General Developing Questions - Fill in the Blanks

Generally speaking, however, too-dense negs are more often the result of poor (over-)exposure.

Click to expand...

It is very difficult for an inexperienced person to tell the difference between an over-exposed negative and an over-developed one. This is one of the pitfalls with seeking simplistic formulaic answers to complex questions.

1. Developing for times longer than recommended, results in

Longer development acts on the highlight or more exposed portions of the image. While the shadow portions complete development and progress very little, the highlight portions increase in density. The contrast and the density of the negative increases. Also at some point, chemical fogging would start. Increased grain size

There is a slight additional effect in that the grain clumping increases as the additional wet time allows the grains to clump more. Generally if the processing temperature is constant the clumping is slight.


2. Developing for less time than recommend, results in

The converse of increased time. The highlights have less time to develop while the shadows complete development early. The difference between the shadows and highlights are less (lower contrast) and lower density.


3. Increased contrast in a negative is achieved by

Use contrasty film. Using a high energy developer. Try developing in Dektol or D-50. Or extend the developing time.


4. Decreased contrast in a negative is achieved by

Use low contrast film. Decrease the development time. Use a lower energy developer or compensating developer (Microdol-x). Water bath development. Still tray development.


5. You can increase apparent grain by

Over exposure/under exposure, over development. Longer development times and drastic temperature and Ph changes during wet time. Printing on high contrast paper. Use point source enlarger or condenser enlarger instead of the diffusion head. Using high energy developers. Out of focus or softer images. Reticulation will drastically increase apparent grain.


6. You can decrease apparent grain by

Shorter wet times, no temperature changes and very low ph shock during wet time. Use lower contrast paper with diffusion enlarger.


7. My (properly exposed) negatives were really dense.

Use lower energy developer. Use less agitation. Check and calibrate your thermometer. Check the developer concentration. Reduce development time by 5%-10% to start.


8. My (properly exposed) negatives were really thin.

Check and calibrate thermometer. Increase agitation rate. Check for developer contamination. Check developer concentration. Increase development time.


9. Too vigorous agitation can/will result in

Increase negative contrast. Increase density of negative edges. Increase grain.


10. Too whimpy agitation can/will result in

Uneven negative density. Exhausted development streaks. Lower contrast negatives


11. Agitation at intervals more frequently than recommended would result in

Same as vigorous agitation problems - depending on tank size and film holder type.


12. Agitation at intervals less frequently than recommended would result in

Same as whimpy agitation. Some of the minor differences between agitation speed and frequency will vary depending on the developer speed and concentration.

Well for example... you will get a denser negative , and may get more grain , but more development would get more shadow detail.. not less.


The answers to you questions will be varied.

Whats wrong with reading the manuals,first to get a basic grasp of theory??
Yes you are right .. when I die photography printing dies.

Kirks518 said:

I guess this is why analog photography is a dying art. Getting help from folks is like pulling teeth.

If I was just starting out developing, and wanted to know why my negatives came out overly grainy, or very dense, or too thin, I would hope I could get an educated answer/guess that would lead me in a direction that would help. Sure, reading books would give a person the answers, but seriously, in this day and age with the internet at our beck and call, how many under 30's are going to read a technical manual about developing film, when all they want to know is what they may have done wrong, and go from there.

Here's an example of what I was hoping for, but obviously won't get:

1. Developing for times longer than recommended, results in denser negatives, and increase in grain, and a loss of shadow detail. (Among other things)

But I guess all those with experience want to keep those things secret so the fine art of film developing dies when they do.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a lot (LOT) of fun..... IT CERTAINLY WAS FOR ME... some years back....
Logan

Michael R 1974 said:

Exactly, and that's not good for a beginner. I already see questionable/problematic answers to several of the questions.

OP is afraid of the secrets of the fine art of developing dying, but actually, I think it would be better if most of the secrets died. Making high quality negatives is not very difficult - until you start using peoples' secrets.

Click to expand...

michael

there are no secrets.
its pretty much expose and develop for what the bottle says.
and knowing what happens ( through personal experience ) if
my shutter lags or light meter is on the blink or developer is too cold or the developer is too dilute or not dilute enough or
you forgot if or when you agitated, or you are listening to the sex pistols got save the queen and were a little too zealous
with your agitation ...
and if that is the case, getting a green light, and learning the ancient art of developing by inspection
and reading this article: http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html
might be helpful...

i find it kind of funny that someone would actually think there are secrets ...

john

Kirks518,

I thought my answers were pretty straight and included secrets I've learned.

And all the answers I saw contained a grain of truth.

I get the feeling you made a list of your own answers and wanted confirmation.

If so, why don't you let us know the answers according to what you think...

This might move the discussion along.

Can I up vote Bill Burks posting #5? As someone who considers himself to still be a beginner, I thought his simple yet multi-part answers were great. I have wondered why something simple like this did not exist. IMO, these should be rules of thumb that can provide guidance. It ought to be a one pager with pointers to more advanced material should the user desire to learn more. Subtleties can come later. Let the kindergarteners learn to count to twenty and learn to have fun doing it. They can tackle infinity a little later.

Bill Burk said:

Kirks518,

I thought my answers were pretty straight and included secrets I've learned.

And all the answers I saw contained a grain of truth.

I get the feeling you made a list of your own answers and wanted confirmation.

If so, why don't you let us know the answers according to what you think...

This might move the discussion along.

Click to expand...

Hi Bill. I didn't have issue with your initial response, it was what I was looking for.

No, I really don't have my own answers, just what I've come up with in my short experience developing. There are a couple of those q's that I don't have an answer for. For example, from what I know (and it isn't much), developing for times longer then recommended would get you an increase in contrast, which would cause a loss of shadow detail, but a gain in highlight detail. It would also result in more pronounced grain.

But it took me almost a year to figure that out, and I'm sure (and confirmed my answers in this thread) that there are more aspects of the negative affected by increased developing times. So I was hoping that with this thread, a newbie who's negative came out really grainy (for example) could look at this, and figure out where he made a mistake from the last time when his negs were fine. So if there are 3 possible reasons that could have caused the grain in his negs to be more apparent, he could backtrack and try and figure out where he went wrong, or at least start with the most obvious.

You know when you buy a camera, or some other piece of equipment, in the back of the manual there is a troubleshooting section in table format? That's what I was hoping to compile here.

[TABLE="width: 500"]

Negative is:

Typical cause

Add'l possible causes



Lacking shadow detail




Very Grainy




Unevenly developed



[/TABLE]


Something like that, but in a paragraph. (Although I like the table format.) It was just an idea.

Kirks518 said:

developing for times longer then recommended would get you an increase in contrast, which would cause a loss of shadow detail, but a gain in highlight detail.

Click to expand...

Well, no.

Increasing negative development marginally increases available shadow detail on the negative. That is one of the big reasons people often overdevelop after they have underexposed their film. Exposure though is the real "lever" that controls how much shadow detail is available on the negative and therefore available to print.

Extra development does not add any extra detail to the highlight areas on the negative, in fact it can make highlights much tougher to print.

We always have to remember that negatives are just an intermediate medium. Negatives almost always have much more range (much more info available) than ever gets printed. Paper on the other hand has a very limited range of brightness it can represent.

Paper is the limit that can make it "seem like detail is lost" simply because it won't "straight print". What we print though is normally just a choice and many, if not most, never even realize there's more to be had.

Dear Kirks518,

I have felt your pain. If there is an easy to follow book that explains things with both sufficient depth and simplicity I have not run across it. Once you do get the gist of things, problem causes start to become obvious. Having said that, while I wish you luck in your endeavors to generate a trouble shooting list, I suggest purchasing Perfect Exposure by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz.

"...developing for times longer then recommended would get you an increase in contrast, which would cause a loss of shadow detail, but a gain in highlight detail. It would also result in more pronounced grain. "

Concerning things you know, you do get an increase in contrast, but there is no loss in shadow detail simply from extending development time. In fact, you might even tease a little bit more out of the shadows. Next, you might actually lose highlight detail by moving the highlights into a density range that simply won't fit on the paper. It is much like the clipping you see on digital images. Finally, any attempt to increase grain by extending development will require a significant extension, far more than one would have by missing the development time by a bit (assuming a reasonable attention to detail). It is far more likely that what you are thinking of is the situation where one "pushes" film aggressively, essentially trying to make up for purposely under exposing film to accommodate a shorter shutter speed.

Your questions. Lacking shadow detail means that you did not expose sufficiently to collect that detail. There are other possibilities, but the reality is that exposure errors are almost always our problem. A very grainy negative is usually caused by choosing a grainy film. Under exposure and choice of developer are other likely causes. Unevenly developed almost always means insufficient agitation, although development time well below manufacturer recommendation can also be the culprit.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

My experience has shown that, for any given film, a change in development time or agitation has far less impact on grain than does exposure or developer choice. When I have have what I think is excessive grain for a shot I can usually track it back to an underexposure either by my mistake or just due to constraints required to get the shot I want.

Edit: I have not been able to tell conclusively that a change in development time or agitation has any noticeable affect on apparent grain. If there are differences they are too subtle for me to differentiate from the other factors.

Lamar said:

My experience has shown that, for any given film, a change in development time or agitation has far less impact on grain than does exposure or developer choice. When I have have what I think is excessive grain for a shot I can usually track it back to an underexposure either by my mistake or just due to constraints required to get the shot I want.

Click to expand...

Couple quick questions Lamar,

Are you scanning and printing digitally or using an enlarger?

Is the offending graininess in the shadow areas or in brighter areas?

The reason for the question, is that minimizing in-camera exposure (while not underexposing) is a relatively well proven way to minimize grain when using an enlarger. The graininess in this situation normally presents itself in bright areas like skies.

Kirks518 said:

Hi Bill. I didn't have issue with your initial response, it was what I was looking for.

No, I really don't have my own answers, just what I've come up with in my short experience developing. ...
You know when you buy a camera, or some other piece of equipment, in the back of the manual there is a troubleshooting section in table format? That's what I was hoping to compile here.

[TABLE="width: 500"]

Negative is:

Typical cause

Add'l possible causes



Lacking shadow detail




Very Grainy




Unevenly developed



[/TABLE]


Something like that... It was just an idea.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Making a personal list like this is a good exercise to spot check your own understanding.

"Lacking Shadow Detail" almost always underexposure. In fact much of my interest in learning sensitometry came from my intense desire to "never" see lack of shadow detail again.

"Very Grainy" is one where I don't know the cause, so my explanation came from an experiment I did. I even tried using Dektol as a developer, but because my "processes" are very consistent (give or take 15% I always say)... I would always get good grain... Others have given possible explanations (for the "all things being equal" angle to that question). But my conclusion overall was... deliberately grainy images come from using smaller negatives. So I get out the Pocket Instamatic or Minox when I want to see dominant grain.

"Unevenly Developed" Primarily short developing times. But beyond that it can be a tank developing issue for 4x5 film, tray development gives better results. For 35mm, tank developing really does give uneven developing but it is usually trivial. If you compare the outer edge to the inner spiral you can see it. So if you make a contact print of several rolls and put shot 36 next to shot 1... you may see differences in development from start to end. For movies or a motor-drive series, this may be problematic. For normal printing, you can overcome this minor variation easily as you print... to match shot 1 to 36 you may have to adjust contrast or exposure at the enlarger. Since I treat each shot individually, I consider this a non-issue. For film testing, I try to mix it up or include a test strip at beginning and end of roll.

Thinking about this further, I remember that all the old manuals have full sections with pictures of development / exposure problems and solutions. I doubt much has changed in
40 years..

Bob Carnie said:

Thinking about this further, I remember that all the old manuals have full sections with pictures of development / exposure problems and solutions. I doubt much has changed in
40 years..

Click to expand...

harry hornstien's black and white manual still does this.
he has a troubleshooting section in the back.

Bob Carnie said:

I remember that all the old manuals have full sections with pictures of development / exposure problems and solutions. I doubt much has changed in
40 years..

Click to expand...

absolutely true.

however, until every person new to film photography also acquires and reads one of those manuals (and I doubt even one or two are still in print), people are still going to turn up at APUG and elsewhere and ask the same questions as Kirk.

Also, I have to say, of the two or three of those old manuals that I have acquired, the "negative problems" pages are illustrated with pretty poor halftones, and I found trying to understand the difference between an overexposed or overdeveloped negative from them mostly hopeless.

To be be honest, my first reaction whenever I see a list of questions like this on a forum is "I'm not doing your homework".

Kirks518 said:

These are some questions that I've had about developing, but just haven't found concise and accurate answers. I know the answers are out there, but finding them in one place seems to be difficult.

It should be assumed that all questions are using one type of (fresh) film at rated box speed, and one developer at any one of the given mix ratios (fresh batch). Ie, an answer shouldn't be: "use Developer X or Film Y to achieve that", but altering the developer in a specific way could be a response: "Use a lower dilution strength".

All questions assume a correctly exposed (in camera) negative. This is specifically about what the differences in developing processes will result in.

I would guess there may be multiple answers to some of the questions, if there are, please give the multiple answers.

If you have questions you would like to add, please feel free.


So if you can, please answer the following:

1. Developing for times longer than recommended, results in _________________.

2. Developing for less time than recommend, results in ________________.

3. Increased contrast in a negative is achieved by _______________.

4. Decreased contrast in a negative is achieved by _______________.

5. You can increase apparent grain by _______________.

6. You can decrease apparent grain by ___________________.

7. My (properly exposed) negatives were really dense. Next time I should ________ my developing time.

8. My (properly exposed) negatives were really thin. Next time I should __________ my developing time.

9. Too vigorous agitation can/will result in _________.

10. Too whimpy agitation can/will result in _________.

11. Agitation at intervals more frequently than recommended would result in ___________.

12. Agitation at intervals less frequently than recommended would result in ____________.


​

Thanks. I'm hoping this will help not only me, but others that are 'new' to developing.

Click to expand...

1. higher overall contrast,minute increase in shadow detail,possibly blocked highlights
8.incease

Kirks518 said:

I guess this is why analog photography is a dying art. Getting help from folks is like pulling teeth.

Click to expand...

you'e barking up the wrong tree.the fine folk of APUG have done their best to share their knowledge over the years.Don't try to short cut the learning process.You have to do your part:read,shoot,test and work it.after blood, sweat and tears comes knowledge.We can take you to the water...Spend less time on the internet and more in the darkroom!

I do scanning only. At some point I may graduate to real printing but for now I don't have an adequate space to accommodate the required setup. I also wonder if I would have the patience it would take to do the dodging and burning that is so easily done on my confuser.

When I have graininess it is in shadow areas. What is interesting is that when I did a pre-flash test to - 4 stops it did not appear to improve graininess from no pre-flash which leads me to wonder if apparent grain in a scan is somehow inversely related to the exposure delta from the base.

markbarendt said:

Couple quick questions Lamar,

Are you scanning and printing digitally or using an enlarger?

Is the offending graininess in the shadow areas or in brighter areas?

The reason for the question, is that minimizing in-camera exposure (while not underexposing) is a relatively well proven way to minimize grain when using an enlarger. The graininess in this situation normally presents itself in bright areas like skies.

Click to expand...

Lamar said:

I do scanning only. At some point I may graduate to real printing but for now I don't have an adequate space to accommodate the required setup. I also wonder if I would have the patience it would take to do the dodging and burning that is so easily done on my confuser.

When I have graininess it is in shadow areas. What is interesting is that when I did a pre-flash test to - 4 stops it did not appear to improve graininess from no pre-flash which leads me to wonder if apparent grain in a scan is somehow inversely related to the exposure delta from the base.

Click to expand...

You would be amazed at how very little B&D you have to do when printing a properly exposed and processed negative. The whole point of learning to do this is to make a stunning print. Testing for your personal preference is crucial to the process. It starts with choosing a paper, then exposing film to get the print the way you want with least effort. Scanning does not really exploit what film is capable of, the proof (it is said) is in the printing.

Lamar said:

I do scanning only. At some point I may graduate to real printing but for now I don't have an adequate space to accommodate the required setup. I also wonder if I would have the patience it would take to do the dodging and burning that is so easily done on my confuser.

When I have graininess it is in shadow areas. What is interesting is that when I did a pre-flash test to - 4 stops it did not appear to improve graininess from no pre-flash which leads me to wonder if apparent grain in a scan is somehow inversely related to the exposure delta from the base.

Click to expand...

Digital noise is more likely then, not film grain. Digital noise is typically seen in dark subject matter, grain typically more in light subject matter.

RalphLambrecht said:

you'e barking up the wrong tree.the fine folk of APUG have done their best to share their knowledge over the years.Don't try to short cut the learning process.You have to do your part:read,shoot,test and work it.after blood, sweat and tears comes knowledge.We can take you to the water...Spend less time on the internet and more in the darkroom!

Click to expand...

+1

I remember an old photomag article which gave the advice "ruin a roll of film or two." In other words doing is part of the learning process.

I'll have to disagree on the digital noise being the primary contributor in this case based on my observations. I don't don't want to take this into dpug territory but I understand what digital noise is and how it is induced. I have checked grain patterns on scans of the same film type, same exposure, and different developers. Similarly exposed areas, light or dark, exhibit noticeably different grain between Rodinal and XTOL and L-110 developed negatives. This is not indicative of electronic noise. On the same frame I can make two scans and see the same pattern in light or dark areas and multi-scan does not improve either. This tells me the pattern is not from electronic noise since that would be random in nature and not repeatable. I believe what I see in the darker areas (lighter areas on the negative) is a film grain pattern. It may be enhanced due to the scanning / digitizing process but I feel confident it is a grain or grain induced pattern. I do have distinct grain in the lighter (darker areas on the negative) areas as well, it just is more apparent in the darker areas (lighter areas on the negative).

markbarendt said:

Digital noise is more likely then, not film grain. Digital noise is typically seen in dark subject matter, grain typically more in light subject matter.

Click to expand...

Lamar said:

I believe what I see in the darker areas (lighter areas on the negative) is a film grain pattern.

Click to expand...

The following concept is a huge simplification that leaves out many variables that affect real world results, but the basic principle is true.

Film grain is essentially just a pattern or texture that the silver creates as it develops.

Less silver = less film grain, more silver = more film grain. (This is one of the reasons that many B&W shooters are passionate about minimizing exposure)

Digital noise is essentially just a pattern or texture a digital system creates when it has very little info to work with. (This is one reason why digital shooters avoid underexposure)

Very little silver = very little info for the digital system to make a positive with.

The light areas of a negative have very little silver, that's why they are light, therefore they typically show very little film grain when printed and that also means that light areas on the negative have very little silver to make a "film grain" pattern for the digital system to even see.

Conversely the darker areas of a negative have much more silver in the light path. More silver typically means more visible grain but also plenty of info for the digital system to work with so very little digital noise.