How many development times do you use for a film? Would just two work fine for your own system?

[Bill Burk]

Bill, please let me claryfy I never thought Lachlan was arguing with me, and I appreciate his posting veré and hace learned from him for years... And it was more than 20 years ago when I first taught someone the clear differences between ISO and EI... Quite simple definitions... And I'm not being pedantic... I just don' believe in ISO because It stopped being a standard, it's not a unified concept... They started saying 200 and D-76, then they all had a chat 60 years ago and decided to say 400... Then Kodak made TMax but for Xtol and other speed enhancing developers... Then Foma say Foma400 for a film closer to 100... So what's ISO? Nothing... One of a thousand posible tests in one of a thousand developers. ISO is not real... Film's not static: it's like a rubberband...
AND it requires what It requires: different amounts of exposure and development for different amounts of contrast in our scenes.
I talk about stablishing real film speed, something common ISO just don't reflect... A different thing would be if manufacturera had to say both ISO for sun and ISO for shades in D-76 for optimal G3 printing... Then I would believe in ISO. Long ago, ISO has been just marketing.

OK. I believe in ISO because it’s scientific.


The 1962 speed change is a fun story. So is flare, K, Zone System. Weston speeds and Hurter and Driffield inertia speeds.

I bought a book by Ron Callender a couple years ago, it was fun getting a post from the UK including a postcard of Ron’s personal photography... you can read his writing here... https://books.google.com/books?id=PJ8DHBay4_EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I am happy we moved away from “super fast”, “ultra fast” - those really we’re marketing terms.

Ah well, wait until you start rating film by the 0.3 gradient or Delta-X parameter. Then you will find the ISO was right all along. Looking just at the 0.1 speed point doesn’t always “tell the whole story”.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Andrew, that sounds close to what I think...
Bill, i believe in ISO just like you: it's a true middle point, reflecting that film's true speeds, but not a film's single true speed... And it doesn't talk about all developers, nor about any developer, but about a precise type of developer, so it's a convention, not an absolute...
But this thread's not about that...
It's about how to create a system that attends with precision both main types of contrast scene.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I have a bunch of times depending on SBR, but in reality, I rarely go outside of N-1/N+1. In fact, I rarely use N- times even if the scene calls for it. This is my experience with HP5 and Pyrocat-HD, anyway...

Sounds fair because of HP5's unusual design, a lot of versatility because of its mix of very different grain sizes... Possibly other film designs would behave differently...

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK. I believe in ISO because it’s scientific.


The 1962 speed change is a fun story. So is flare, K, Zone System. Weston speeds and Hurter and Driffield inertia speeds.

I bought a book by Ron Callender a couple years ago, it was fun getting a post from the UK including a postcard of Ron’s personal photography... you can read his writing here... https://books.google.com/books?id=PJ8DHBay4_EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I am happy we moved away from “super fast”, “ultra fast” - those really we’re marketing terms.

Ah well, wait until you start rating film by the 0.3 gradient or Delta-X parameter. Then you will find the ISO was right all along. Looking just at the 0.1 speed point doesn’t always “tell the whole story”.

I use the manufacters' ISO and when needed measure the shadow details and adjust the exposure. No need to vary the development time, I can adjust the contrast with variable contrast papers; that is what they are made for.

 

[Bill Burk]

So, times for different types of light with TMY2, anyone? I like it in D-76 more than in Xtol, and in Clayton F-76 more than in Microphen in case I want Phenidone...
Thanks everyone.

Now there’s a question I can answer. D-76 1:1 .....

Here are some curves at different times

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/Sept9TMY2.pdf

And here is the time-contrast curve derived from that.



http://beefalobill.com/imgs/tmy2timeci.jpg


Now you just need a way to decide what contrast you would likely need from a particular shooting session

Zone System is one way (say N-1, N, etc.). For sake of example I call N = 7 stops of Subject Luminance Range. N-1 would be 8 stops, N+1 would be 6 stops. Then I pick a paper, say Grade 2 on a diffuser enlarger.

And I use this chart to lookup a contrast. You’ll notice 0.62 is pretty close to 7 stops on grade 2...

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/Practical Flare Model b.jpg

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Am I the only one thinking VC printing alone, is inferior to VC printing + a negative with some contraction or expansion?
I have not done a specific test on It, but, do we reach identical wet prints with those two different systems?
It seems that's what some photographers are saying here...
Well, if the expansion produced by extended development is tonally identical to the contrast bump given by higher contrast filters, this can be true...
I think I was taught the best way is to adapt negative to the scene, not just paper...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Bill !

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Just like Andrew said, I feel the N-1 to N+1 range is fine most of the times...
It's that what made me think a time for high contrast and a time for low contrast, must be nearly enough for great prints from rolls... Once direct sun Is well treated, a simple second time for middle overcast covers the test...
Some people must be doing It...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Covers the rest...

 

[eli griggs]

Wow you do a lot.

Except for the fresh Kodak films every one has different development time to meet ASA parameters. But I always start from there.

I believe that starting from the 'official' specs with a film is the only way to go, with new films, however, I also look a lot at the values in other peoples works in photographs, in addition to what my eyes and experience tells me, and note their shot at film/iso/developer data for each shot, when available, (the same for print paper and developer, etc) and try to balance that with what I read in the posts about other photographers work, changing one thing at a time.

Tri-x I only rate at 200 most of the time, but I recently loaded a camera with the stuff and rated it as 1600 for 'normal' daylight shooting, and I will work on the development of the film development first, in the D-76 1:1 and go from there.

45 years ago, plus, I did a lot of shooting with135 in Hp5 and Kodak Tri-x and Plus-x and pushed both the 400 rated films often for dim natural light; today, I'm interested in seeing what these films do in 120 format, in Hasselblad, and old folder cameras like my Super Ikon, folders and TLRs

My testing is very much ad hoc, and instead of a steady, empirical metered set of test, I simply look at the negative's density and the resulting prints and take my decisions on what I have as a finished 'product'.

I'm sure my ways of doing things would upset many 'schooled' photographers, but I was self taught, and used what worked, and dismissed the rest, which I suspect the majorly of long time wet darkroom photographers here, do.

I really am no doing all that much, but with the many new films, developers, (most of which I compound myself) and papers, especially the FB multi-grades, out there, settling on one film, which I did for a decade or so, with Tri-x and HC110, just is no a good fit any more.

I shoot much less today then I did way back, but I still enjoy the Processes in the Darkroom and Cameras and am trying new to me things, when the fancy strikes.

Cheers, Be Safe, Be Healthy and Godspeed to all.

 

[ic-racer]

A system with graded paper eliminates the need for controlling contrast with film development. Add to that the advent of high-quality multigrade paper in the 1970s, and contrast control during printing exceeded to control available by altering development. Add to that the intermittent grades available with dichroic filtration that came on the scene in the late 1970s and contrast control with development became crude and outdated. Add to that the advent of long-tonal scale films in the 1980s and the notion of controlling contrast with development was relegated to unique or unusual situations.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ah well, wait until you start rating film by the 0.3 gradient or Delta-X parameter. Then you will find the ISO was right all along. Looking just at the 0.1 speed point doesn’t always “tell the whole story”.

Exactly - it's also a bit like the way that indexing the darkest detail retaining shadows to IRE 1 on a spotmeter puts them within rather less than 1/3 stop variance with what the BTZS incident metering technique delivers - and that people apparently spend the most ridiculously pointless amount of time worrying about metering techniques to the exclusion of what matters - the image!

Am I the only one thinking VC printing alone, is inferior to VC printing + a negative with some contraction or expansion?
I have not done a specific test on It, but, do we reach identical wet prints with those two different systems?
It seems that's what some photographers are saying here...
Well, if the expansion produced by extended development is tonally identical to the contrast bump given by higher contrast filters, this can be true...
I think I was taught the best way is to adapt negative to the scene, not just paper...

Not necessarily - I've found that aiming for a harder paper grade (ie not building as much highlight density through expansion) seems to deliver better sharpness and gradation.

Sounds fair because of HP5's unusual design, a lot of versatility because of its mix of very different grain sizes... Possibly other film designs would behave differently...

It's nothing to do with the grain structure & all to do with the designed curve shape with a softer toe & later/ less shouldering.

 

[grain elevator]

I'm not a very experienced printer but I think I have a decent understanding of what's going on with my negs (135) and prints (VC).
I do sometimes wish for expansion, seems like I like flat subjects, but I can't usually get a whole roll full of these negs (maybe this will change soon, I'm planning to shoot more 120). So I make do with one developing time. The comforting thing is: The exact time isn't so critical, I have to laugh when I read about people who obsess about 10% more or less time for roll film: Either the more contrasty negatives will be easier to print, or the flatter ones, but for me the distribution of SBRs is so wide that whichever neg my developing time is optimal for, will always be near the top of the bell curve.
I don't think that with most roll film shooting, one can reasonably get away with just one fixed paper grade and two development times. For a photographer who doesn't fill a whole roll with just one subject or type of subject in the same lighting, the SBRs in most environments simply vary too much. Our eyes don't only have auto exposure, but also auto contrast. When people with naive (non-photographer) eyes look at scenes, they don't realize the huge range of SBRs. But for photographs, we want to bring the contrast ranges close together, b&w photographs that don't utilize the full contrast range of the display medium just look bad (save some exceptions). So we need to adjust the contrast of our negatives some way. If not VC paper, then you need a lot of paper grades or different developers, bleach... or indeed many camera bodies and different development.
I wonder why compensating development hasn't come up yet. Have you tried it? It's probably never enough to work with just one fixed grade, but could help things along. I develop TMY-2 in Xtol 1+2 for something around 12 minutes, or 20 minutes with reduced agitation, which I believe gives me a little compensating development, but I haven't tested it really.
I think your idea about different sensitivities comes from reflective metering of mixed scenes. The discrepancies will disappear if you meter for the shadows (not necessarily the shadows things cast, but anything you want in zone II or III, whatever way you prefer). Of course there's nothing wrong in a practical sense with your way.

 

[KenS]

I have 'taken' to the means offered by Dr Martin Scott for Kodachrome development which probably has the 'tightest' of 'control standards'. Meter (by reflection) for a 'white with texture' and 'place' that in ZVlll and 'go' for "Normal" development which then 'allows' the shadows to "fall where they may" His reasoning?....The 'viewer's' eye is usually "FIRST" drawn to the 'lighter' parts of the image for 'detail and information/'. I've been following that 'mantra' for many years and am more than 'satisfied' with the results 'I" get.

Might I suggest you try it for yourself before sending me replies (or mail) with "BULL-Sh**" as the first (or only) words

Ken

 

[MattKing]

I'm with Ken - the mid-tones and highlights matter most (and the ISO speed standard reflects that).

 

[grain elevator]

I'm with Ken - the mid-tones and highlights matter most (and the ISO speed standard reflects that).

I don't think the ISO standard reflects that. It's of course an artistic choice, the legitimacy of which isn't debatable. But it's not what most people seek in b&w. If I have a negative that's exposed for the shadows, I can still chose to make a print that emphasizes mid-tones and highlights. From a negative exposed for the highlights, the shadows may be just gone. The flexible negative wins for me.

 

[MattKing]

I'm with Ken - the mid-tones and highlights matter most (and the ISO speed standard reflects that).

I don't think the ISO standard reflects that.

They actually do - both directly and indirectly.
The ISO standards were developed based on "best looking print" tests, which were heavily influenced by people's subjective response to prints. And those responses are heavily biased toward mid-tone and highlight rendition.
A straight comparison between the testing methods reveals that in many cases a Zone System film speed will be just 2/3 of a stop slower than an ISO speed. Exposing at the ISO speed favours the highlights, while exposing at the Zone System film speed favours the shadows.
It is important to remember that ISO standards were/are designed in relation to un-manipulated machine prints (think volume labs).
Other film speed standards - such as the Zone System standards - are keyed to shadow densities, with the unspoken assumption that techniques like burning and dodging will be available to the skilled darkroom worker.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have 'taken' to the means offered by Dr Martin Scott for Kodachrome development which probably has the 'tightest' of 'control standards'. Meter (by reflection) for a 'white with texture' and 'place' that in ZVlll and 'go' for "Normal" development which then 'allows' the shadows to "fall where they may" His reasoning?....The 'viewer's' eye is usually "FIRST" drawn to the 'lighter' parts of the image for 'detail and information/'. I've been following that 'mantra' for many years and am more than 'satisfied' with the results 'I" get.

Might I suggest you try it for yourself before sending me replies (or mail) with "BULL-Sh**" as the first (or only) words

Ken

I agree with Ken and that is what I would use for slide film. Since I photograph negative film I use Zone III or IV for the darkest details and let the mid range fall in place with normal development. That has only worked for me for the last sixty years with VC black & white papers and RA-4 papers. I leave the automatic over exposure by 1/2 to 1 f/stop for those who never had their cameras CLA'd and the light meters calibrated by infinite time to do endless exhaustive expensive repetative boring testing while not living normal lives to the Zonistas.

 

[Dali]

I have 'taken' to the means offered by Dr Martin Scott for Kodachrome development which probably has the 'tightest' of 'control standards'. Meter (by reflection) for a 'white with texture' and 'place' that in ZVlll and 'go' for "Normal" development which then 'allows' the shadows to "fall where they may" His reasoning?....The 'viewer's' eye is usually "FIRST" drawn to the 'lighter' parts of the image for 'detail and information/'. I've been following that 'mantra' for many years and am more than 'satisfied' with the results 'I" get.

Might I suggest you try it for yourself before sending me replies (or mail) with "BULL-Sh**" as the first (or only) words

Ken

It makes sense. Viewer usually stands better blocked shadow than textureless white areas.

 

[grain elevator]

They actually do - both directly and indirectly.
The ISO standards were developed based on "best looking print" tests, which were heavily influenced by people's subjective response to prints. And those responses are heavily biased toward mid-tone and highlight rendition.
A straight comparison between the testing methods reveals that in many cases a Zone System film speed will be just 2/3 of a stop slower than an ISO speed. Exposing at the ISO speed favours the highlights, while exposing at the Zone System film speed favours the shadows.
It is important to remember that ISO standards were/are designed in relation to un-manipulated machine prints (think volume labs).
Other film speed standards - such as the Zone System standards - are keyed to shadow densities, with the unspoken assumption that techniques like burning and dodging will be available to the skilled darkroom worker.

Ah I see what you mean. Of course in comparison to a lower (ZS) speed rating, the ISO rating "favors" the highlights, so to say (although with modern films, printing them doesn't get the least bit harder with the ~2/3 stop more exposure you speak of).
I don't follow the conclusion that "mid-tones and highlights matter most" to the ISO - then the ISO rating wouldn't speak of 0.1 above base density, but of a highlight density. Essentially I took "mid-tones and highlights matter most" as a stronger statement than you apparently intended. But I don't quite get your point, as you fell in line with KenS, who recommended metering for the highlights. That's a different statement from something+- 2/3 stop, in high contrast situations it could mean many stops lost in the shadows...

 

[grain elevator]

It makes sense. Viewer usually stands better blocked shadow than textureless white areas.

But we're talking about b&w film and wet printing, yes? B&w film just goes on and on and on in the highlights, they don't go featureless, just less contrasty if the overexposure is extreme.
Edit: I hasten to add the qualifier: Within practical limits. Assuming normal, modern films, not totally insane SBR, decent development, and accepting long exposure times under the enlarger sometimes, which I'll gladly take over lack of shadow detail.

 

[MattKing]

But I don't quite get your point, as you fell in line with KenS, who recommended metering for the highlights.

The net effect of metering for the highlights is that frequently one ends up using less exposure than if one bases exposure considerations on the shadows.
That is the correlation.

 

[grain elevator]

The net effect of metering for the highlights is that frequently one ends up using less exposure than if one bases exposure considerations on the shadows.
That is the correlation.

Edit: Brain fart. Not getting your point anyway. Going to bed.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think it’s fine to make up for negative variation with multigrade paper. I even believe a thin, flat negative that requires grade 5 might even have the ultimate best image quality.

But I don’t look for ultimate quality. I know that I make mistakes. As soon as you handhold you degrade the resolution so significantly that almost all this discussion goes out the window.

I don’t worry about 10% errors. I know from a time I developed three trays worth of film without replenishing.. I included sensitometry and measured 15% less development per run (so the third batch was 30% underdeveloped)... Still all the negatives were “fine”.

So I often tell people that you can make a 30% mistake and still be ok.

 

[Bill Burk]

Edit: Brain fart. Not getting your point anyway. Going to bed.

Well the ASA/ISO speed intends to discard a little shadow detail because it’s well understood that people don’t look at the blackest blacks for detail. Because you can afford to throw it out, you can give a stop less exposure than you would give by metering a shadow and “placing on Zone III”. MattKing is just saying incident metering (or metering a highlight and “placing on Zone VIII”) will tend to give you the lesser exposure.

I absolutely do this in awful lighting conditions because I want to see my friends’ faces. But for landscape on a tripod, I give the shadow based, greater, exposure.