+/- Development

[Bruce Osgood]

Suppose a scene has a 6 stop contrast range and your (B/W) film has what you feel is a 7 stop contrast range; do you ADD 1 stop development to stretch the scene to 7 stops OR do you MINUS 1 stop development to compress the film to the scene? Seems to me you would ADD 1 stop but I thought I'd better ask.

Secondly, is there a universally accepted % amount of time to ADD or MINUS development time? Such as add/minus 15% adjust 1 stop, 25% for two stops, etc. or is this too something one determines with there own materials?

TIA,

 

[Francesco]

"Suppose a scene has a 6 stop contrast range and your (B/W) film has what you feel is a 7 stop contrast range; do you ADD 1 stop development to stretch the scene to 7 stops OR do you MINUS 1 stop development to compress the film to the scene?".

Add (i.e. N+1 for instance).

"Secondly, is there a universally accepted % amount of time to ADD or MINUS development time? Such as add/minus 15% adjust 1 stop, 25% for two stops, etc. or is this too something one determines with there own materials?"

There are some guidelines which can be used as a starting point (i.e. the percentages you mentioned) BUT further testing is necessary because not all film-paper-dev combinations react to the same increases and/or decreases in dev time. In addition, as the contrast range of the scene moves further aways from normal, for example N+2 and more or N-2 and less, dev time changes become less linear and even in some cases displays exponential even cubic increases or decreases.

 

[lee]

Bruce,
If I understand your question you would need to clarify for me which system you are going to use. Francesco uses the BTZS and I can not speak for that. In your example, in the zone system a normal scene would have 5 zone that you might consider (from z III to z vII). I would give one stop more of exposure and one stop less development (n-1) to bring the highlight down into the z vII range. As to how far, tests should be run to see how much or less development is needed to move the zones in each direction. The most accurate way is to measure with a densitometer.

lee\c

 

[JanT]

Bruce,

you could indeed use N+1 (prolonging dev. time) to expand the contrast.
OTOH it would be interesting to know what format you use, as for 35mm you can as well use a higher paper grade. Maybe not exactly the same result als the curves of film and paper are not the same, but by extending dev. time for 35mm you just add grain to the negative.

Starting figures: 1 stop expansion(contraction) for classical emulsions: +(-)20-30% dev. time; for T-grain films: +(-)10-15%. As stated above, this needs thourough testing for reliable and reproductable results!

Jan

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I was thinking in terms of 4 X 5 BPF 200 @ 200 and developed in trays using PMK.

That's more specific than I intended, I was just looking for direction in terms of shifting Contrast Range to meet a films potential at the development stage.

As I now understand it, a scene with more range/stops than a films capacity should receive less development which would equal the films range. ie: a scene of a ten stop range would get -3 stop development IF the films range was 7 stops. I realize there are other means to deal with such a scene like camera exposure, pre-exposure, Neutral Density filters and perhaps many others.

So it is written, so it shall be: You can/should/could/would adjust development time to MEET, not exceed or fall short of your films proven contrast range. -- Providing you're using 4X5 in a tray.

 

[lee]

Bruce,

BPF 200 is probably not able to do much more than N+1. It doesn't build contrast to well and may not be an appropraite choice of film for those less than normal contrast scenes. Just my opinion gleened from what I have read and seen from Don Miller who has a lot of experience with that film.

Some say that local contrast is more important than overall contrast and some believe if you N- development will reduce said local contrast and the print will not "glow". This is an individual choice. Some experience is needed to judge this. You can find a lot of information about film developing in Ansel's #2 book The Negative.

lee\c

 

[sanking]

I was thinking in terms of 4 X 5 BPF 200 @ 200 and developed in trays using PMK.

I would not recommend PMK for BPF with N+ development. A normal development time foir BPF with the 1:2:100 dilution of PMK for N scenes is around 7-8 minutes at 72ºF with rotary processing. To do N+1 would require a time of develoment of over 20 minutes at the same temperature. You need to add about 20% more time for tray development.

Your best bet if you plan to expose a lot of BPF in situations that require N+ development is to switch to another developer such as Rollo Pyro 2:4:100, Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 or a 1:100 dilution of the new Pyro-TEA developer I just introduced on another thread on this forum. These formulas will allow N+1 develoment times with BPF in about 9-10 minutes, and at best about N+1.5 at about 16 minutes.

Sandy

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Thank You

Francesco, Lee, JanT and Sandy,

thank you for sharing your insights, I appreciate it very much.

 

[mark]

I can speak for the 2:2:100 in pyrocat HD that sany talks about. And I have never gotten BPF beyond N+1. But when you get into the SBR BPF likes it sure is pretty. At least in my opinion.

 

[sanking]

I can speak for the 2:2:100 in pyrocat HD that sany talks about. And I have never gotten BPF beyond N+1. But when you get into the SBR BPF likes it sure is pretty. At least in my opinion.

BTW, my comments about getting N+1.5 at about 16 minutes apply only to silver gelatin printing. There is no way, short of a miracle, that you could get to N+1.5 for AZO#2 with BPF 200.

Printing with alternative processes is another matter because of the high actinic filtration of the Pyrocat-HD stain, which increases contrast dramatically with UV sensitive processes. With the recent BPF I have tested, based on a required DR of about 1.75 for pure palladium printing, I can get down to N+1 (or SBR 5.5) with about 10 minutes of development, using Pyrocat+ 5:3:1:100 . Pyrocat+ is same as Pyrocat-HD with the C solution being a 1% solution of ascorbic acid.

Sandy

 

[Francesco]

"There is no way short of a miracle that you could get to N+1.5 for AZO#2." And now with new Grade 2, even moreso.

Forget BPF 200 altogether and use Pyrocat HD with Classic 400 (less money) or TMY (more money) - get an extra stop and will do up to N+2 and up to N-6. With films like TMY and Classic 400 available it really makes no sense to use BPF 200, unless of course you have a lot of it in stock.

 

[noseoil]

Another consideration is where along the scale does the highlight need to be placed? N+1 is not necessarily needed if the top end is placed on or near zone VIII. You could just as easily increase contrast by using a yellow filter (knock down the shadows) and placing the highlights on zone VIII. The yellow filter will depress shadow values enough that a full range is accomplished without extended development times.

 

[sanking]

With films like TMY and Classic 400 available it really makes no sense to use BPF 200, unless of course you have a lot of it in stock.

You are absolutely right, but sometimes price figures into the equation. I recently purchased several boxes of JandC 200 (similar or same as BPF 200) from JandC for less than $2 per sheet. Efke PL 100 is a much better film for expansion and contraction but costs more than twice as much. And hey, at $2 a sheet for 7X17" film I can find a use for the stuff!! In fact, with the stain of Pyrocat-HD, when used for kallitype and palladium printing, N+1.5 or SBR 5.5 is possible with reasonably short development times.

Sandy

 

[Francesco]

Yes Efke PL100 is more expensive, nearly double. And I notice they do not have Classic 400 in 7x17. If Classic 400 was available in 7x17 (as it is in 14x17) its marginally extra cost is not a deterrent to purchasing it as opposed to Classic 200.

 

[JanT]

I stronly recommend "Way Beyond Monochrome" by Ralph W. Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse as well as "The Negative" by Ansel Adams for good comprehension of expansion & contraction development in order to match film & scene contrast.
Both books really helped me understand the zone system.

Jan

 

[KenM]

I would like to add that you need to consider what the final print is going to look like before you make any determination on film development. Automatically altering development to fit the range of your film is formula photography, and has no part in expressive photography.

Now, if you decide that the print would have a spread of 7 zones, then yes, you would expand development. But don't just N+1 something to 'fit' the film. Do it because the final product calls for it.

Remember, you're in control of your materials, not the other way around.

 

[esearing]

why do you always strive for AZO 2 when you can print a low contrast scene on AZO 3 and reduce with Amidol/water bath if needed? I read on the AZO forum that Michael recommended beginners start with grade 3 because of the flexibilty. I plan to order some in the next couple of months and would like to resolve this or at least go into the purchase confident of my order.

Currently trying Bergger 200 and PMK in homemade BTZS tubes , will likely switch to HD when my PMK stock runs out.

 

[Francesco]

Eric, AZO 2 has an incredibly long tonal scale (ES) and, much longer than Grade 3. Assuming you get the right negative to print well on new G2 and compare that print with another but similar (in terms of subject matter) negative printed on G3 with water bath (if needed), you would see an improvement in overall contrast (ironic considering it is G2 as opposed to G3) and more importantly a superior representation of local contrast. Also you are using BPF 200, an inherently low contrast film, and as mentioned above, short of a miracle this film will not cut it with new G2. Grade 3 is an awesome paper for Classic 200 or BPF 200 or Classic 400 but unless you have tried and succeeded in matching a negative to print well on new G2 one's experience with AZO is only half successful (for this I would recommend Efke PL100 in Pyrocat HD diluted 5:3:300, minimal agitation). In my opinion, start with G3 because it is easier to make negatives to print well on it, BUT do strive later on to get negatives to work and print well with new Grade 2. After which I am certain you will come to see Grade 3 as a backup or when low light conditions force you to use a faster film.

 

[Deckled Edge]

... JandC 200 (similar or same as BPF 200)....Sandy

Say it isn't so! After fighting with Bergger 200 for several months, trying to make it turn dark in places, I gave up and went to Efke. I had great success, so decided to spend $200 on J&C 200, and make it a one stop faster success. If it's the same film as Bergger (the edges are just as rough as Bergger) I'm back in the same hole. Preliminary tests indicate an ASA of 100 and 8 min. development in HC110 for gelatin-silver, so I did not get a speed advantage. If it really is the same stuff, the 7x17 is goin' on e-Bay!

 

[sanking]

Say it isn't so! After fighting with Bergger 200 for several months, trying to make it turn dark in places, I gave up and went to Efke. I had great success, so decided to spend $200 on J&C 200, and make it a one stop faster success. If it's the same film as Bergger (the edges are just as rough as Bergger) I'm back in the same hole. Preliminary tests indicate an ASA of 100 and 8 min. development in HC110 for gelatin-silver, so I did not get a speed advantage. If it really is the same stuff, the 7x17 is goin' on e-Bay!

Sorry Deckle, that is my story and I am sticking with it. I have seen some minor differences in various incarnations of these films in terms of EFS, but very little in terms of their potential for expansion and contraction, which is quite limited when compared to films such as FPF+, Tmax-100, etc.

However, BPF 200 and JandC Classic 200 are not bad films. If you limit their use to the right lighting conditions and develop appropriately for your process they will give excellent results. If it is any consolation I bought a few boxes of the JandC 200 film recently myself, and have no regrets.

Sandy

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I tested Bergger 200 this last summer, and with Xtol 1+1, Jobo 3010, 20C, I got a CI of 0.59 at 5 minutes and 0.86 at 20 minutes. With PMK at 24C, I got 0.45 at 5 minutes and 0.72 at 20 minutes using the blue channel.

 

[sanking]

I tested Bergger 200 this last summer, and with Xtol 1+1, Jobo 3010, 20C, I got a CI of 0.59 at 5 minutes and 0.86 at 20 minutes. With PMK at 24C, I got 0.45 at 5 minutes and 0.72 at 20 minutes.

With Pyrocat+ 5:3:1:100 you can get a CI of about .95 with BPF 200 (Blue analysis) wth 16 minutes of development. But for AZO #2, which needs a negative DR of about 1.65 or higher, the CI of .95 only gets you down to an SBR of 6, or N + 0.5.

You can not get more CI out of the film than about .95, regardless of what developer you use, assuming Blue analysis. For alternative processes the outlook is much better, as a CI of up to about 1.1 is possible with BPF 200 by UV analysis, this because of the strong actinic nature of the stain.

Sandy

 

[Kirk Keyes]

If you want to try a plus development - give Acros a try. I set up the Jobo with some and Xtol 1:1 at 20C and just let it go for 1hr 20 min - the CI was 1.34 (vis or blue). The fog was a little high at 0.30 though... The highest density on the sheet was 4.50.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

 

[esearing]

If I am reading this correctly then I am doing the right things. I know I will be trying AZO 3 with Amidol. I purposefully chose Bergger 200 with its relative low contrast and PMK (Wish I had fully read about HD before making that choice). I rarely shoot high contrast situations here in the south unless I am shooting shadow and sky.

I did my first film tests yesterday and witnessed first hand how long it takes to develop BFP 200 in PMK. There was little difference in a 10 and 12 minute development but at 15minutes I saw some contrast and tonal changes and higher density. This is good news for me as I am not always consistent when using time/temp methods and can be a tad sloppy. I originally thought these times would seem like forever, but juggling 3 tubes and monitoring times and temps of the additional trays keeps a beginner like me fairly busy.

Tube trick. Since it takes about 30 seconds to 1 minute to move film from holders to presoak to the tubes, plan a LIFO method for multiple times. Last in the developer is first out. Since I knew my times would be 10, 12, and 15 for my test I noted the time each tube went in the water, then removed the last tube in when 10 minutes had passed. this shortens the overall time.

 

[JanT]

I would like to add that you need to consider what the final print is going to look like before you make any determination on film development. Automatically altering development to fit the range of your film is formula photography, and has no part in expressive photography.

Now, if you decide that the print would have a spread of 7 zones, then yes, you would expand development. But don't just N+1 something to 'fit' the film. Do it because the final product calls for it.

Remember, you're in control of your materials, not the other way around.

Of course!!! the ZS is just technique! Don't forget what the zone system's inventor said about previsualisation! The ZS is a helpful tool to reach your creative goal, providing you with a fully controllable instrument. In other words: it makes it possible do understand what you're doing, thus giving you full control over the result, whatever the result you want to achieve may be.