Development times and those little frame numbers...

[Dave Krueger]

So, I'm going through the Barry Thornton procedure to find my personal film speed for my favorite films and, as suggested, I'm using development times that are 20% shorter than the manufacturer's recommendation. I'm testing TMY, TMX, and Pan F+ (all 35mm) using Xtol 1:1. Everything seems to be going ok and it looks (at first glance) that the film speeds are likely to be .5 to 1 stop less than the box speed. But, I'm also noticing that the frame numbers are pretty faint at these development times and the density of the leader is substantially less than what I'm used to when I was just using the manufacturer's recommended times. I do not have a densitometer (because I'm a cheap-ass bastard) and have not done the printing part of the test yet.

Is this normal? Should I just slit my wrists? Jam an ice pick in my ear? Switch to digital?

-Dave

 

[glbeas]

Make your prints and then make a judgement on whether its right. If you get what you want and like it doesn't matter what the numbers look like.

 

[Bob F.]

Less development = less density: that's why you do it. Development time has less effect on the shadows than the highlights so highlight density (dark on the negative) is effected more by reduced or increased development. This is the age old "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" mantra.

Go with what you have and do the development time tests, you may find that your normal dev time increases to something closer to the manufacturer's time. It may be worth re-testing your film speed once you have the normal dev time as shadow density is effected to some extent by development time, though it is unlikely to be more than 1/3rd of a stop, and probably much less, depending on how close your final time is to the 20% less than manufacturer's time you used for the speed tests.

Have fun, Bob.

 

[reellis67]

Don't worry about all of the fine details at this point. As Gary stated, just print them and see how *you* like the results. I've had great success using the 'expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows' method and I don't plan on ever getting a densitometer. I have what I feel is a solid understanding of how, what, and why I am doing things now, and I have considered moving forward but at this time I've discounted anything more than learning to use the Zone System.

As long as you are happy with the results, don't worry about it all the hyper-technical details. As you internalize the concepts you are using now, you will move forward with your technique, but if you force yourself to worry about all sorts of details that you have little understanding of, or ability to fully judge for yourself yet, you'll just get frustrated and it will no longer be fun. As I see it, frustration is the indicator that you've pushed too far. Just let the good times roll, and when you get to a point that you want more control you'll have a better understanding of how and where to proceed.

- Randy

 

[Dave Krueger]

Ok. I'll reserve judgement until after I do the printing part with the zone I and zone IX negatives. I have to admit, I'm not used to looking at negatives that have only a single tone over the entire frame.

-Dave

 

[Dave Krueger]

Well, I'm back to using manufacturer recommendations for Xtol development and getting better resuls with the films I'm testing, but...

I developed TMAX 100 (35mm) in Pyrocat HD for 14 minutes at 70F with agitation at 30 second intervals and the frame numbers are COMPLETELY gone. All the frames I exposed for Zone I are not visible even for an ISO down to 40. I get much better results with TMAX 400. In fact, it comes out very close to box speed for Xtol and Pyrocat.

Is there some problem with Tmax 100 that would tend to give it an effective speed of about 20 with Pyrocat?

-Dave