Effect of shortened development times on a negative

[ckagy]

I have myself mentally turned in circles after working my way through part of Way Beyond Monochrome (which is a GREAT reference!).

Please help/remind me understand how development time effects a properly exposed negative.? What parts of an image develop first?

I've begun the process of film speed tests following the directions in the book that prescribe a series of exposures that gradually lower the metering ISO. This series of images is then developed for 15% less time than recommended, then printed and examined for shadow detail.

Until I started this process I really thought I understood what was happening. Now, I'm not so sure. I get what's happening with the exposure, - I'm gradually, progressively exposing the film more to get to the point where there is just enough detail in the shadows. More exposure = more light on the negative = more detail in otherwise dark areas.

Cutting the development time suddenly has me confused. What did this accomplish for me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I have myself mentally turned in circles after working my way through part of Way Beyond Monochrome (which is a GREAT reference!).

Please help/remind me understand how development time effects a properly exposed negative.? What parts of an image develop first?

I've begun the process of film speed tests following the directions in the book that prescribe a series of exposures that gradually lower the metering ISO. This series of images is then developed for 15% less time than recommended, then printed and examined for shadow detail.

Until I started this process I really thought I understood what was happening. Now, I'm not so sure. I get what's happening with the exposure, - I'm gradually, progressively exposing the film more to get to the point where there is just enough detail in the shadows. More exposure = more light on the negative = more detail in otherwise dark areas.

Cutting the development time suddenly has me confused. What did this accomplish for me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The highlights will begin to develop first in negative film. By shortening developing time you will be rendering the shadows with a lesser density in the negative which will translate into more density on the print.

By increasing exposure you do raise all light values in the subject higher in negative density so that everything will be lighter in the resulting print by increasing print density values.

 

[ckagy]

Thanks, Christopher. Let me attempt to tie the two actions together:
1. By gradually increasing the exposure, I increased the density of the overall negative, increasing the detail that would be present in the shadows (i.e. moving them more toward highlights on the scale)

2 By then shortening the development time, which affects the shadow density, I somewhat compensated for that increased exposure by not overdeveloping the true highlights. Because highlights develop first in the process some lightening of shadow areas may still occur, depending on how much the exposure was increased.

Is that close?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

I have myself mentally turned in circles after working my way through part of Way Beyond Monochrome (which is a GREAT reference!).

Please help/remind me understand how development time effects a properly exposed negative.? What parts of an image develop first?

I've begun the process of film speed tests following the directions in the book that prescribe a series of exposures that gradually lower the metering ISO. This series of images is then developed for 15% less time than recommended, then printed and examined for shadow detail.

Until I started this process I really thought I understood what was happening. Now, I'm not so sure. I get what's happening with the exposure, - I'm gradually, progressively exposing the film more to get to the point where there is just enough detail in the shadows. More exposure = more light on the negative = more detail in otherwise dark areas.

Cutting the development time suddenly has me confused. What did this accomplish for me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

hi ckagy

i can speak to this personally because for 5 years i under developed my film.
it was exposed correctly ( actually over developed 1 stop or a half a stop )
routinely instead of processing my film, for 8min 20secons ( making up a dev time sorry )
i would pull it out at 8 min thinking the extra 20 seconds didn't matter,
but they did.
my film was flat and lacked contrast.
it printed well on grade 3 or grade 4 paper. and i was able to get some decent contrast ( something black and something white )
and i had highlight detail &c but the negatives lacked punch/zip/pizazz/crispness.
eventually i realized what i was doing was wrong/bad ( even though i was able to deal with the film in the printing stage )
and i began to process for at least the time recommended if not a little bit more to build up some density so it would print better and easier ..

you might do a film development test as follows

expose 3 rolls of film of the same sorts of subjects .. don't change anything with you camera work.
when you develop the film do one roll at 15% less, one for exactly what the time should be, and one for 15% over
and make a contact sheet of each roll and a print or 2 from negatives.
it will give you an idea what under/over development does.
and if you want to see how under/over exposure does ... do the same test, but bracket your exposures by 1 stop each.
develop your film the same way 15% +/- and right on ... you will probably gravitate to one set of images ( over under right on )
and one roll of film( development ) --- and after that you will be determining what some people refer to your personal iso for the film.

shoot a roll, at whatever you determined your iso to be ( actually reset your light meter to reflect what you chose for tri x for example 800? 200? or 400? )
and develop it the way you liked ...
some people do this with every film they shoot to take some of the guesswork out of exposing and processing.

good luck !
john

 

[cowanw]

Shadows develop quickly and after that any further development doesn't have much effect on them.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

To keep things simple; exposure controls density, development controls contrast.

I am not a particular fan of film speed tests believing them to be a holdover from the days of fixed grade papers. At this point I would suggest just going out and taking photos using the box speed. The film manufacturer really designs a film to have a certain speed and their QC determines that each lot conforms. That is the idea behind ISO speeds.

 

[ic-racer]

Cutting the development time suddenly has me confused. What did this accomplish for me?

More exposure puts the image higher on the curve; off the toe. The toe is a tonal 'compression' area. If you have more image off the toe (and still not hitting the shoulder) your negative will have a higher overall tonal scale. To keep printing on the same grade paper, you can decrease development.

So, to answer the question, cutting development allows you to print on the same grade paper. However, if your initial exposure was already off the toe and you added more exposure, no change in development would be needed. In fact, if you print on multigrade paper, no change in development is needed.

 

[MattKing]

You only need to reduce the development time if your highlights are too dense.

That being said, if you tailor your development time toward the minimum, you will both minimize grain (in some films) and leave more flexibility for later expansion.

So that is why you might want to test for the minimum standard development time.

But if you are obtaining negatives that print easily and well for you either on mid-grade fixed grade papers, or work well with mid-grade variable contrast filters, continue doing what you are doing.

 

[tkamiya]

Here's how I understand it.

On film, there are less exposed area and more exposed area. These are, of course, reverse of the image you've captured. (negative)

LESS exposed area will develop first and to completion because there are less silver to develop. The way I understand it, these are are developed to completion in earlier in development. So developing it for more won't change much. So shadow density is primary controlled by exposure.

MORE exposed area will develop at the same rate but will complete much later because there's more to go. Longer you develop, denser it gets. Less you develop, less dense it gets. This is how the contrast is controlled. So highlight is controlled by development.

It helps me to think in terms of density on film. It confuses me when I try to think in highlight and shadow terms.

With all that said, I don't find development adjustment all that useful unless I'm dealing with extreme situations. I just expose for the shadow and develop normally. Today's film are so flexible and capable, a lot can be done at printing time. Besides, it's kind of hard to do when a roll of film has 24 or 36 exposures. To which shot do I adjust development time???

If I'm pushing film, I develop more. If I'm over exposing film, I develop normally.

 

[Rick Jones]

Cutting development can be useful when photographing high contrast scenes making highlights easier to print. Development time primarily effects highlights with much less effect on the shadows. As you increase development, contrast increases because the shadow densities remain relatively fixed while highlight densities increase. But when you begin reducing development below normal, shadow densities no longer remain relatively fixed. In other words, film speed increases very little with increased development but speed loss can be significant as you cut development. So, be more generous with your exposure if you plan to cut development.

 

[ckagy]

All, thank you very much!