

Another thing to consider, though is: if learning to process prints in a darkroom is affecting your mental health and giving you panic attacks, perhaps you should get some help on that front as well. Most of us find making photographs relaxing, rewarding, exhilarating, or something else positive. If it is causing you anxiety, you may need to deal with that first. I'd encourage you to look for some counseling or other therapy to help you deal with the feelings of frustration and being on edge that you are having. That may well be the issue you need to deal with first before you continue with your photographic endeavors.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pieter12]

Boy, there sure is a lot of confusion out there about "maximum black" and how to achieve it. So let me add to the fray

You can get maximum black (D-max) from any negative with any contrast filter. Just expose long enough. The image may be totally worthless, but you can get as black as you like with enough exposure. Heck, I don't even need a negative or even an enlarger to get paper to D-max; just turn on the room lights and toss it in the developer. D-max is a result of two things: adequate exposure and adequate development - period.

The adage that a fine print must contain a maximum black and a maximum white (just paper-base white) is about as valuable as many other photographic generalizations. Yes, most successful prints have good blacks and good highlights and lots of nicely-separated midtones in between. Some don't and that's just fine too if that's what the goal of the photographer is. I've got a couple of prints with nowhere near D-max in them on purpose. They work well IM-HO.

Besides, achieving a print with a full range of tonalities is really all about the negative that you start with. The idea is to have a negative that has a full range of densities in the right proportions to deliver a fine print when printed on a medium-contrast paper grade or filtration setting. That's why we spend so much time on film exposure and development.

The whole point of exposing a clear area of the negative for enough time to get D-max (or close enough to it to be visually indistinguishable) is to see if you are exposing and developing your film properly. Making the "proper proof" is a down-and-dirty way of checking to see if your negative has enough exposure and the proper range of densities to get print tonalities that correspond best to the scene (and how the photographer visualized it).

Yes, developing for a too-short time will not allow the paper to reach D-max. This is not good, so develop your prints long enough. Finding how long to develop your prints so they are not underdeveloped is pretty straightforward; read the directions that come with your paper and print developer.

Overdevelopment of prints happens only when fogging starts to occur. That takes a pretty long time with most papers - say 8-10 minutes or longer before any ill effects are noticed. I've developed prints for five minutes and more with no fogging. The upshot here is that the window of development time where you can achieve a maximum black and still have no fogging is really large, somewhere between 1.5 and 6 (or more) minutes for most fiber-base papers.

As mentioned before, extending development time beyond that which is needed for the paper to achieve a maximum black and the characteristic curve shape has stabilized only speeds up the paper. That's just like adding a bit more exposure at the enlarger, nothing more.

So the inevitable conclusions: Expose your paper long enough to get the blacks you want in the print and develop it long enough for those black to appear.

It's good to standardize on a print development time that falls within the window between under- and overdevelopment just so you can make consistent changes in exposure with exposure time at the enlarger. A refinement of that is to use development time to make, in essence, small tweaks of exposure, which might be inconvenient to make with exposure time. This comes when making the final adjustments to a print; not when starting out.

If you print for good, "realistic" midtones and highlights and can't get a decent black, it's not the paper's fault. It's your underexposed and/or underdeveloped negative that is the problem. Similarly, if you need to use extreme contrast settings a lot to get decent prints, you really need to refine your film exposure and development.

Best,

Doremus

What I said. Develop to taste.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I surmise that quite a few beginners would benefit a lot more from personal hand-on coaching rather than web descriptions of it, though how-to Utube videos are an intermediate alternative. Let's hope the individual in question finds that opportunity. Not everyone responds well to the textbook approach.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

What I said. Develop to taste.

That's perfectly fine if you know what you are doing. There are many, however, who are struggling to get prints they are satisfied with, so knowing where to look for getting the whole tonal-reproduction system working correctly is helpful. That's usually the point of my diatribes

Doremus

 

[Don_ih]

quite a few beginners would benefit a lot more from personal hand-on coaching

It'd save a whole lot of paper, too.

 

[xkaes]

In the long run, running up-front tests with your film and paper wastes less film and paper than the ol' trial & error approach. I know too well -- from first hand experience.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It takes some actual experience just to understand what a valid "up front" test consists of. Trying to load it all up front analytically apart from hands-on experience, is a recipe for frustration. Trial and error is a key part of the learning curve. You gotta get on first base first. And I'm stating that as someone who has plotted hundreds of densitometer curves,
and who arrives at excellent prints via simple test strips, probably wasting far less paper than most folks do.

 

[xkaes]

I do lots of test strips too, but I'm always starting out somewhere in the infield. Lots of people aren't even in the ball field when they start printing -- a situation that a few tests can avoid. Talk about frustrating. I've known too many people who gave up on the darkroom completely (not photography) because they they didn't learn the basics first. Of course, the same thing happens with math in high school, etc.

Trial & error is one thing, education is another.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

All paper will fog if left in developer too long. Now, what that implies is that there is no actual "completion" of development. But there is the point at which everything seems to have stopped getting darker without the unexposed parts of the paper turning grey. That lasts a long time for most papers - unless they are old or have been preflashed. Any time into that period is what would be considered "completion". So, like Drew and others have said, you need to check how long that takes with your paper and dev combination.

Usually, you will settle on a time for your developer that will satisfy those requirements. This is all harder to describe than it is to observe. You'll notice that your MGIV RC print doesn't really change between minute 2 and minute 3, for example, so you will start to think that's the appropriate time. Examining the print for inconsistency after it's dry is how you confirm it.

Sure fire confirmation is hold half your print out of the dev for 20 seconds then see how long it takes for both halves to look the same. Completion is a mininum 20 seconds before that pointi ha

All paper will fog if left in developer too long. Now, what that implies is that there is no actual "completion" of development. But there is the point at which everything seems to have stopped getting darker without the unexposed parts of the paper turning grey. That lasts a long time for most papers - unless they are old or have been preflashed. Any time into that period is what would be considered "completion". So, like Drew and others have said, you need to check how long that takes with your paper and dev combination.

Usually, you will settle on a time for your developer that will satisfy those requirements. This is all harder to describe than it is to observe. You'll notice that your MGIV RC print doesn't really change between minute 2 and minute 3, for example, so you will start to think that's the appropriate time. Examining the print for inconsistency after it's dry is how you confirm it.

Sure fire confirmation is hold half your print out of the dev for 20 seconds then see how long it takes for both halves to look the same. Completion is a mininum 20 seconds before that point.

I have just been using recommended times for my developer and stop and fix. When I see a image and it's too dark I leave it under the enlarger shorter. If I get a image that looks good to my eye I'm satisfied with it. I do not know anything about developing longer or shorter. This has been working for me and most of the time I'm liking the results. A couple of people have mentioned develope to taste and that's what I've been doing. I'm getting images I'm adjusting my exposure times if something is a bit too dark or too light. One subject I'm curious about is understanding Maximum Black and fogging! Thanks for the info it's helping!