Stand developing in my Jobo 2400 tank is not up to @chuckroast standards:
A compromise with agitation every 3 min may be called for.
Specks on the film are due to floaters in my GSD-10.
I now believe FX-2 is likely to be more satisfactory glycin developer as it is made up in two solutions:
That's a reasonably good anecdotal test but - as you insist on rigor - certainly not fully "controlled" by any means for several reasons at the very least:
I would suggest that your tests were "controlled" only in the sense that you used a more-or-less constant process with the limitations noted above, but in reality you came to a good sense of the data exactly like our OP did here. More specifically, you found out what you preferred, not an objective performance measure.
- Changing the shutter speeds for different exposure combinations usually introduces some speed error unless you used a known calibrated electronic shutter.
- You selected "the exposures that gave the best prints". Assuming you viewed the prints at the exact same distance and angle under identical lighting (which a controlled test would demand), the determination is still very much up to how you view what is "best". Perfectly reasonable, they're your prints, but this is hardly a rigorous or objective test.
- The only formal way I am aware of how to test all this is with a transmission densitometer for the negatives and reflection densitometer for the prints. This is the way to ensure that the negatives and prints were processed to the same contrast index. But even then, the print is always interpreted by the printer so - again - it's a subjective judgment about what print is "best".
- Beyond that, the CI doesn't tell the whole story. Different film/dev combos and development schemes handle mid tones rather differently. Mid tones rendering is a strong influence of how most people judge a print's goodness.
(And here is my "shape of the data"...)
I have tested dozens of film/dev combos and measured the outcomes on a densitometer. Virtually every single combination hits the requisite FB+F for Zone I at an EI of 1/2 box speed, and preserves highlights for a normal SBR with about a 20% reduction in development time. I do this with a temperature compensating development timer I created that has tables built in to adjust timer speed by measuring the actual developer temp during process.
This is so consistent that I don't bother with densiometric testing anymore when faced with a new film/dev combination. I just assume it's true and check the first negatives for proper shadow detail and highlight preservation. Even if I am somewhat wrong, it just doesn't matter. If you are close, the combination of film latitude and split VC printing techniques pretty much always guarantee me a technically decent print can be made. Once the first negatives are in, I can tune EI and/or development time accordingly. I much prefer doing this to endless testing cycles gray targets in open shadow.
After 20+ years working this way, I realized that I still hated a lot of my prints because of a lack of mid tone contrast separation. This is a big problem, especially in long SBRs where N- processing of some sort has been the recipe for many decades. The reduced development - even with an increase in EI - not only compresses the highlights as desired, it also clobbers mid tone contrast. It was that realisation that caused me to go down the high dilution/low agitation/very long development rabbit hole, but that's a story for another day.
I'm glad you found a way to home in on the prints you like. But, it's a fallacy to assume that people who don't work that way are sloppy or that their results are irrelevant. Especially in an electronically mediated world, where the currency of the realm is a glowing monitor image, "shape of the data" is about all any of us can share even for those of us willing to actually post our images ...
Vita brevis, ars longa, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile- SenecaAut viam inveniam aut faciam- Hannibal
That's a reasonably good anecdotal test but - as you insist on rigor - certainly not fully "controlled" by any means for several reasons at the very least:
I would suggest that your tests were "controlled" only in the sense that you used a more-or-less constant process with the limitations noted above, but in reality you came to a good sense of the data exactly like our OP did here. More specifically, you found out what you preferred, not an objective performance measure.
- Changing the shutter speeds for different exposure combinations usually introduces some speed error unless you used a known calibrated electronic shutter.
- You selected "the exposures that gave the best prints". Assuming you viewed the prints at the exact same distance and angle under identical lighting (which a controlled test would demand), the determination is still very much up to how you view what is "best". Perfectly reasonable, they're your prints, but this is hardly a rigorous or objective test.
- The only formal way I am aware of how to test all this is with a transmission densitometer for the negatives and reflection densitometer for the prints. This is the way to ensure that the negatives and prints were processed to the same contrast index. But even then, the print is always interpreted by the printer so - again - it's a subjective judgment about what print is "best".
- Beyond that, the CI doesn't tell the whole story. Different film/dev combos and development schemes handle mid tones rather differently. Mid tones rendering is a strong influence of how most people judge a print's goodness.
(And here is my "shape of the data"...)
I have tested dozens of film/dev combos and measured the outcomes on a densitometer. Virtually every single combination hits the requisite FB+F for Zone I at an EI of 1/2 box speed, and preserves highlights for a normal SBR with about a 20% reduction in development time. I do this with a temperature compensating development timer I created that has tables built in to adjust timer speed by measuring the actual developer temp during process.
This is so consistent that I don't bother with densiometric testing anymore when faced with a new film/dev combination. I just assume it's true and check the first negatives for proper shadow detail and highlight preservation. Even if I am somewhat wrong, it just doesn't matter. If you are close, the combination of film latitude and split VC printing techniques pretty much always guarantee me a technically decent print can be made. Once the first negatives are in, I can tune EI and/or development time accordingly. I much prefer doing this to endless testing cycles gray targets in open shadow.
After 20+ years working this way, I realized that I still hated a lot of my prints because of a lack of mid tone contrast separation. This is a big problem, especially in long SBRs where N- processing of some sort has been the recipe for many decades. The reduced development - even with an increase in EI - not only compresses the highlights as desired, it also clobbers mid tone contrast. It was that realisation that caused me to go down the high dilution/low agitation/very long development rabbit hole, but that's a story for another day.
I'm glad you found a way to home in on the prints you like. But, it's a fallacy to assume that people who don't work that way are sloppy or that their results are irrelevant. Especially in an electronically mediated world, where the currency of the realm is a glowing monitor image, "shape of the data" is about all any of us can share even for those of us willing to actually post our images ...
Vita brevis, ars longa, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile- SenecaAut viam inveniam aut faciam- Hannibal
Google Gemini:
"In the development of thin emulsion films from the 1960s (such as Adox KB14/KB17 or Efke), glycin is generally considered to produce more pronounced edge effects than metol,
CHS100 II EI=100, FX-2nm 1+1+18 , 60m 23C Prewet 3min, Agitate 5 inversions @ 10m, 25m, 40m.
Sometimes the edge effects show fairly clearly:
Sometimes only at higher magnification where there is a line along the border with the sky:
Sometimes with some mottling and runs from sprocket holes which may be avoidable by agitating every 10min:
I believe Only CHS100 film semi stand development in dilute glycin developer will show edge effects to this extent though have never used Pyrocat with minimal agitation.
I'd love to see a side by side comparison with the Savoy building developed in something like XT-3 (Xtol) and processed conventionally as a reference to see how strong the edge effect is.
I realise you are doing very specific tests here to try and suss out the edge effect variables - a good on you for doing so.
But I do have an observation, if I may. On my monitor, at least, the images seem contrasty, but dark lacking highlight sparkle. Is that because you're only interested in the edge effects for the moment and are not pursuing best image balance, or is an artefact of the development technique. No criticism intended, just trying to determine if its the development doing this or something else. (Or am I seeing things?)
The scanner, which was left on auto re the tones, appears to have decided not to make the RHS sky paper base white, darkening the whole image in the Savoy picture. I did not try to make "best picture".
I believe the sunlight may be the cause of the contrast, here is another pic with rather less contrasty sun:
I did what I believe to be a test of this type in post 26:
"Two forms of apparent sharpness with CHS100 II.
Mainly acutance effect within the emulsion (PC-512 Borax) and mainly adjacency effects in solution (GSD10 semi stand)"
I believe that the reason why developers of the superadditive type don't work too well for producing adjacency effects in stand development is that the primary developing agent ,usually metol or phenidone, gets regenerated. What works better is a single developing agent, as in Rodinal ,also metol and glycin. Of these glycin provides the best freedom from streaking and blotches, see post 63 for a metol comparison.
I believe that the reason why developers of the superadditive type don't work too well for producing adjacency effects in stand development is that the primary developing agent ,usually metol or phenidone, gets regenerated. What works better is a single developing agent, as in Rodinal ,also metol and glycin. Of these glycin provides the best freedom from streaking and blotches, see post 63 for a metol comparison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?