Effects of increasing Sodium Metaborate in BTTB

[Chris Livsey]

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.

Jerry

(My insertion underlined)

I think many of us would appreciate the insertion of "some of whom" or indeed if you wish "many of whom" rather than use a broad brush to tar all users of two bath techniques. I for one, although not peer reviewed, consider my technique not to fall into the less careful category.
( Does owning a densitometer, and knowing how to use it, and actually using it, count in my favour?)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think many of us would appreciate the insertion of "some of whom" or indeed if you wish "many of whom" rather than use a broad brush to tar all users of two bath techniques. I for one, although not peer reviewed, consider my technique not to fall into the less careful category.

I would put the number as higher than "some" However these developers do have their valid uses. I will use one when using a camera which has no exposure controls such as a box Brownie. The problem is using the right tool for the right reason.

A specific objection to BTTB is the use of different compositions for bath B. Does one vary the time in bath A or adjust bath B or a combination of the two. Thornton got it wrong and over estimated the effect of various alkalis. All very confusing to the novice.

 

[David Allen]

Quote Originally Posted by Chris Livsey View Post
I think many of us would appreciate the insertion of "some of whom" or indeed if you wish "many of whom" rather than use a broad brush to tar all users of two bath techniques. I for one, although not peer reviewed, consider my technique not to fall into the less careful category.

I would put the number as higher than "some" However these developers do have their valid uses. I will use one when using a camera which has no exposure controls such as a box Brownie. The problem is using the right tool for the right reason.

A specific objection to BTTB is the use of different compositions for bath B. Does one vary the time in bath A or adjust bath B or a combination of the two. Thornton got it wrong and over estimated the effect of various alkalis. All very confusing to the novice.

As a basic principle, one does not vary the composition of Bath B. This is only done for a very specific reason as outlined in my post #8 which meets the original OPs question. For the novice this is not pertinent and, certainly in my workshops, not mentioned. When conducting tests for personal EI and maximum black, one adjusts the time in Bath A and Bath B equally. For a novice, nothing is ever confusing simply because they have no pre-conceptions. They take what the instructor says at face value and accept what they are told if it works. This is the key reason why one can take a novice and, after a few hours instruction, can make them into a photographer who can consistently produce good quality images from a technical perspective.

The use of two-bath developers does not invite people to use sloppy techniques but it does introduce a level of safety that other, more demanding developers, do not have. I personally do not know of anyone who uses a two-bath developer who would fall into the category of someone who is less careful in their technique or using such a developer for the 'wrong' reasons. People use two-bath developers because they deliver the results that they want.

I must ask myself, at this stage in a long thread, whether the negative attitude to using two-bath developers is the result of principle or practice? As I mentioned in my earlier post, 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. What the correct use of a two-bath developer delivers is a consistency of result the empowers the photographer to move forward and concentrate on their seeing and image making - in my opinion this is the most important task at hand.

So sorry but two-bath developers are not hard to use, not difficult to control, not confusing for the novice, not a 'magic bullet' for sloppy users, not being used for the 'wrong' reasons but are rather a very efficient way of making fine images - at least in the technical sense.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[JW PHOTO]

David,
I do agree 100% and used a similar method for teaching my 12 year old granddaughter how to develop her first roll of 120 B&W. It wasn't a 2-bath we used, but Rodinal 1:100 1hr. stand. The hour stand time worked great as we then had a hour for class in the darkroom. Worked great for her first time and she didn't become frustrated, which is a killer for young folks(old folks too). Many turn-of-the-century photographers used developers, techniques and process we'd normally not use or think were inferior to today. Funny how many people still try to duplicate what those crazy, dumb photographers were doing and their resulting pictures.
As for Gerald (and I have a lot of respect for his age and wisdom) saying it may lead or does lead, to sloppiness? A 2-bath like Diafine is much more forgiving to things like temperature and it's darn hard to get bad results, but does it make it a bad developer choice because it's easy and forgiving? I don't think so. It just makes it a different tool in the tool box. When you start as a carpenter you have a hammer and hand saw. Later you try a power saw and learn that. Then maybe a power-nailer and learn that. Now you can really get some work done. Of course there will be times that the power saw just won't fit the task or the power-nailer won't fit in a confined space to work. What to do then??? Yup, get the hammer and hand saw out of the tool box and go to work. All are just tools to get the job done the way we want or expect. If I can get the same fine results I like, with a simple process like a 2-bath, instead of some exotic, hard to use formula I'd be a fool for not using the 2-bath. If I can't I'll then reach for another tool. If I'm sloppy, I'm sloppy! A 2-bath isn't going to make me into a sloppy darkroom worker just because it's a simple process that works. I can be plenty sloppy without ever using a 2-bath. If it works, be happy! If it doesn't, find another tool. The older I get the more I want things simple........John W

 

[Rudeofus]

People frequently underestimate the dynamic range of multigrade paper. For a long time I used low contrast developers (first POTA, then Delagi 8, later Michael's LC devs) for night scenes, only to find out that I could get the same results with a normal developer and a lower paper grade. Modern film has incredible dynamic range, too, and more often than not lens flare is the truly limiting factor.

I challenge David to develop one of his rolls with D-76 or whatever, and see, whether he can print the negs just as well.

 

[LikeAPolaroid]

I once used caked Metaborate in B. This resulted in less than 12g/l and I indeed experienced underdevelopment. Prints required contrast 4 or even 5 for normal contrast scenes.

 

[JW PHOTO]

People frequently underestimate the dynamic range of multigrade paper. For a long time I used low contrast developers (first POTA, then Delagi 8, later Michael's LC devs) for night scenes, only to find out that I could get the same results with a normal developer and a lower paper grade. Modern film has incredible dynamic range, too, and more often than not lens flare is the truly limiting factor.

I challenge David to develop one of his rolls with D-76 or whatever, and see, whether he can print the negs just as well.

I do think you are right about modern film and paper being that good now. I just experience what you are talking about and what Gerald is also pointing to. I took some backlit shots at a pier head on Lake Michigan and measured everything with a spot meter. I used some cheap Shanghai GP3 film, folding Ikonta with coated Opton Tessar, lens hood and red 25 filter. The sun is just out of the frame in the upper corner and flare looks well controlled, but still has some effect. I figured I needed a compensating developer for the shot since the SBR range for the rendering I wanted was to far over the top. I used Pyrocat-MC as a 2-bath, for the first time ever, and developed according to instructions. I picked out the one shot I really liked, that had sunlight reflecting from the water, dark and light clouds, a small boat and the pier head lighthouse all showing some detail in the negative. I printed it on Adorama FB VC(my practice shot paper) with my Ilford multigrade 400 head grade 3 setting. It was good, but not great. Went to grade 4 setting and was much better, but still not great. I was at the end of the grade line with the Ilford 400 head since grade 4 is as far as it will go. I had some older, but still great Ilford ilfospeed straight grade 5 paper and made a 11x14 on that. It almost printed itself to exactly what I was after. This tells me that I should have just used Pyrocat-MC normal or semi-stand or maybe something like my favorite Perceptol 1:2 or 1:3. This whole thing was more about testing film, developer, camera than about the final shot, but I sure learned something about all of those and that is the fact that I can't really see the need for me, in 99% of my shooting, ever having to use Pyrocat-MC 2-bath. That's just me of course and the way I expose. John W

 

[David Allen]

I challenge David to develop one of his rolls with D-76 or whatever, and see, whether he can print the negs just as well.

Hi Rudeofus,

As I mentioned in my post #34, 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. I am not in the habit of telling anyone getting satisfactory results to change to a two-bath developer - simply refuting the negative statements that I do not consider to be true.

As to BTTB developer, I find it ideal for my requirements. I prefer the tonality of BTTB compared to D76, HC110, Crawley FX39, Cellar-Stellar and many of the other developers that I have used in the past but this is, of course, a personal and subjective matter.

When I used to do natural landscape photographs, I worked with 5" x 4" and a Hasselblad with multiple backs to allow for N+ and N- development using HC110 and extensively employed a Minus Blue Wratten filter. When I moved to urban landscapes on 6 x 7 with Delta 400 processed in BTTB developer I found that I no longer needed to use any filter - the combination just delivered the tonality that I wanted. Indeed, every single image on my website was produced using a Mamiya 7, 65mm lens, Delta 400 and BTTB developer without any filter.

Many people at my last exhibition said that they thought that I had used filters extensively but what they were seeing was how the combination of correct shadow placement, BTTB developer’s specific tonality and my own printing style (all my negatives print 'straight' on Grade 3 with a diffuser head but my exhibition prints are always printed on Grade 4 with a little bit of dodging and burning).

As to printing negatives not processed in BTTB developer, well I have to do this very often with either very old work of my own or when printing for the people that I occasionally print for. As stated before, I prefer the tonality and results that my methods deliver for me.

As an example of why I personally prefer using BTTB developer, if you take the photograph on my Homepage, if I was using D76 then I would have had two options, reducing the development to hold the highlights (given the exposure required to retain shadow detail) with the loss of some mid-tone micro-contrast or process normally and put in a lot of effort burning in the bright highlights. As it was, this was processed in BTTB developer and the cloud / sky balance is exactly what I wanted without the need for using a filter at the taking stage or any burning-in at the printing stage. In the end, the exhibition print required (given my earlier comment about Grade used for exhibition prints) slight dodging in the shadows on the window and about 5% extra burning in at the bottom and right-hand side to visually better ‘hold’ the edges of the print.

So no thanks Rudeofus, as a fully signed up member of the ‘if it aint broke then don’t fix it’ club I do not intent making, what for me and the results that I prefer, would be a retrospective step.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Rudeofus]

Many people at my last exhibition said that they thought that I had used filters extensively but what they were seeing was how the combination of correct shadow placement, BTTB developer’s specific tonality and my own printing style (all my negatives print 'straight' on Grade 3 with a diffuser head but my exhibition prints are always printed on Grade 4 with a little bit of dodging and burning).

It never ceases to amaze me, how a single developer can handle all these different lighting situations and always yields negs that can be printed at grade 3 without dodging&burning. And the sky in your pics is always perfectly in place, even if it is sometimes dark and sometimes very bright!

As an example of why I personally prefer using BTTB developer, if you take the photograph on my Homepage, if I was using D76 then I would have had two options, reducing the development to hold the highlights (given the exposure required to retain shadow detail) with the loss of some mid-tone micro-contrast or process normally and put in a lot of effort burning in the bright highlights.

Michael showed, that BTTB produces a nearly straight curve with a bit lower than normal contrast and with about a stop less sensitivity than what you'd get with Xtol/TMAX/DD-X. You could trivially replicate the lower contrast by printing at grade 2 (or grade 3 for your exhibition prints). And the contrast range doesn't end there: at grade 0 I can contact print a Stouffer wedge all the way from D=0 to D=3 on cheap Foma paper!

I fully agree with you that there is no reason for you to switch developers or technique. There is, however, nothing magical about them either.

 

[baachitraka]

I wonder what will happen to the scene with SBR < 7 stops and to the scene with SBR > 7, shot on a single roll and developed for 7 stops, possible with single-bath developers like D-76 or if valid, with double-bath like BTTB.

* Provided the development times for 7 stops has been established based testing.

 

[Rudeofus]

I wonder what will happen to the scene with SBR < 7 stops and to the scene with SBR > 7, shot on a single roll and developed for 7 stops, possible with single-bath developers like D-76 or if valid, with double-bath like BTTB.

* Provided the development times for 7 stops has been established based testing.

Nothing much. You'll print the negs from the SBR << 7 situation with grade 4-5 and the ones from the SBR >> 7 with grade 1-2. With BTTB, you'd need grade 5 and grade 2-3, respectively.

 

[Trask]

Here's the original article that prompted my initial question:

http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/devforscan.pdf


What struck me were the photographs in Fig 3 and Fig 4 -- a rock formation in sunlight (sic) and in full shade. In fact the "in sunlight" shot is illuminated from an overhead sun, with the bulk of the rock formation in shade from foliage (or so I see it). In the full shade image, the sun is behind a cloud so everything is lit with diffused daylight.

What I was trying to understand was whether Mr. King was suggesting that I, facing these rocks under either lighting condition, should walk to the rock, stick my hand with meter into the darkest crevice, point the dome outward, and take a reading. I suppose that if the crevice were deep adn not populated by snakes or other critters, and I stuck my arm in far enough, and weren't blocking the illumination with my own body, I would get a reading that indicated the level of light arriving at the meter cell. And because it's an incident meter that reading would be giving me an f/stop-shutter speed combination that says what? Close down two stops to place in Zone III? Or because I've got the meter way in there I should use the reading straight off the meter because it was taken from withing the crevice?

I'm not trying to start something with my question, though it seems to have stirred up some passions, which is fine -- we are all passionate about photography. But having read all these posts so far, I must say that if I were photographing those rocks on my own, I'd do an incident reading on the front of the rock, decide whether the bulk of the image would work with that rock being medium gray in the final image and adjust accordingly to put the primary tone where I want it, and then let the darkest portions fall where they may.

After 40 years of photography I know that there are multiple ways to approach this issue, and that what counts is how the whole film choice/EI choice/metering choice/development choice/print choice works as a system to create the final image. Having been outside 30 minutes ago using my LunPro Digital to compare incident reading vs reflected readings, and seeing again how often these will vary by a stop or more depending on the relative reflectiveness of the subject, I confirm to myself that what's important is to choose a process and stick to it.

 

[baachitraka]

There is a careful advice on placement of the meter to measure the illumination in BTZS book.

Again, Incident meter does not know anything about the world outside it just gives the illumination reading in the measured area.

Adjustments are like salt and pepper, can go with a stop or two but testing is advised in case.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Having been outside 30 minutes ago using my LunPro Digital to compare incident reading vs reflected readings, and seeing again how often these will vary by a stop or more depending on the relative reflectiveness of the subject, I confirm to myself that what's important is to choose a process and stick to it.

There is no need to "choose a process and stick to it" it is perfectly possible to choose which process will give the results you are looking for in a given situation. Why limit yourself?
There are occasions when an incident reading is not possible/applicable and a reflected reading is and vice versa. Being familiar and confident in both processes should be part of your skill set. as should two bath developing

 

[David Allen]

Nothing much. You'll print the negs from the SBR << 7 situation with grade 4-5 and the ones from the SBR >> 7 with grade 1-2. With BTTB, you'd need grade 5 and grade 2-3, respectively.

I believe the results demonstrated on my website disprove this completely.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I take exception to the following claim in the King article "4.Surface development, which results in higher sharpness." He offers no proof that only surface development occurs. In fact this claim goes against what is usually claimed for two bath developers. That is that the developing agents are absorbed into the entire emulsion. Only microscopic analysis of emulsion cross sections can determine this. In fact several other claims really need references to back them up.

I would like to see some additional information such as how many times was each film tested. Certainly a wider selection of films should have been tested. Was a statistical analysis done on the data. The graphs really need each data point indicated and error limits for the each point. Sorry but when you make claims you really need exhaustive data to back things up. A good start but no cigar.

 

[Bill Burk]

What I was trying to understand was whether Mr. King was suggesting that I, facing these rocks under either lighting condition, should walk to the rock, stick my hand with meter into the darkest crevice, point the dome outward, and take a reading. I suppose that if the crevice were deep adn not populated by snakes or other critters, and I stuck my arm in far enough, and weren't blocking the illumination with my own body, I would get a reading that indicated the level of light arriving at the meter cell. And because it's an incident meter that reading would be giving me an f/stop-shutter speed combination that says what? Close down two stops to place in Zone III? Or because I've got the meter way in there I should use the reading straight off the meter because it was taken from withing the crevice?

I don't think he means stick your hand into the deep crevice, but maybe in the main division between the two boulders would be a "deep" shadow where you would want to see detail. Then as I complain, he doesn't tell you to close down, but traditional BTZS tells you to close down one stop.

He says he gets full speed of the film and he used sensitometry to determine the speed. He uses the same equipment I use, and follows similar methods so I will not challenge his film speed determination.

I remain slightly puzzled why he would use the meter reading directly from the shadow, but then I am sure that this would achieve a stated goal: To provide adequate exposure for the shadows. There is nothing wrong with placing shadow readings on Zone IV.

 

[Rudeofus]

Jerry, are you sure the term "surface developer" refers to the location within the emulsion where development occurs? My impression was that it refers to purely chemical developers with no solvents. If we interpret the term this way, King's statement immediately makes sense.

 

[Rudeofus]

I believe the results demonstrated on my website disprove this completely.

Allow me to quote U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver:

I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.

 

[David Allen]

If there was a politician that was honest and committed to improving the lot of others rather than desperately trying to work their way up the greasy pole, I might take notice of what they say.

In your post #42 you wrote:

Nothing much. You'll print the negs from the SBR << 7 situation with grade 4-5 and the ones from the SBR >> 7 with grade 1-2. With BTTB, you'd need grade 5 and grade 2-3, respectively.

My comment of:

I believe the results demonstrated on my website disprove this completely.

is no frothy eloquence (don’t think I am capable of that) but simply stating a fact that your comment does not match what I have observed to be the norm.

There are more than 60 images on my website. Now despite the fact that they were all adjusted for a 1.8 Gamma for printing in a catalogue and most operating systems now use a Gamma of 2.1 which may lead them to look overly contrasty on contemporary browsers, the fact is that none of these images developed with BTTB developers required grades 2-3 or grade 5.

I can’t think of any way of better answering your quote:

You have got to show me

than saying look at the images - no curves, no step wedges, no theory just plain and simple images.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Rudeofus]

David, all the images I have seen on your web page have more or less the same type of front subject matter: sunlit buildings somewhere in Berlin. They all have more or less the same SBR, and with grade 3-4 you seem to get the results you want. The only variable in these prints is the sky, and it is all over the place. Note, this is no attempt at an artistic judgment, only a statement about characteristic curves and alleged magic tonality. Had you shot the same scenes on a cloudy day, you'd go grade 5 faster than you can say "Maschendrahtzaun", and with yet higher SBR you'd have to print at lower gradation. This is what baachitraka asked about, and I stand by my statements.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Jerry, are you sure the term "surface developer" refers to the location within the emulsion where development occurs? My impression was that it refers to purely chemical developers with no solvents. If we interpret the term this way, King's statement immediately makes sense.

I interpreted the term as it is usually used. Since King makes no further mention of his claims and gives no references it is hard to know just what he means. The article would have been so much better if he had given references. No scientific journal would ever accept such an article.

 

[Rudeofus]

The article would have been so much better if he had given references. No scientific journal would ever accept such an article.

We all know that real science publications, especially reviewed journals, have much, much higher standards ....

 

[Gerald C Koch]

We all know that real science publications, especially reviewed journals, have much, much higher standards ....

They did get caught though.

One of my favorite comedians was "Professor" Irwin Corey. An article described him thusly. "He created a new style of double-talk comedy; instead of making up nonsense words like "krelman" and "trilloweg", like double-talker Al Kelly, the Professor would season his speech with many long and florid, but authentic, words. The professor would then launch into nonsensical observations about anything under the sun, but seldom actually making sense."

 

[Rudeofus]

They did get caught though.

Alan Sokal didn't get caught by careful readers of Social Text! He himself had to go public with the hoax he played on them. Likewise, the 120 gibberish articles in IEEE were not called out by diligent readers, but because they are trivial to search for if one knows how the source of the nonsensical texts works. And all these texts were intentionally written such that their nonsensical nature should have been blatantly obvious to anyone! Unlike most medical research ...

But if it makes anyone feel better: both Alan Sokal's article, and the gibberish produced by SCIgen put plenty of references into their texts