Development Times

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

I would like to correct a misconception that has appeared more than once in the past few months. That is the erroneous belief that development times are immutable. They are only suggestions based on the assumption that your development method is fairly standard as concerns such things as agitation and temperature control. If one is experiencing more or less contrast than is considered normal then it is permissible to change the developing time. You will be adjusting for your development method. Therefore you should make it clear to anyone who asks that the particular time represents your method and may not be best for others. So many newbies ask for help and are swamped with conflicting advice. It is always best to start with the manufacturers suggestion rather than ask others.

If you are experiencing unusual negative density then your exposure needs adjustment not the developing time. Remember that development controls contrast and exposure controls density. It is difficult to distinguish between a negative that is too contrasty from one that is too dense. A similar problem exists for "thin" negatives. Those new to photography find this particularly difficult. This makes it important to start out with a standard developer and a standard time and temperature.

As an added caveat never tinker with the developer formulation. If you are experiencing constant difficulties with contrast then try a different developer which may be more suitable for your method. There are certainly many available. Never, ever, mix two developers together on the mistaken notion that will get a combination of what is good in each of them. You are more likely to get a combination of all that is bad. I was appalled at a popular and usually reputable website advocating such a idea.

snapguy · Jun 16, 2014

lecture

Jes' love to be lectured to by some self-appointed Perfesser of Photography and How The World Should Be Run. Everything you say if iffy, if not just wrong. Not to mention the last time I looked, it is still a free country. Some people like to shake things up and do it differently. I attended some Leica Flying Short Courses where the Leitz company flew "experts" around the country and gave the Word From Mt. Olympus to us mAsses. They said shoot and develop your film so as to have to print the negs with use of Grade Four Single Grade photo paper. This was stupid. They said you could not possibly use a 35mm camera that had a motor drive because static electricity would ruin the film. OF course, Leica invented the durn 325mm still camera to use 35mm motion picture film which normally runs at 16 frames a second and up. Without static electricity. Kodak used to lie about the ASA of their b&w films so you would overexpose and at least get something they could print up for you. The world is full of self-appointed "experts" including you.

Rick A · Jun 16, 2014

Hey snapdood, he isn't spouting off as a perfesser, he's stating the obvious. Far too often, (like just about every friggin thread about) people ask for help, and get " you should ferget what yer usin and use what I'm usin, cause yer a dumbarse and I know everything".
I agree with what Mr Koch has to say, it is a truth to abide by, and I do. The last few days, a fellow here posted a help thread, listed what he had to use, and was bombarded with a barrage of lose what you bought and use what I tell you to use or you will never reach your goal. He was becoming seriously confused, and frustrated. We cannot do this to anyone if we want to continue to promote our craft.
Learn to answer someones question with an appropriate answer or don't chime in.

snapguy · Jun 16, 2014

vp

Verichrome Pan daze, I mean days.

cliveh · Jun 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
Remember that development controls contrast and exposure controls density.

I always thought that an over developed film increases both contrast and density.

bernard_L · Jun 16, 2014

Hey snapdood, he isn't spouting off as a perfesser, he's stating the obvious. (...) and get " you should ferget what yer usin and use what I'm usin, cause yer a dumbarse and I know everything".

+1 on what Rick A and Gerald Koch said
Some welcome sanity

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

cliveh said:
I always thought that an over developed film increases both contrast and density.

Yes and no. If development is extended past what is needed to produce good shadow detail the extra density serves no purpose and only increases print times. To keep things simple it is best to decouple density and contrast.

Rick A · Jun 16, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Increased development increases density in proportion to exposure, meaning there is a relatively small increase in density in low exposure areas. That's why contrast increases.

Gerald was referring to an equal increase in density in all areas of the negative (from shadows to highlights). This comes from increased exposure.

Great explanation Michael. That should be very helpful to any neophytes reading this thread.

cliveh · Jun 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
Yes and no. If development is extended past what is needed to produce good shadow detail the extra density serves no purpose and only increases print times. To keep things simple it is best to decouple density and contrast.

But density is still increased, which makes your original statement incorrect.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

I have always been fond of the old Charlie Chan mysteries. In particular his aphorisms such as "Better not speak and appear dumb than speak and remove all doubt."

Rick A · Jun 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
I have always been fond of the old Charlie Chan mysteries. In particular his aphorisms such as "Better not speak and appear dumb than speak and remove all doubt."

:munch:

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

cliveh said:
But density is still increased, which makes your original statement incorrect.

But it's not useful density as I remarked. I was not interested in the post becoming overly complex. All sorts of things happen when you over develop film.

cliveh · Jun 16, 2014

But in your original post, you did not mention useful density. You also mentioned:- If you are experiencing constant difficulties with contrast then try a different developer which may be more suitable for your method. Would not a different time/temperature with the same developer be a better solution to solve this problem?

Please note I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but you are not being quite factual.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 16, 2014

cliveh said:
But in your original post, you did not mention useful density. You also mentioned:- If you are experiencing constant difficulties with contrast then try a different developer which may be more suitable for your method. Would not a different time/temperature with the same developer be a better solution to solve this problem?

Please note I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but you are not being quite factual.

I did not mention much about density because the post mainly concerned development times. Some people are afraid to change from what is recommended even when they are getting poor results. Rather than modifying development times they tinker with the developer formulation.

Never for an instant did I consider your posts antagonistic. I mentioned density really only in passing to show that density and contrast should really be thought of separately. I used to teach college chemistry including freshman chemistry. We had to gloss over certain points or simplify things or the course would have been much harder and much, much longer. The old maxim, "development controls contrast, exposure controls density" while not completely correct is easy to understand.

cliveh · Jun 16, 2014

Sorry, I understand and I'll shut up.

snapguy · Jun 16, 2014

Hoot

Kodak "safety factor" -- what a hoot. Dumb bunny stuff like that is why the company went belly-up. But, yes, that was their excuse for lying to the consumer. Professional photographers and those who wanted to get things right resented it. Tell us the truth and give your "engineers" and p. r. flacks the training wheels for their Studebakers and Edsels.

JW PHOTO · Jun 16, 2014

I have gotten some very helpful tips from Gerald in the past and hope to in the future also. I also pretty much agree with what he says in his post. However, when we say things like "never, ever" I have to draw the line. If I remember my early one-room schoolhouse history class(yes I'm that old) on Chris Columbus I believe folks were telling him not to sail here or there 'cause he'd drop off the edge of the earth. That means I'd still be stuck in the Netherlands and not in the New World of Michigan. Of course if he had sailed over the edge of the earthy we could then say, never, ever sail in that certain direction. So, I guess Gerald is right in saying never, ever mix two developers together if he knows they don't improve results, but that's his mileage and your mileage just may vary. I say do what you want as long as you don't kill somebody or yourself. JW

Rick A · Jun 16, 2014

snapguy said:
Kodak "safety factor" -- what a hoot. Dumb bunny stuff like that is why the company went belly-up. But, yes, that was their excuse for lying to the consumer. Professional photographers and those who wanted to get things right resented it. Tell us the truth and give your "engineers" and p. r. flacks the training wheels for their Studebakers and Edsels.

Hmm... If memory serves me, about the same time Kodak changed their ASA ratings, Ilford did the same. You sayin Ilford lied too? As I recall, nearly all film manufacturers upgraded their ASA ratings for their respective films. I guess they all lied to us, and we wuz dumb enuf ta beleeve dem.

Sirius Glass · Jun 16, 2014

snapguy said:
Jes' love to be lectured to by some self-appointed Perfesser of Photography and How The World Should Be Run. Everything you say if iffy, if not just wrong. Not to mention the last time I looked, it is still a free country. Some people like to shake things up and do it differently. I attended some Leica Flying Short Courses where the Leitz company flew "experts" around the country and gave the Word From Mt. Olympus to us mAsses. They said shoot and develop your film so as to have to print the negs with use of Grade Four Single Grade photo paper. This was stupid. They said you could not possibly use a 35mm camera that had a motor drive because static electricity would ruin the film. OF course, Leica invented the durn 325mm still camera to use 35mm motion picture film which normally runs at 16 frames a second and up. Without static electricity. Kodak used to lie about the ASA of their b&w films so you would overexpose and at least get something they could print up for you. The world is full of self-appointed "experts" including you.

You are the one out of line. The OP is correct.

yulia_s_rey · Jun 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
I would like to correct a misconception that has appeared more than once in the past few months. That is the erroneous belief that development times are immutable. They are only suggestions based on the assumption that your development method is fairly standard as concerns such things as agitation and temperature control. If one is experiencing more or less contrast than is considered normal then it is permissible to change the developing time. You will be adjusting for your development method. Therefore you should make it clear to anyone who asks that the particular time represents your method and may not be best for others. So many newbies ask for help and are swamped with conflicting advice. It is always best to start with the manufacturers suggestion rather than ask others.

If you are experiencing unusual negative density then your exposure needs adjustment not the developing time. Remember that development controls contrast and exposure controls density. It is difficult to distinguish between a negative that is too contrasty from one that is too dense. A similar problem exists for "thin" negatives. Those new to photography find this particularly difficult. This makes it important to start out with a standard developer and a standard time and temperature.

As an added caveat never tinker with the developer formulation. If you are experiencing constant difficulties with contrast then try a different developer which may be more suitable for your method. There are certainly many available. Never, ever, mix two developers together on the mistaken notion that will get a combination of what is good in each of them. You are more likely to get a combination of all that is bad. I was appalled at a popular and usually reputable website advocating such a idea.

++1. Other than my occasional experimentation to satisfy my curiosity and for plain amusement, my modus is to always follow the manufacturer's dev times and published formulations to the "T" with my serious work. What Gerald is saying cannot be stressed enough.

Bill Burk · Jun 16, 2014

Although we all could learn, I wonder whether Gerald was referring to a recent post of mine where I stated "13 minutes and 30 seconds"...

Gerald is right to call out that specific time advice is folly. I could have done better by qualifying my statement with "the time is a suggested starting point" and then I wouldn't have to accept a rightfully-deserved criticism.

I'll go post a follow-up in that thread to help make amends...

Bill Burk · Jun 16, 2014

Fixed that.

You can go pretty far with the manufacturer's recommended times. All my black and white from school days until I joined APUG was done by time and temperature using the published times. My results were mostly satisfactory, though I always "wanted" to learn the Zone System because I had a nagging suspicion my negatives weren't the best they could be.

In the process of learning Zone System, I learned "Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights".

In the practice of testing, I learned developing times are just as Gerald pointed out in this thread, starting points.

The suggested starting times don't include information relevant to your (the royal "your") particular use case (such as "to aim for 0.62 Contrast Index" or "for printing on Diffusion Enlarger"). Specific reasons for the recommended times would really help qualify what the times are supposed to be for, so that you can decide if you are there or not. But that information isn't generally given.

But just as I didn't fully grasp "Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights" until I tried my own exposure and developing studies... I believe I also didn't fully see what the starting point was all about, until I started studying my developing times. It's obvious to someone who knows it, and the sayings are real simple and apparently obvious... But it can be hard to fully grasp, until you really study it.

So I don't say it's bad to misunderstand the idea, because it took me a really long time to understand it. I believe it could easily be a tough idea for anyone.

Bill Burk · Jun 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
Some people are afraid to change from what is recommended even when they are getting poor results. Rather than modifying development times they...

I've long been guilty of sticking with recommended times, but rather than tinker with developer formula, I tinkered with my technique until I obtained good results at the recommended times... That wasn't totally wasted time because I attained a consistency... But it was clearly the "wrong" approach to solving my problem.

Rick A · Jun 16, 2014

Don't feel bad Bill, after 50 years of playing it safe, I took a leap of faith and started tinkering with time and temps to tweak my results. I must add here, that I decided to start doing this because I started printing Pt/Pd and carbon transfers and needed more substantial negatives for it.

Bill Burk · Jun 16, 2014

Wow Rick, I didn't realized you'd gotten into the alt printing processes. Good for you!

Development Times

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency