film categories: which are "retro" and which are not?

[Pixophrenic]

Please read the second paragraph in my post then. We generally have no idea.

PE

Would it be safe to say that (there are cases when) the labs take money for developing something they have no idea about?

 

[Ian Grant]

That's some very valuable info, Ian. However, it supports my thoughts that a) current films produce excessive contrast in those "classic" developers, hence a tendency to dilute, and b) by diluting you reduce the initially intended solvent effect, but apparently nobody is complaining, so solvent effect appears to be of marginal importance, except for specific films.

If Jacobsons' book is any authority, by downrating the film one admits that either the developer produces excessive contrast when rated speed is achieved, or it is only usable when the film is effectively underdeveloped. In regard to this, Ian. I have a separate question. I can start a separate thread if necessary. It is about the density of the fogged leader and margin labels in a developed film. Are these a reliable measure of how well the film is developed?

You're reading too much into all this, some people want higher contrast from their films others more tonality there is no right or wrong. I cdratinlt wouldn't say that any current films are excessively contrasty except for Foma and even they can be tamed easily in these classic and modern developers, HC110, Tmax and Xtol being modern, D76 (ID-II) and now Perceptol as Microdol-X is long discontinued classic.

No you can't read anything except the numbers from edge markings and leaders don't tell you much except if a film has been underdeveloped.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Would it be safe to say that (there are cases when) the labs take money for developing something they have no idea about?

Most labs process all B&W films for the same time in the same developer and that usually works fine. when I processed for others it cost more for special handling or even specific developer and dilution. I would adjust for Foma though but only if I knew how the films where exposed.

Ian

 

[Pixophrenic]

You're reading too much into all this, some people want higher contrast from their films others more tonality there is no right or wrong. I cdratinlt wouldn't say that any current films are excessively contrasty except for Foma and even they can be tamed easily in these classic and modern developers, HC110, Tmax and Xtol being modern, D76 (ID-II) and now Perceptol as Microdol-X is long discontinued classic.

No you can't read anything except the numbers from edge markings and leaders don't tell you much except if a film has been underdeveloped.

Ian

Why reading too much? All cookbooks praise the solvent effect and devote considerable space to solvent developers, while in contemporary reality hardly anyone is using them with the original intention (undiluted). So, if copious amounts of sulfite are actually unnecessary, imagine how much less sulfite would be dumped down the drain. Coming back to margin marks. DX coded films have quite a few margin marks in addition to frame numbers and sometimes film type. They are almost like a control image imparted on the film during production. This does not apply to the same extent to 120 films, but they have minute margin marks which are usable too. I noticed that the <density> of these marks does not correlate with degree of development of actual negatives. I was wondering if these marks could be used as an objective proof that the film was or was not properly developed.

 

[Craig75]

Isn't bringing in a 16mm film into your argument kind of extreme? And where in the world does one get a double-X film today?

From eastman kodak....

Not extreme at all. Plenty 16mm shooters around but if you prefer then compare similar factor of enlargement with 35mm double x

 

[Pixophrenic]

From eastman kodak....

Not extreme at all. Plenty 16mm shooters around but if you prefer then compare similar factor of enlargement with 35mm double x

I am sorry, I did not realize you may be talking about BW negative movie film. Am I right? Or is it a miniature still camera? I think SPUR in Germany made several specialized developers intended for this application,

 

[Ian Grant]

Why reading too much? All cookbooks praise the solvent effect and devote considerable space to solvent developers, while in contemporary reality hardly anyone is using them with the original intention (undiluted). So, if copious amounts of sulfite are actually unnecessary, imagine how much less sulfite would be dumped down the drain. Coming back to margin marks. DX coded films have quite a few margin marks in addition to frame numbers and sometimes film type. They are almost like a control image imparted on the film during production. This does not apply to the same extent to 120 films, but they have minute margin marks which are usable too. I noticed that the <density> of these marks does not correlate with degree of development of actual negatives. I was wondering if these marks could be used as an objective proof that the film was or was not properly developed.

I didn't say reading to much in terms of number of books etc, I actually said "You're reading too much into all this," by which I meant you're making inferences and assumptions that aren't necessarily correct.

Developers like D76/ID-11 and later Xtol are designed to be used "Full Strength" but more usually replenished where they begin to behave slightly differrently once seasoned /ripened. If you go back to older Ilford and Kodak, Gevaert. Agaf etc data books you'll find none of the MQ Borax fine grain developers have any recommendations for use dilute. That came in much later with small scale amateur use of the developers where there wasn't enough throughput to warrant replenishment and it was much less economic unless you used dilute.

You'll find quite a few on this forum using developers replenished, I did from the late 1960's through to about 10 years ago.

The strength of edge markings can vary between batches etc so has never been an indication of good/bad development the contrast and density of the film though is.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

current films produce excessive contrast in those "classic" developers, hence a tendency to dilute, .

This is incorrect. Contrary to popular belief, diluting solvent developers doesn't really reduce contrast. Furthermore, all current general purpose films will achieve their ISO rated speed within a small fraction of a stop in most general purpose developers without dilution.

In the 50+ years I've been processing films and making darkroom prints there's been no change in the contrast in the films from Ilford and Kodak, I began with FP3 and HP3 and those classic developers like D76 and ID-11 haven't really changed, the monor chnges have been to buffering probably to maintain greater stability when dilute (in different water types).

Adding to what Michael has said if used at 1+3 any developer like D76/ID-11 needs a minimum amount of stock in the diluted solution or it'll exhaust and one consequence will be a great reduction in contrast, that may be what you're referring to.

Ian

 

[Craig75]

I am sorry, I did not realize you may be talking about BW negative movie film. Am I right? Or is it a miniature still camera? I think SPUR in Germany made several specialized developers intended for this application,

Yes movie film in a subminiature camera. You can develop it in any normal developer - you dont need a specialised developer.

I may be wrong here but i think you may be confused as to nature of some current films on market. People have been repackaging microfilm or aerial film and all sorts of non pictorial contrast films for stills photographers. These films will often be designed to be high contrast so to make them behave like "normal" films needs specialist developers or some jiggery pokery with regular developers. Develop them in a pictorial contrast developer and they will behave like they were intended - ie usually high contrast.

You might be best getting 20 rolls of 400 speed ilford or kodak to shoot over winter and playing with one developer to see what you can make it do. From my experience changing camera exposure and time in developer has a more profound effect than any specific developer but your experience might differ. Get that on lockdown and you can take the experience into shooting most things.

 

[trendland]

Would it be safe to say that (there are cases when) the labs take money for developing something they have no idea about?

Yes - to have no idea of developing film is sometimes a good term to describe the business model of (some - NOT ALL) labs.
I just remeber an article of a Photo magazine from the 90th. To this time some labs were specialized on bw film
developement.As I can say just from mind the magazine tested 16 labs with different bw films also some of the labs were specialized on AGFA SCALA 200 !
The result : only 1 labs were catogorized
as grade 3 satisfactury, all others got grade 4 not satisfactury, 2 labs were rated as grade 5 obviously inefficient. ...
? One of the inefficient lab was in addition the most expensive One....
Prices were somewere between
$ 11,95,- - $ 18,50 / one single film 135/120 .
Interisting to me - Jurys conclusions :

The test has unaceptable results. It was hart to believe because the testet labs
generate a business special to bw.
Pricing goes also in this direction.
Only two labs were able to bring normal
results.No single lab (of 16) was in the position to have good results.
The reason to this spectacular desaster :
Obviously the knollage to whole bw
processing is gone over the years.
There are no experts remaining to handle
bw processing films.

AND THIS WAS IN THE 90th........?


with regards

 

[Pixophrenic]

Most labs process all B&W films for the same time in the same developer and that usually works fine. when I processed for others it cost more for special handling or even specific developer and dilution. I would adjust for Foma though but only if I knew how the films where exposed.

Ian

Thank you, Ian. This explains quite a lot of my experience with labs. If one looks only into a set of Kodak films and D-76 as an example here
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf
one could see that at one end of the time spectrum (let's assume we use a large tank) comes Plus-X with 5 1/4 minutes, and at the other end, Tri-X at 10 1/4 min. A five minute difference. Which time do you think a lab would use for a random mixture of films?

 

[Pixophrenic]

Yes movie film in a subminiature camera. You can develop it in any normal developer - you dont need a specialised developer.

I may be wrong here but i think you may be confused as to nature of some current films on market. People have been repackaging microfilm or aerial film and all sorts of non pictorial contrast films for stills photographers. These films will often be designed to be high contrast so to make them behave like "normal" films needs specialist developers or some jiggery pokery with regular developers. Develop them in a pictorial contrast developer and they will behave like they were intended - ie usually high contrast.

You might be best getting 20 rolls of 400 speed ilford or kodak to shoot over winter and playing with one developer to see what you can make it do. From my experience changing camera exposure and time in developer has a more profound effect than any specific developer but your experience might differ. Get that on lockdown and you can take the experience into shooting most things.

Thank you for the piece of advice, but this is not what I am after. I think one can put all of current films into "bins" with regard to their chances of being successfully developed in a lab. I have no problem developing films myself, but if I have to use a lab, I'd like to know which films to prefer and which to avoid. Isn't that reasonable?

 

[Ian Grant]

Actually it's not so

Thank you, Ian. This explains quite a lot of my experience with labs. If one looks only into a set of Kodak films and D-76 as an example here
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf
one could see that at one end of the time spectrum (let's assume we use a large tank) comes Plus-X with 5 1/4 minutes, and at the other end, Tri-X at 10 1/4 min. A five minute difference. Which time do you think a lab would use for a random mixture of films?

Actually it's not so bad as you might think. For a couple of years when a new pro Lab opened close to where I live (early 1980s) we processed all their B&W films in our deep tanks, they were primarily a colour lab and didn't get enough B&W to justify their own deep tank line. The owner was ex-Durst and had managed another lab 18 miles away.

If needed the customers would be advised to adjust their effective EI, but we were never involved and don't remember any issues. actually almost all the films were FP4 or HP5, and some Tri-x. A developer like D76/ID-11 replenished for say 8:30 @ 20ºC is not far off or most common films.

Ian

 

[trendland]

It is true that today's films are less grainy (especially t-grain films, and in particular, Kodak's t-grain films) so it can be argued there is less need for solvent action in a developer. In that case, dilute the solvent developer, or use a non-solvent developer. With respect to Rodinal and graininess, all other things being equal it should be grainier than a stock or mildly diluted solvent developer. But this is a touchy subject.

Thank you for the piece of advice, but this is not what I am after. I think one can put all of current films into "bins" with regard to their chances of being successfully developed in a lab. I have no problem developing films myself, but if I have to use a lab, I'd like to know which films to prefer and which to avoid. Isn't that reasonable?

Yes - of cause we may help you :

Use AGFA APX 100/400 with its derivates.Use the simplest standard bw
film like also Ilford Fp4.
I know personaly no lab wich ever destroy Hp5 because this film bring results just in the bad possible soup one could imagine.
AND as you mentioned,films with special characteristics you should develope in your own lab yourself.

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Back in the day when film emulsions were as 'thick as a tippler's tongue' high sulfite solvent developers like D-76 were necessary particularly for 135 film. They're not necessary with todays films and these developers are best used diluted for better resolution.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The average photofinisher uses one developer, time and temperature for all films regardless of type. Ideally, B&W film performs best with a contrast of 0.6 when matched with a normal grade 2 paper. This is in accordance with international standards and really, the math involved. So, if one claims to have high contrast, I would suggest that that person looks at H&D curves to see what the slope is and what the speed is.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

There's a reference somewhere, maybe Mason, but I also know it's true from experience using Adox Borax MQ which gives better film speed compared to ID-11/D76 as well as finer grain and better sharpness, the Agfa & Orwo 44 (Anso 17) fine grain developer is similar, as is Defender 4-D, all use Sulphite at around 75-80g/l. These are close to the old ASA standard developer used for film speed testing. Ilford ID-68/Microphen uses Phenidone and gain a lower level of Sulphite 85g/l compared to their PQ version of ID-11/D76 Autophen.

The problem was that D76 had become the standard developer for Cine film in the 1930's and it was made by almost all companies under their own name, this was to ensure consistent processing regardless of location.

Ian

Is commercial Microphen indeed ID-68? I have one pack untouched and I found in attached MSDS that part 1 contains phenidone, hydroquinone, boric acid and sodium metabisulfite, and the other part sulfite, borax and potassium bromide. I am tempted to use part 1 with significantly reduced sulfite to see what effect it has on grain. Could anyone give original reference to ID-68, beside DT?

 

[MattKing]

Commercial black and white developing labs traditionally came in two general varieties.
The first (and most common) developed all films in the same developer, at the same time and temperature. The development yielded at least average density and contrast for all common films. Any variation in contrast was handled at the printing stage. Photographers who used those labs and did their own printing adjusted their film choice and exposure choice to match the labs.
Some films were designed by the manufacturers to take this environment into account. As an example, note the fact that for certain developers and temperatures, Kodak T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 have the same recommended times. In addition, developers like HC-110 were designed to emulate different developers at different dilutions, thus permitting a commercial lab to "pick" an intended result and then run with it.
The second type of commercial black and white lab (far less common) did vary their development parameters to match the films. They tended to offer custom services such as clip tests and densitometer readings, and they charged for all at prices that reflected the nature of the services.
Additionally, traditionally high volume commercially processed black and white film was developed to a much higher density and contrast than currently recommended. Everything was set up for box cameras with lower contrast lenses.
Finally, it is really important to remember that the ISO standards for film speed are based on print viewing statistics which are oriented toward commercial development, because the prints used in the compilation of those statistics are un-manipulated straight prints from negatives developed to a standard contrast.
The various commercial developers are designed to perform well in those environments with a very wide choice of films.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Back in the day when film emulsions were as 'thick as a tippler's tongue' high sulfite solvent developers like D-76 were necessary particularly for 135 film. They're not necessary with todays films and these developers are best used diluted for better resolution.

This is what I am driving at ;-)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Back in the day when film emulsions were as 'thick as a tippler's tongue' high sulfite solvent developers like D-76 were necessary particularly for 135 film. They're not necessary with todays films and these developers are best used diluted for better resolution.

If this were true, then D76 would be less than optimum with modern films. But, this is not true. D76 is just as fine today as it was then.

PE

 

[Pixophrenic]

If this were true, then D76 would be less than optimum with modern films. But, this is not true. D76 is just as fine today as it was then.

PE

PE, could you show <recent> data in open literature that support this? This statement may even be true for Kodak films, but there are others. I mentioned elsewhere that there is a five minute difference in development time between standard processing in D-76 fro low/high ISO films. I would expect that there are newer formulas that do not show such a spread. So, I am afraid D-76 is more of a tribute to photographers' conservatism, which is not a bad thing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here is a recent example of a Kodak data sheet for Tri-X film in a variety of developers, equipment and process times. It shows grain and sharpness as well.

I'm sure that there are more.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot all films at box speed and develop the black & white film in replenished XTOL. Fool around with the film speed and the contrast gets messed up with any developer.

 

[Ian Grant]

Is commercial Microphen indeed ID-68? I have one pack untouched and I found in attached MSDS that part 1 contains phenidone, hydroquinone, boric acid and sodium metabisulfite, and the other part sulfite, borax and potassium bromide. I am tempted to use part 1 with significantly reduced sulfite to see what effect it has on grain. Could anyone give original reference to ID-68, beside DT?

Digitaltruth has the correct formula for ID-68. Commercially packaged powder developers may differ slightly from the published formulae this is common to most manufacturers in this case as with Bromophen. Sodium Metabisulphite is added at a low level to Part A to greatly increase the shelf life of the developing agents in the powdered chemistry, it's converted to Sulphite when in solution by the alkali Borax in Microphem , Carbonate in Bromophen, there may be a very slight alteration in the alkali to compensate but we are talking low levels of Metabisulphite. Kodak did the same with some developers but devised a coating system tp protect the developing agents in single packet powder developers.

Ian

 

[Pixophrenic]

Here is a recent example of a Kodak data sheet for Tri-X film in a variety of developers, equipment and process times. It shows grain and sharpness as well.

I'm sure that there are more.

PE

Thank you, PE. Not sure why you chose Tri-X to support D-76. That's a lot of data, and often difficult to read curves. Contrast index curves for D-76, oddly, are much shorter than shown for newer developers, they do not go past 10-minute point. However, the suggested times for 3-stop push with D-76 go very much past 10 minutes. T-Max RS, D-76 and Xtol are the developers recommended for 3-stop push, then why D-76 contrast index data are omitted?