Exposure / development / agitation - some questions..

So I've been shooting on film only for over two years now. 99% on black and white. I started with an incident meter but I switched to a spot meter so I could learn the light more around me. Unlucky enough, I didn't print too much in the darkroom and was not aware of all the grade/exposure stuff.

I was happily scanning my negatives and they looked most of the times okay. (Shot only on Tri-X 400 the last two years with HC-110 @ dil B 6:30). But sometimes, my scans look different, oddly enough. I thought it was my exposure with the spotmeter.. but then again I was thinking I didn't do anything else then what I was used to.

Only after I started to print more seriously I noticed I always ended up printing in grade 4. I have a lot of detail in my negatives, but they sometimes look a bit too greyish or need that extra pop. Some pictures ended up way better looking than the original scan. Finally I found out that I did use a stupid preset on my scanner with Silverfast, which made my exposure look twice as dim, so I was always getting the wrong feedback on my exposures.

I had a few issues with development too, looked like overdeveloped shots. So since then I started to do everything more carefully. However, I want to go further and master the process. I switched to Ilford this year as I want to shoot studio work too with a lower grain film and I switched back to incident metering, since I never shoot landscapes or large format. I hope my exposures will be better again.

However the contrast is still an issue. I develop for 6 minutes and 30 seconds in HC-110 dil. B for Tri-X, 30 seconds init agitation and every minute 10 seconds agitation. (I do 1 inversion / 10 seconds), rather slowly. As I read it's hard to control HC-110 because it's an active developer and you can easily overdevelop with too vigorous agitation (?). Sometimes I end up printing on grade 2.. sometimes on grade 4.. and don't really know what I'm doing wrong.

How can I establish a consistent agitation scheme that makes my shots print good in the default grades and avoid overdeveloping and bad exposures?

Note: Mostly shooting portraits in natural light, doing more studio lately.. so I want the negatives to be as perfect as possible. Like shooting on a dull day, where the contrast values are too low in general on 135 or 120.. Should I change agitation for that, so the negs get a little more contrastier, or just develop normal and get as much detail.. and print contrastier?

Thanks

agitation is for the purpose of replenshing fresh developer on the negative surface and moving the used developer away from the film surface. It is not meant to be for controlling development contrast. There are some specialised techniques for using little agitation but for now what you need is a consistent agitation routine which works without introducing any surge marks on the film.
You use time, temp and developer strength/dilution to control development contrast. Best to keep temp very consistent so use the same temp each time. And keeping strength consistent too makes life easier. So time adjustment is your main development contrast control.

I'm surprised dilution B for manufacturers recommended temp and time is giving you soft negs. But "soft" is a subjective thing. If you happen to be liking hard contrast prints then maybe they are not soft at all. And if your subject is low contrast then maybe your lighting is not right and you will then get soft negs.
Providing there is decent shadow detail in the neg then you are probably not far off. So if shadow detail is fine but negs are consistently soft for your taste then increase dev time by 15% and see how you go with that.

And only change one variable at a time when trying to dial in your exposure and dev otherwise you won't know what is really doing what.

RobC said:

agitation is for the purpose of replenshing fresh developer on the negative surface and moving the used developer away from the film surface. It is not meant to be for controlling development contrast. There are some specialised techniques for using little agitation but for now what you need is a consistent agitation routine which works without introducing any surge marks on the film.
You use time, temp and developer strength/dilution to control development contrast. Best to keep temp very consistent so use the same temp each time. And keeping strength consistent too makes life easier. So time adjustment is your main development contrast control.

I'm surprised dilution B for manufacturers recommended temp and time is giving you soft negs. But "soft" is a subjective thing. If you happen to be liking hard contrast prints then maybe they are not soft at all. And if your subject is low contrast then maybe your lighting is not right and you will then get soft negs.
Providing there is decent shadow detail in the neg then you are probably not far off. So if shadow detail is fine but negs are consistently soft for your taste then increase dev time by 15% and see how you go with that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your insights Rob! I sometimes just dev at other temperatures and use the Ilford temperature sheet to change the development time to compensate for the temperature. Should I quit doing this and get better water temperatures for a start?

Yes I do like more contrasty scenes. Mostly I never lose detail in highlights or shadows. Sometimes, I underexpose on purpose, but not pushing the film. As Tri-X could handle it quite well. I'm always working inside with difficult lightning situations. Switched back to incident gave me back the results I was thinking off, but sometimes my scanner seems to overexpose the image (0.5 - 0.7 stops), as I don't have a densitometer I cannot check if it's my exposure or just the scanner corrections. However all the detail is still in the negative and in darkroom printing it just looks fine. I'm trying not to look at the scanning stuff as it will probably always be different then it really is.

I've noticed that I get very dense negatives when I develop too long or 1-2 degrees hotter then allowed with HC-110 dil. B .. Looking forward to try FP4+ and HP5+ now and see how they look, HP5+ even has a shorter dev time with HC-110.. I'll try to get that as a starting point and change development times.

yes keep dev temp the same each time you dev is best policy. 20degC or 21degC is usually right. Increasing temp will increase contrast unless you reduce temp to compensate and that gets unpredictable unless you have tested for it. So just keep everything the same and use only time to adjust dev contrast.
Its all about consistency each time you develop otherwise you have no idea what you'll end up with or what caused the problem.

And only change one variable at a time when trying to dial in your exposure and dev otherwise you won't know what is really doing what.

RobC might tell you that I don't always agree with him, but I certainly agree with almost everything he says above.

I am a fan of developing at room temperature, and adjusting developing time accordingly, but otherwise I agree with what he says. That being said, this only works easily if your room temperature is reasonably close to 68F/20C.

RobC is generally correct about agitation, but the regime you describe sounds too gentle to me. I'd suggest you follow either the Kodak recommendation (5 inversions in 5 seconds every 30 seconds) or, if you must, the Ilford suggestion (4 inversions in 10 seconds, every minute). In any event, you need to move more developer off of the surface of that film, and replace it with more fresh developer.

If you need to increase contrast, you need to pin down first what you mean by contrast. Generally though, if you increase either temperature or development time, you will increase all types of contrast.

There are two different things that people describe as contrast: some people consider contrast to be the difference between the darkest and lightest tones (sometimes macro-contrast) while others pay more attention to the apparent difference between adjacent tones (sometimes micro-contrast).

If you are unhappy with the "contrast" you are obtaining, it may have more to do with the light than your development choices.

I tend to pay more attention to the micro-contrast, because I can usually deal easily with the macro-contrast with split contrast printing, burning and dodging.

You ask: "How can I establish a consistent agitation scheme that makes my shots print good in the default grades and avoid overdeveloping and bad exposures?"

First, with exposures, you need to expose enough to ensure good detail in the shadows, and you need to control the light (choice of ambient conditions, reflectors, fill flash) to ensure that the highlights are both sufficiently different from the shadows to make the result pleasing.

You also need to control the character of the lighting (how directional it is, what sort of specular highlights you include, how dark the true shadows are, how the light sources model your subject) to give you the drama (or lack of drama) you are looking for.

Then, when it comes to developing, you need to use a standard and effective agitation scheme, and you need to choose a development time and temperature pair that will support the character of the light you are trying to support and, if necessary, adjust to bring the micro-contrast up or down, as desired.

In essence, your development choices are based on the light for the scene.

MattKing said:

RobC might tell you that I don't always agree with him

Click to expand...

Surely not, I thought you always agree with me or vica versa. Well almost always, only the occasional difference of opnion

I would add that changing agitation routine can affect dev contrast quite significantly but isn't the noraml way to do it. But the fact that it does alter contrast makes it all the more important to keep to exactly the same agitation rountine every time otherwise again you will get unpredictable results.
So again, consistency is the name of the game if you want predictable results once you have dialed in whats right for you. Did I say consistency.

I agree with most of all that has been said so far. The key is to keep your process as constant as possible. I always develop at 20 C. However, if you develop at room temperature and compensate for the temperature differences, you should get similar results. So, it is a matter of choice.

I suspect your problem is caused by a different reason. It is likely that your system is poorly calibrated. By system I mean the entire process from exposure to printing, including development were the time should be the major controlling factor.

For example, many tend to forget that as a rule of thumb, a condenser head require about 30% shorter development time compared to a diffuser head.

The best method I am aware of to calibrate your process, has been described in an easy to understand text by Tom R. Halfhill. I think the method originate from Kodak.

http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

http://www.halfhill.com/speed2.html

Another problem that many are not aware of is that they have too large temperature variations between the chemicals and the running rinse water after fixing. This can give unpredictable and ugly grains. Therefore, I recommend the Ilford rinse method: Measure up a jug of rinse water at the same temperature as the rest of your chemicals, fill the container, agitate 5 times, empty, fill it again, agitate 10 times, fill it and agitate 20 times, empty, done. Personally I add demin water with a wetting agent after this to reduce stains.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

APUGuser19 said:

Use a metal tank with a piece of electrical tape around the joint, and jam on the cap, keeping a dull butter knife handy to unjam it when the time comes. Use a gallon plastic bucket as your water bath to drop the tank into between agitations. Use ice cubes or hot water as needed seasonally to maintain either a 68 or 75 degree water bath temperature, and follow manufacturer's instructions regarding agitation and other pertinent procedure. Use a slow-acting film developer that will give at least 9mins development time, for the sake of consistency. Having done all this, the built-in film latitude will give you the maximum amount of manipulation in the printing process.
You never mentioned your preferred film format, or I missed it. I'm assuming 35mm or 120.
With 45 years experience of doing things this way, it completely escapes me why others have problems. It's just too easy. But then I was brought up reading and following Kodak instructions. And it always worked. I read about all kinds of crazy problems on these sites, but I never had any of them. My point is that, Kodak, and to a lesser degree Ilford; has done the research. All we have to do is follow the instructions. Whatever hardship or ease in doing so is left up to our own devices.
Finally, bringing scanners into the discussion is counter to the entire procedure. Satisfy the silver/optical process. The scanner is a computer. If it can't keep up, that's not your problem.

Click to expand...

I mostly shoot 35mm, but that is about to change. Did a project for 2 years on 35mm and now will be mostly shooting on 120. If Kodak did their research well, why do they suggest 3 minutes dev for Tri-X with HC-110 dil B?
Also I know that you have more control over the dev proces with less active dilutions and longer times, but I cannot find any developer that looks like HC110.. and I'm not sure of dilution H...

The time for 400TX in HC110 dil B is unusually low and many have suggested that it is wrong and never corrected. It is also rumored to be the dil A time, making the correct dil B time roughly double that.

why do you think you need dilution H ?

RobC said:

why do you think you need dilution H ?

Click to expand...

Because I have more consistency and probably will not overdevelop as quick?
(at least that is what I'm thinking, correct me if I'm wrong)

Check your shuttertimes. Exposure has a big influence on the contrast of the negative. When overexposed the negative will be less and when underexposed will be more contrasty.
Personaly, for landscape, I always use Fomapan 100 and expose it from 50 to 1600 asa, depending on light conditions and develop accordingly with very satisfactory results.
Don't be surprised when your mesured shuttertim

Dilution H will put a long shallow toe in the curve. i.e. effectively lose you some film speed and/or give very liitle shadow separation.
Dilution H is used as a compensating developer which meaans it curtails excessive highlights,
At the start of the thread you said you were getting soft negs and now you're saying you're getting too contrasty negs. You need to make your mind up which you are getting.
I suspect your real problems are inconsistent metering and inconsistant processing. Until you have fixed both of those you shouldn't go chasing magic bullets of highly dilute developer to hide other faults and which will very likely you cause you other faults if you can't get basic dev correct using manufacturers recommended dilution, temp and time.

RobC said:

Dilution H will put a long shallow toe in the curve. i.e. effectively lose you some film speed and/or give very liitle shadow separation.
Dilution H is used as a compensating developer which meaans it curtails excessive highlights,
At the start of the thread you said you were getting soft negs and now you're saying you're getting too contrasty negs. You need to make your mind up which you are getting.
I suspect your real problems are inconsistent metering and inconsistant processing. Until you have fixed both of those you shouldn't go chasing magic bullets of highly dilute developer to hide other faults and which will very likely you cause you other faults if you can't get basic dev correct using manufacturers recommended dilution, temp and time.

Click to expand...

Mhm. Thank you.
I've been thinking about it and, I mostly end up adding contrast, both scan and print, I get decent blacks and highlights, with good tonal definition in both areas. Most of the time, on scan, I end up decreasing exposure (since it always looks like a little bit over) and then add contrast, because else it looks to too flat, to me. But as said, I should leave the scanner out the equation.

My latest negs shot with my incident meter look already much more consistent in terms of exposure just by looking at the negs. Had to print most of them at grade 3 to get my likings. I'll try to be more consistent with exposure, then check my development from there on. It's difficult to master!

nobody said its easy but consistency plays a big part otherwise yu'll be all over the place.

It seems that inversions are the most popular choice for agitation. Do any of you use the agitation stick to gently spin the film instead? I've been doing this as of recent, and I feel like the grain comes out smoother. Am I imagining things? Also, if any of you use spin/roll agitation, do you add time or raise temperature at all?

RobC said:

nobody said its easy but consistency plays a big part otherwise yu'll be all over the place.

Click to expand...

True.. One last question though.. Should I change development if I'm shooting outside on a dull day or edit this in print?

KidA said:

It seems that inversions are the most popular choice for agitation. Do any of you use the agitation stick to gently spin the film instead? I've been doing this as of recent, and I feel like the grain comes out smoother. Am I imagining things? Also, if any of you use spin/roll agitation, do you add time or raise temperature at all?

Click to expand...

I've never used the stick. I don't use paterson tanks anymore, went with jobo tanks since they were smaller and easier to reel and I could convert them into smaller or bigger tanks.. But just got my steel reels.. still have to buy the steel tanks.

if you're indoors you should be controlling the light to be what you want. Keep dev the same for indoors and outdoors until you have a real handle on it.
Until you get to know one film and dev and how they respond its pointless trying to change things.
Treat it like colour film where you wouldn't be messing about with it just for the sake of messing about with it. Outdoors or indoors will be good if your metering is good and providing lighting isn't really harsh.

KidA said:

Do any of you use the agitation stick to gently spin the film instead? I've been doing this as of recent, and I feel like the grain comes out smoother. Am I imagining things?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are imagining things .

Even Paterson do not recommend using the agitation stick for anything more than the first few seconds of development. Relying on it alone leads to uneven results.

"Smoother" grain will result from increasing sulfite, but not much else. Unless what you interpret as grain is actually edge effects resulting from markedly reduced agitation - stand or semi-stand - which brings with it all sorts of other potential problems.