'Development to Completion' vs. Stand or Semi-Stand?

[Murrayatuptown]

Hello:

Years ago I read something about a development process or method called 'development to completion'. This might have been in the context of two part or monobath developers.

It's very easy to find many details on all the other terms I've used above, except the D.T.C. part. I am trying to refresh that memory as to what the method involved.

It might have been compensating or highly diluted and I thought the purpose was to eliminate the possibility of overdevelopment (useful for unknown EI aged film or 'salvaging' known mis-exposure, or simply experimentation). I am pretty sure it was a film and not paper method.

Thanks for your patience with this ambiguous description, and any shared info.

Murray

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 50s and 60s some photo finishing companies used development to competition which is developing all films regardless of speed to completion, a very dense negative and then printing grade 0. I recall Mortenson did a similar process, lettings film develop for 24 hours, at low temps, then again printing grade 0. Mortenson used a diluted developer, stand development on steroids. I have experimented with Mortenson version, I got negatives and printed 00 with Ilford filters. I think it would well with unknown film, but for old film, might add just way too much fog.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well paper prints are generally developed to completion in the sense that the amount of development that take place after the recommended time is quite marginal Might this have been in an article recommendíng against "snatching" paper out of the developer before that recommended time is up?

As far as film is concerned I can only think that it may have referred to completion = exhaustion which may occur in highly dilute stand or semi-stand development. In normal development of film completion is likely to result in over developed negatives that are virtually useless

pentaxuser

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thank you both.

I bookmark or print online references of interest, & before I know it, I have added another hard drive to a stack (stackup instead of backup) or the printed article ends up in one of many cartons & I don't remember where info came from or went to.

Most of the film I have, exposed and not-yet-exposed, falls into the category of 'old' now, so maybe I should stick with processes that exercise a bit more control.

I do like dilution & cooler temperatures so at least those offer some control.

I appreciate the help.


Murray

 

[chuckroast]

Well paper prints are generally developed to completion in the sense that the amount of development that take place after the recommended time is quite marginal Might this have been in an article recommendíng against "snatching" paper out of the developer before that recommended time is up?

As far as film is concerned I can only think that it may have referred to completion = exhaustion which may occur in highly dilute stand or semi-stand development. In normal development of film completion is likely to result in over developed negatives that are virtually useless

pentaxuser

Agreed. Long development with normal agitation will give you brick thick negs.


The old photoshops used to use D-23 (dilution unknown), hang all the film and dunk it in the afternoon, one more agitation at closing time, and pull the film in the morning. This ensured that the shadows got developed to completion and could handle films of all types and exposures (within the limits of what the film could do). I've actually tried this and found no advantage over 60 min semistand or EMA.

 

[chuckroast]

Hello:

Years ago I read something about a development process or method called 'development to completion'. This might have been in the context of two part or monobath developers.

It's very easy to find many details on all the other terms I've used above, except the D.T.C. part. I am trying to refresh that memory as to what the method involved.

It might have been compensating or highly diluted and I thought the purpose was to eliminate the possibility of overdevelopment (useful for unknown EI aged film or 'salvaging' known mis-exposure, or simply experimentation). I am pretty sure it was a film and not paper method.

Thanks for your patience with this ambiguous description, and any shared info.

Murray

Shadow area develop much more slowly than highlights in monochrome film. If you leave the film in developer a very long time, you well get everything that's in the shadow area to be seen. That is, you will "completely" develop the shadows.

The problem with this is that such a long development time will also drive your highlights into pure white if you agitate in an ordinary way.

There are several fixes for this: Agitate far less frequently, use a compensating developer, and/or do split bath development as a strong compensating mechanism.

 

[Romanko]

'development to completion'

The fog levels increase with development time. There is a certain optimum time past which your maximum density no longer increases while the fog level continues to grow. This is the closest to "development to completion" I can think of.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Thank you chuckroast & Romano.

What is EMA?

 

[Romanko]

Extreme Minimal Agitation (another esoteric technique)

 

[chuckroast]

Thank you chuckroast & Romano.

What is EMA?

Background here:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

 

[chuckroast]

In the 50s and 60s some photo finishing companies used development to competition which is developing all films regardless of speed to completion, a very dense negative and then printing grade 0. I recall Mortenson did a similar process, lettings film develop for 24 hours, at low temps, then again printing grade 0. Mortenson used a diluted developer, stand development on steroids. I have experimented with Mortenson version, I got negatives and printed 00 with Ilford filters. I think it would well with unknown film, but for old film, might add just way too much fog.

My experience with overnight development did not lead to dense negatives, but mostly normal ones. This was D-23 1:3 with only two or three agitations over 16 hours.

I did notice a kind of weird coating effect, but the negatives looked to be fairly normal density.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hello:

Years ago I read something about a development process or method called 'development to completion'. This might have been in the context of two part or monobath developers.

It's very easy to find many details on all the other terms I've used above, except the D.T.C. part. I am trying to refresh that memory as to what the method involved.

It might have been compensating or highly diluted and I thought the purpose was to eliminate the possibility of overdevelopment (useful for unknown EI aged film or 'salvaging' known mis-exposure, or simply experimentation). I am pretty sure it was a film and not paper method.

Thanks for your patience with this ambiguous description, and any shared info.

Murray

William Mortensen’s books are a good resource for ideas about developing to completion.

Another phrase is developing to gamma infinity. That’s a misnomer because infinity isn’t achieved. Instead you achieve the highest contrast of which the film is practically capable. Maybe a gamma around 0.75.

You use a really flat lighting: a couple hundred watt light bulb and a reflector.

Mortensen loved the look of “plastic” high values that results from this “7D Negative”.

Exposure is based on the high values where you want detail.

If this is what you’re thinking of experimenting with, then we can look for more specific advice.

 

[Romanko]

useful for unknown EI aged film or 'salvaging' known mis-exposure, or simply experimentation

"unknown EI" - bracket down 1, 2 and 3 stops from the nominal/box speed; or better, test your film stock;
"aged film" - short development in active developer. Use a snip test to determine development time;
"salvaging known mis-exposure" - N+ and N- development in your developer of choice (possibly at lower temperature to avoid very short development times causing uneven development);

"or simply experimentation" - have fun! And share your findings here.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

Background here:

tundra/Stand-Development

gitbucket.tundraware.com

Thank you