Does anybody process film through inspection anymore?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I remember 30 years ago when I worked for a university photographic unit. I saw their weird green and dim safelight. Being curious, I asked what it was. Sam, my colleague told me it's for processing film. He wasn't the one who used it, but the former photographer that retired used it. I asked him why not, he told me it fogs the film. That was back in the 80's. I'm guessing at one time, a lot of people developed film via safelight. Does anyone do that anymore. I've dabbled with it and it takes practice. Don't process by inspection very often. I think this method could help errors in exposure to a degree. Didn't Ansel Adams use this method to process his Moonrise image?

 

[wiltw]

Way back, orthochromatic film was blind to certain colors of light, so you could process film under the proper safelight, and inspection could be the processing technique.

The panchromatic films were introduced and most black and white emulsions were 'panchromatic'...sensitive to ALL wavelengths (colors) of light. Inspection as a technique became problematic. Green was chosen as a safelight color because the eye was said to be more sensitive to that color, so it took less of that color the illuminate the darkroom sufficiently. But even in the 1960's Kodak recommended Green only for Infrared material (per Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide v. 1964! The only orthochromatic films were typically for X-ray use, not general photography, in modern times.
My first safelight came with amber and green filters, but the green one never got used...I never used Infrared film)

 

[wiltw]

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I tried developing by inspection once and decided it wasn't for me. The film was supposed to be desensitized with Pinakryptol Green, don't know if it is still available. At a guess it probably didn't work very well with fast films - instead of 5 seconds inspection time one would only get 1 - hence the comment "it fogs the film." It only works with sheet film (well, it would work with roll film if all the shots on the roll were at the same exposure, but as the view of the image is pretty crappy I don't know anything intelligent could be said about a 35mm/MF negative).

I think the near universal usage of exposure meters has put paid to the practice.

AA's book The Making of 40 Photographs says Moonrise was developed using a D-23/water bath process and the lower half of the negative was treated in IN-5 intensifier, there is no mention of inspection.

 

[removed account4]

I do when I am using a developer or film I am not sure about...

 

[Nodda Duma]

Yes, often for dry plates

 

[gone]

I've started developing my fb matte paper by inspection. It wasn't anything planned, it just happened, probably out of desperation since these papers have been a huge trial to get right. Yesterday I was watching the image appear in the developer and decided that it looked good, so out it came and into the stop it went. That's probably why people develop film by inspection, they feel it gives them a better negative. RC and fb glossy are no problem for me, but fb matte papers are a challenge. Maybe I can't repeat a print that was developed by inspection, but that one good print is worth it at this stage.

 

[Alan9940]

I tried and tried to master DBI, but I couldn't effectively judge high value development under the dim green light. I tried the distance and "glancing" method, as described by MAS, and with the light immediately behind the development tray. I actually had the most luck with IR goggles, but that was iffy, too. Finally figured that I had been developing all formats of film for about 40 years following time/temp procedures and never felt I was missing anything. I wanted to try DBI because the ambient temp of my darkroom varies quite a bit throughout the year. I thought it would be helpful to not have to concern myself with the actual temp of the developer; simply develop until it looks right.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I do all my large format negatives by inspection and wouldn't do it any other way. Dark green filter and a footswitch works for me
Once you learn to develop for the highlights it becomes send nature

 

[Pat Erson]

even in the 1960's Kodak recommended Green only for Infrared material (per Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide v. 1964!

Interesting info! I assume Garry Winogrand (who processed his Tri-x and HP3 films by inspection) wasn't doing things the right way.

 

[wiltw]

Interesting info! I assume Garry Winogrand (who processed his Tri-x and HP3 films by inspection) wasn't doing things the right way.

Old habits very slow to change. Consider the fact that back in 1964 the safelight bulb for B&W enlarging was amber, yet even today (60 years later) here are lots and lots of folks using red safelights.

 

[radiant]

I've tried it but inspecting is really hard without experience; you need to know what to look and how it should look.

Here is my video of the process:



Personally this made my eyes open how fast the film actually develops in the begining and how development slows down radically after certain period.

And also that you can really fix in visible light

 

[Peter Schrager]

I think people always overthink these simple processes
I know from using my baseline with fp4 that my development time is going to be between 11 and 14 minutes. I start looking at about 9 minutes and go from there. For me it's just an easier way and I can do up to 12 or 13 negatives at one shot

 

[Alan9940]

Though I never mastered it for myself, I think Peter has the right idea. If you know a good working range of development time from cool to warm developer, it should be pretty easy to pick a time to start looking. Would you be able to tell the difference of a Zone VIII density at 12 mins vs 13 mins under that dim green light? I couldn't. But, it probably doesn't really matter. If it's off by a bit, the careful darkroom worker should be able to rectify it through paper grade selection and/or development techniques. Actually, this thread has got me thinking of trying DBI, again.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think people always overthink these simple processes
I know from using my baseline with fp4 that my development time is going to be between 11 and 14 minutes. I start looking at about 9 minutes and go from there. For me it's just an easier way and I can do up to 12 or 13 negatives at one shot

It’s like baking a cake. An experienced baker has a general idea on how long it might take to bake a cake, but some check on the doneness by checking the cake early with a toothpick. When the cake isn’t done, the batter sticks on the toothpick. The baker will take the cake out of the oven when the cake is baked long enough when the toothpick comes out clean.

 

[Peter Schrager]

As soon as there is bellows extension and reciprocity involved the negative will come up faster
If one wants to try this practice with normal focal length and and some good shadow and highlights
Since I develop for alt process if I blow it by a little overdevelopment I really don't sweat it.
No one can tell me that all negatives get developed to the same CI hence the better reason for DBI

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've tried it but inspecting is really hard without experience; you need to know what to look and how it should look.

Here is my video of the process:



Personally this made my eyes open how fast the film actually develops in the begining and how development slows down radically after certain period.

And also that you can really fix in visible light

Wow! This is cool. The green safelight method allows the safe light behind the light to see the density. But this method I'll try. I ordered a pair of night vision goggles. How did the negative turn out? You got the highlight density you wanted?

 

[radiant]

Wow! This is cool. The green safelight method allows the safe light behind the light to see the density. But this method I'll try. I ordered a pair of night vision goggles. How did the negative turn out? You got the highlight density you wanted?

Yes, the negative was good. Not actual surprise when developing 2-3 times longer than it should be developed

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yes, the negative was good. Not actual surprise when developing 2-3 times longer than it should be developed

For me, the time and temperature method was hit and miss some of the time even if I expose and develop properly. I'm going to get my goggles in a week. I can't wait to try your method. I'll fumble less in the darkroom too.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...If you know a good working range of development time from cool to warm developer, it should be pretty easy to pick a time to start looking. Would you be able to tell the difference of a Zone VIII density at 12 mins vs 13 mins under that dim green light? I couldn't. But, it probably doesn't really matter. If it's off by a bit, the careful darkroom worker should be able to rectify it through paper grade selection and/or development techniques...

Or, one could expose precisely using a spot meter, pick up a Zone VI Compensating Development Timer and employ variable contrast paper to achieve the same result.

 

[Alan9940]

Or, one could expose precisely using a spot meter, pick up a Zone VI Compensating Development Timer and employ variable contrast paper to achieve the same result.

Yep. I use a Zone VI modified Pentax Digital Spot meter, the compensating timer (though I use this more for paper), and VC papers. The few films I use have been carefully tested and measured via densitometer for proper Zone I density and for a Zone VIII density that I like to see in my negatives. So, yeah, I'm a fairly careful worker. But, I also use development techniques such as minimal agitation in pyro developers with tanks & hangers and, though I have worked out one specific time/temp for any one process, it would be nice to be able to properly judge full development by inspection. For example, if my normal development time was worked out during the winter months when my darkroom is around 68F, how much shorter time do I need during the summer when it's 80F? Yeah, I could extrapolate a new development time based on that higher temp, but IMO it would be helpful to be able to examine the negative and know when it's "cooked."

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Only when I use xray film...

 

[Down Under]

Developing by inspection made sense during the period 1880s-1950 when most amateur films were orthochromatic and you get by with see-sawing the film in a tray of developer, then stop bath (I was too poor to buy this and used water) and then fixer. Washing could then be done in a sink or a pot with film clips attached to the film ends.

To do all this even reasonably effectively, you had to see what you were doing so you could stop the first tray process when the film looked 'thick' enough. I had a Kodak safelight with four or five different filters, one was green for panchromatic film and another was red for ortho. The green sure was dim and I never did any ortho, so the red was wasted. The safelight also came with two enlarging filters (fixed grade and VC) and another filter which I never used and have quite forgotten what it was for. Maybe a clear for reading the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide which we all owned way back then...

I did this a few times but was never entirely satisfied with the results. My Verichrome Pan 616 films hand-processed with the aid of that green filter showed an annoying level of fog which I I then contact printed, but as I didn't own an enlarger big enough to handle that film I never put those negatives (which I still have, somewhere in 50+ cartons stored in our garage) to the blow-up test, and likely now I never will.

Ultimately it was so much easier to use an old Paterson Universal tank someone had given me, to do my films.

As I believe someone has said or hinted at elsewhere in this thread, this was/is an obsolete technique used mostly by amateurs of that era with little or no regard to quality results. This I reckon sums it up.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As I believe someone has said or hinted at elsewhere in this thread, this was/is an obsolete technique used mostly by amateurs of that era with little or no regard to quality results. This I reckon sums it up.

I first heard of the technique back in the 80's when I first studied photography. My photo professor in college didn't teach us how to develop under a safelight. for me, it was a revelation. My feeling is that it's mostly forgotten and not done today because it's obsolete. Also, most people today don't have darkrooms to process film under a safelight also. I think a hundred years ago, my guess that photographers didn't have the luxury of light meters and had to use their instincts when they exposed their film. Processing under a safelight helps with slight variations in exposure.

 

[removedacct2]

a lot of people developed film via safelight. Does anyone do that anymore

Recently I got a box of Kodalith ortho type 2, and have been trying different developers/times. Yesterday I wanted to try with paper developer. Got a small bottle of Fomatol LQN, and went to the supermarket bought couple of small 3-LED bicycle tail lights:

worked very nice with Kodalith. It was pouring all day so I took an indoors shot for test

~1:30mn under inspection with Fomatol vs 1h stand in HC-110 1+160.
Top Fomatol, bottom HC-110:

respective positives, after grey levels adjustments, for what the Fomatol processed negative had more latitude (top Fomatl, bottom HC-110).

I want to play more with orthochromatic/technical film so am going to develop more and more with paper dev by inspection ...