Effects of increasing Sodium Metaborate in BTTB

[baachitraka]

In general may I know what effect it will incur on the contrast when I increase the Sodium Metaborate say from 12g to 15g.

My plan is to have slightly higher action Bath B(close to 20g, for winter) and cut back the development time for normal contrast to hight contrast scenes.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I've been using BTTB for a few years now off and on, and my understanding is that to reduce contrast you want to keep the dev time the same and use less Sodium Metaborate in the "B" bath. I don't normally shoot high contrast lighting, so I haven't yet experimented with that. I know David Allen has posted his thoughts on this in other threads on BTTB.

I've uploaded a PDF chart I've made using the available knowledge on this forum, as well as Thornton's website.

If anyone wants to chime in on any of the data provided, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

 

[adelorenzo]

Parker that chart is super handy. Thanks for uploading it.

I'm currently using a D-23 variation with Sodium Carbonate as Bath B, but I have some Sodium Metaborate coming soon and I may experiment a bit with this formula.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Contrast will primarily be determined by time and agitation in bath A, since bath A is a fully functioning developer.

In my tests, varying the concentration of metaborate between 5g/l and 20g/l had virtually no sensitometric effect. In fact even borax gave me essentially the same results, as expected. Using a carbonate alkali did increase total density but did not significantly alter contrast (ie it gave a slight speed increase). This also makes some sense since development is very rapid in the carbonate solution.

Michael, That's really interesting. I've been reading up on Divided D-23, and I thought that by cutting the amount of sulfite in Bath A from 100g to 80g meant that most of the image development took place in Bath B. At least that's what BT thought, or said.

How could one go about modifying this developer to be more like Diafine, that is, a true two bath developer where the magic happens in the second bath? Some of my favorite negatives over the past five years were developed in a drum with continuous agitation, using Diafine diluted 1:1, as suggested by Sandy King in his View Camera article.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

How could one go about modifying this developer to be more like Diafine, that is, a true two bath developer where the magic happens in the second bath?[/URL].

The two developers are very different. For example Diafine contains far less sulfite and uses phenidone and hydroquinone as the developing agents. It would be better to just mix up one of the Diafine clones.

The advantage that you have with divided D-23 type developers is that you have control over the development process. This is because development also occurs in bath A. You do not have this control with Diafine.

 

[David Allen]

Having used Thornton's Two-Bath exclusively for many years, my observations are that the only two useful variations of Bath B are:

Standard B with 12g of Sodium Metaborate
Alternative B with 20g of Sodium Metaborate

What I do is:

• I mix up 1 litre of Bath A (my tank is the 1 litre version that can accommodate up to 4 films) and store in a 1 litre dark brown glass bottle. This one litre is sufficient for 24 films (but note the following point about standard Bath B).
• I mix up two litres of Standard Bath B at the normal 12g of Sodium Metaborate (which are stored in two 1 litre dark brown glass bottles) and use each bottle of Bath B for 12 films and then discard.
• I mix up one litre of Alternative Bath B at the N+ dilution of 20g of Sodium Metaborate (which is stored in a 1 litre dark brown glass bottles) and use rarely when needed.

Some important notes about Thornton's N-, N and N+ dilutions:

• 99% of all my photographs are developed with the standard (N) version of Bath B. I have never had any negative where I felt that it should have been developed using the N- version of Bath B.
• The alternative (N+) version of Bath B can be useful but not in the sense of how Thornton described it as a true +1 stop expansion (which can be much better achieved by selenium toning the negative). It is much more of a specialised response to a rarely occuring subject matter situation. If I photograph something that has dark shadows and bright highlights but also a significant part of the scene is relatively lacking in mid-tone separation then I use the alternative (N+) version of Bath B. This has a significant effect on expanding the mid-tones of a scene that was significantly lacking such a mid-tone separation.

The key point to raise about BTTB developer is that it is the ideal solution to normal to high contrast scenes (including night photography). As to agitation and temperature, many state that Two-Bath developers are a kind of 'magic bullet' in that time, temperature and agitation have little to no effect. This is just plain wrong. Like all developers, you need to make sure that you are consistent in approach if you wish to achieve consistent results. My personal way of working is that I always process with all chemicals at 20˚C. I always pre-soak for two minutes. I agitate 4 times in the first 30 seconds and then once every 30 seconds (always followed by a sharp tap to the bottom of the tank to dislodge air bells). My personal time for Delta 400 roll film exposed at a personal EI of 200 is 5 minutes in each bath.

Hope this is of help in you finding the solution that suits your work.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[baachitraka]

I was shooting few rolls of arista premium in Norderney(an island in Nordsee), lighting was flat but not dull.

With E.I. 200, gave 11mins in DK76b(1+1), resulting prints were not so brilliant. Split-grade does not help either.

I wonder how a two-bath developer like(BTTB) will manage such lighting and give slightly sparkling highlights and separation from mid-tones on prints.

 

[baachitraka]

Okay, I play simple and go with agitation as contrast control method.

 

[baachitraka]

Okay, let me start with 20%. 6+5 mins for HP5+.

 

[David Allen]

Please report back with your findings.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I very very rarely use the alternative Bath B formulation and only specifically for its effect on the mid-tones.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[baachitraka]

There is one foto-walk around Teufelsmoor in a week. Wish it won't be raining like today.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The question that always comes to mind when discussing variants on divided D-23 like BTTB is "why not just use D-23"? An excellent developer and you would certainly have better control. For these variants since development occurs is bath A time and temperature now become important considerations. You are essentially losing the convenience of such developers like Diafine. Remember when you use something like divided D-23 you are actually using two different developers in succession.

 

[baachitraka]

I'm thinking Rodinal 1+25. No mess with mixing raw chemicals and warm up times(during winter both the baths need some warm up time).

In fact Rodinal was my primary developer but I was corrupted after reading the cookbook. ;-)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Getting back to the OP, people tend to over estimate the effect of increasing the alkalinity of bath B. Doubling the amount of alkali will not result in a doubling of the developer's activity. What results is a much smaller increase for reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread. They involve acid-base chemistry and the very nature of the photographic process. People tend to overlook that the photographic process is essentially a logarithmic one.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald - overall I'd agree but there are some differences vs straight D-23 (with tradeoffs of course). The two-solution process does appear to straighten the curve somewhat, and also gives relatively high threshold emulsion speed relative to D-23.

True, but my point is the increase in complexity to achieve a modest gain.

 

[David Allen]

why not just use D-23

Because those of us who have undertaken practical 'real world' tests on these variants have found that the two-bath version delivers significant improvements. By this I mean that the BTTB variant, for example, delivers a much better balance between all of the variables (contrast control, graininess, accutance, sharpness, etc) than straight D-23. With BTTB version you can expose for the shadow detail that you require and develop with the certainty that the highlights will not be blocked up. Very advantageous when using roll film across a wide variety of subjects / scenes with varying subject brightness ranges. I agree that D-23 is also a fine developer - especially with large format - but the divided versions win hands down when you can't process each individual negative separately.

True, but my point is the increase in complexity to achieve a modest gain.

What is the complexity? and achieving every negative on a roll as being printable is more than a modest gain.

Absolutely right. This is a fundamental problem with much of what is written about the these developers when it comes to controls. And in many cases the formulators (Thornton for example) were also mistaken.

I absolutely agree that much of what Barry Thornton wrote about the theory was wrong. Ansel Adams, Minor White and Fred Picker also got much of the theory wrong. So why do people follow their advice? - because of the results that they produced. In the end, the only thing that really matters is if a photographer can produce the images that they want to produce. In my experience of teaching, giving a student the 'tool' of two-bath development coupled with an individually determined Exposure Index and advice on where to place a particular subject brightness on Zone III means that, within the timescale of a weekend, they can consistently produce technically superior images. Whether they then produce meaningful images is down to their own ability and learning curve in terms of 'seeing' images.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[pdeeh]

and achieving every negative on a roll as being printable is more than a modest gain.

I've no ball in this game, but surely if one has significant number of "unprintable" negatives on a roll, there's something wrong with one's judgment about exposure which needs to be attended to, rather than try to ameliorate afterwards by development.

 

[David Allen]

I've no ball in this game, but surely if one has significant number of "unprintable" negatives on a roll, there's something wrong with one's judgment about exposure which needs to be attended to, rather than try to ameliorate afterwards by development.

In general I would state that the most common mistake that people who come to one of my courses make is a combination of under-exposure combined with over-development (well two mistakes!). That is fine if you want your images to look like Daido Moriyama's or Anders Petersen's but, in my experience, most people want more traditional tonal values. It is truly rewarding to go out the field with them, encourage them to expose for the shadow detail that they want to achieve and assure them that they do not need to worry about the highlights if using a two-bath developer (well within reason that I am sure all here will understand). A couple of hours later seeing their straight print coming up in the developer is magical. Getting the variables out of the way as soon as possible is a great way to free up people to start the hard job of seeing images.

So no, it is not a case of ameliorating bad exposures through development but rather pinning down the variables to produce consistent and repeatable results.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'm sorry but I have never experienced the need for such developers as BTTB and other non-standard (for lack of a better word) developers. I have been developing my own film for over 60 years and have always used something like D-23. D-76, HC-110, Xtol, etc. All the commonly used developers in a variety of conditions without any problems with contrast, tonality, etc. Goodness whatever did people do before BTTB. They followed AA and others' advice to thoroughly know their materials. With experience one knows how to pick what is right for a particular photograph.

My personal take is that two bath developers encourage people to believe that being sloppy is OK. However, continued use results in one never learning how to do things properly.

 

[pdeeh]

snip

So no, it is not a case of ameliorating bad exposures through development but rather pinning down the variables to produce consistent and repeatable results.

In which case it was unhelpful to characterise the use of the divided developer as one for making unprintable images printable.

You seem now to be simply saying that one should expose and develop in such a way as to make images as easily printable as possible, which seems both unarguable and not what you said in the first place.

 

[Chris Livsey]

However, continued use results in one never learning how to do things properly.

Where, and in whose rule book, does it say using a divided developer is not doing it "properly"?
Surely, if the final result is print that reflects the photographers intentions, how they actually arrived at that destination is largely irrelevant?

This in no way invalidates or criticises your position you are perfectly entitled to work "properly" according to whatever "rules" you have chose to adhere to but I don't see how using a divided developer is "sloppy". It actually requires more stages of the same degree of precision as a single bath if consistency is a goal. That it is more forgiving, usually, of a higher contrast scene is another tool to be used, or, depending on your "rules" avoided.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Where, and in whose rule book, does it say using a divided developer is not doing it "properly"?

My objection to these developers and some other developing techniques is that are not used for their intended purpose. As far as rule books are concerned, books on the Zone System describe their use. I have no objection when they are used for their intended purpose which is the tonal compression of contrasty scenes. However, they are not intended as a general purpose method for average scenes. For the novice photographer their use encourages sloppy technique. Developers like BTTB are particularly hard to control. There are too many variable for the novice; time, temperature, and alkalinity of bath B. They have a certain glamour in the oldest sense of the word. They present the illusion of being something that they are not.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I do see and empathise with your points but regrettably out of 36 exposures two of which may be of higher contrast that would benefit from a divided developer I must commit the rest of the roll to the same treatment. As with the "pure" zone system which was designed for processing individual exposures or as I have previously done with my V system and multiple backs a roll of exposures requiring the same developement technique that is a luxury few can commit to.

Your glamour point is well made, there is an element of that certainly.

 

[David Allen]

Well this thread has certainly travelled a long way from the OP’s question which was “In general may I know what effect it will incur on the contrast when I increase the Sodium Metaborate say from 12g to 15g.” - to which, I believe my post #8, gives a helpful response.

My personal take is that two bath developers encourage people to believe that being sloppy is OK. Gerald.

Sorry Gerald but ’sloppy’ is not in my vocabulary (see my specific point in post #8). I always advocate that, irrespective of what developer is used, the photographer must ensure that time, temperature and agitation are all carefully controlled. Also, to your point about ‘normal’ developers what exactly does this mean? A developer is simply a means to an end. People choose developers on the basis of the results that they produce. In practice, one can, with careful testing, produce good results with virtually all developers. However, when using roll film one is confronted with the problem that individual negatives ideally require differing development to adequately reflect varying subject brightnesses. This is where a two-bath developer can be of great assistance.

However, continued use results in one never learning how to do things properly. Gerald.

Two-bath developers require that the photographer undertakes suitable testing just like any other developer. I would question what you mean by ‘how to do things properly’. If the word properly means what most people do as the norm I can not concur. However, if properly means achieving the desired results then of course every photographer needs to learn how to do things ‘properly’.

You seem now to be simply saying that one should expose and develop in such a way as to make images as easily printable as possible, which seems both unarguable and not what you said in the first place. Pdeeh.

In the first place, I answered the OP’s question to the best of my knowledge. I did not state that one should expose and develop in such a way as to make images as easily printable as possible. Rather, I was suggesting that the use of two-bath developers can help a photographer to achieve consistent negatives that they will be able to print in a manner that achieves prints that match their vision. For example, if you have undertaken suitable tests with any combination of film and developer you will achieve printable negatives for most scenes. However, if you then wish to photograph something that has a higher than normal subject brightness range you are confronted with two options. Either you apply N-minus development which will affect all of the other images on your roll of film or you process normally with the problem that your highlights may be so dense that you cannot produce an adequate print. The use of a two-bath developer eliminates this problem.

Surely, if the final result is print that reflects the photographers intentions, how they actually arrived at that destination is largely irrelevant? Chris.

Exactly my point. The final print represents the statement that photographer wishes to make. There is no such thing as a ‘proper’ way of doing this because the the route followed is not what the viewer sees but rather the final result. My principal concern when teaching people is to provide them with a repeatable and consistent system of exposure and development that will deliver prints that match their vision.

For the novice photographer their use encourages sloppy technique. Developers like BTTB are particularly hard to control. There are too many variable for the novice; time, temperature, and alkalinity of bath B. They have a certain glamour in the oldest sense of the word. They present the illusion of being something that they are not. Gerald.

As per my post #8, I have no time for sloppy technique. Developers such as BTTB are not particularly hard to control. Quite the contrary, two-bath developers compensating effect reduces the margin of error in comparison to developers that are formulated to utilise the super-additive affect. Whilst I encourage everyone to be fastidious in their processing regime, a 5% error in time, temperature or agitation when using a developer such as HC110 at Dilution B will have a significantly greater effect than the same margin of error when using a two-bath developer. Also, alkalinity does not vary at all because Bath B is always made with Sodium Metaborate. In fact, BTTB two-bath developer is so simple I fail to comprehend how anyone could mix it up wrong. This does not mean that people should be sloppy in the processing their films but rather is a simple demonstration of the fact that two-bath developers are not significantly more hard to control.

I do see and empathise with your points but regrettably out of 36 exposures two of which may be of higher contrast that would benefit from a divided developer I must commit the rest of the roll to the same treatment. As with the "pure" zone system which was designed for processing individual exposures or as I have previously done with my V system and multiple backs a roll of exposures requiring the same development technique that is a luxury few can commit to. Chris.

Using multiple backs on a Hasselblad to allow for matching the processing to the subject brightness range when using ‘standard’ developers works very well and is something that I employed when I used to make natural landscape photographs. However, it is not something available to most roll film users. The key point about divided development is that it will control subjects with a higher brightness range without having a negative effect on the other exposures on the same roll of film.

At the end of the day it really does not matter what processing technique you employ so long as you achieve the results that you desire. My experience has been that my students move rapidly and confidently quickly forward from novice to technically adept when working with two-bath developers. The consistent nature of the results encourages them to concentrate more on what they are photographing rather than the technical aspects. Naturally, with time, some choose to employ other developers that better match what they want to achieve (for example, if they gravitate towards low light street photography they may well choose to develop Tri-X in DDX). The key point however is that they are making these changes in an informed manner. In the previous example, they understand how to achieve a high level of good tonality but recognise that they will have to sacrifice a certain level of shadow detail to achieve the results that they want.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Hi David,

Thank you for your careful and studied reply to my post. My objection to this developer is that people use it for the wrong reason. Having read most of the posts on two bath developers over many years indicates that they are used by people who are less careful in their technique. Unless you take off the training wheels you will never advance further.

Jerry