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

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi, instead of 5 precise times for, say, N-2 to N+2, couldn't just a couple of times and ISOs, for sun and for a middle luminance overcast, do it well enough? I mean, that's much closer to the real thing than box speed and same development for 36 different contrast scenes, and even that works to some degree...
With a bit of shame, and though I really keep enjoying, I must confess just like when I was a teenager, and now I'm 48, yet I'm testing, trying different things/systems while my hair becomes whiter and whiter... Perhaps some nice opinions here could help me tune my system during the remaining of this lifetime...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use exactly one time. No N-1, no N-2, no N-3, no N-4, no N+1, no N+2, no N+3, no N+4. I use the exposure part of the Zone System. The rest of the Zone System is not necessary because of the increased exposure latitude of modern print film.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Juan
I use 1 time and do a test roll / use the green light and look at the film. if it looks like it needs more 1 just add a little more agitation in the dektol or ansco 130. I do 5 mins dektol/or ansco 130 1:10 and 5 mins Sumatrenol D ( or 130 depending on if I have dektol or ansco 130 in there ). needs a little extra I just add it. while I can understand why people do the zone stuff n +/- 1-5, id rather get a negative I can just contact print or enlarge or scan and better to have to much than not enough and all that...

 

[MattKing]

I make decisions about increasing or decreasing development time one roll at a time.
Mostly I use one time.
On some occasions, when an entire roll has been exposed in low contrast conditions, I will increase my development time.
On other occasions, when I know that I will be shooting an entire roll under high contrast conditions, I'll increase exposure a bit, and then decrease development a bit.
But generally I will rely on the incredible flexibility of modern films - primarily T-Max - and the incredible flexibility of modern variable contrast papers.
If I used sheet film, I would probably think about this differently.

 

[eli griggs]

I use one time, after establishing how the developer I am using will give me a good, no... an Outstanding Negitive, that will print well on FB #3 graded in Ansco 130, but I am ready to try Amidol or a combo of the two.

I print for maximum time in the developer, and I use the same Ansco 130 for RC papers, MG, etc.

I do meter 'Zones', the blacks, mid tones and highlights with a spotmeter when possible, or either my Luna Pro F or a Weston V, however my Canon F-1 AE meter is good enough that I do no worry if I can no, because of moment, mine, the subject or events.

I've used several developers with different films, D76 1:1, with Tri-x or Hp-5+, or HC110, Hutchens's ABC Pyro, with Acros original, Rodinal for t-max 100, etc.

Two of those will need updating with new Acros and T-max high speed and I'm no fixed on Efke, Forma films, etc.

I generally shoot 135 in 36 frame rolls, and I hate to have to adjust development for just one or a few frames/target.

I do no doubt I would have better results with differential development, but I simply opt no to .

 

[Lachlan Young]

couldn't just a couple of times and ISOs, for sun and for a middle luminance overcast, do it well enough?

EI's, not ISO.

But otherwise, yes - and often it's only for truly flat lighting that you may want extended development. Those who claim they need spreadsheets of calibrations and innumerable development times are usually rather lacking in practical experience of anything other than the photography of grey cards.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

EI's, not ISO.

But otherwise, yes - and often it's only for truly flat lighting that you may want extended development. Those who claim they need spreadsheets of calibrations and innumerable development times are usually rather lacking in practical experience of anything other than the photography of grey cards.

Hi Lachlan,
Although ISO is considered a standard, and EIs are personal choices, in this case I'll remain using the term ISO even if I talk about two ISOs... The reason is, I don't consider films have an ISO, but a few ones depending on scene contrast, of course within a limit of optimal performance: a narrow zone of ISOs close to box speed...
I insist: those two ISOs I talk about, are not my personal choices, but repeatable, measurable values anyone around the world can seek, find and check, a science...
My perception is, no matter the many differences between our minds and procedures, there's an optimal ISO for direct sun and wet printing with rich shadows on grade 3 without blowing highlights, and that's far from the optimal ISO for an expansion after soft overcast light: not my exposure indexes, but the real speed film needs, what it asks for... Of course, Lachlan, you're very right as usual, and I've lost this discussion already because of the real and accepted definition for ISO... But this is exactly what this thread's about: I say film has no ISO and no EIs, but two main ISOs for the two types of light: the one that makes shadows, and the one that doesn't... Of course, thinking of those two ISOs, implies one specific developer and nothing else. But they both deserve being called ISO... A lot more stupid was designing a promedy and selling film with one single ISO that's not the best for anything... Wasn't it?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use exactly one time. No N-1, no N-2, no N-3, no N-4, no N+1, no N+2, no N+3, no N+4. I use the exposure part of the Zone System. The rest of the Zone System is not necessary because of the increased exposure latitude of modern print film.

You can do it that way or you can use different contrast grades at the print stage to compensate. However, I do use different times depending on subject contrast levelYou can do it that way or you can use different ccontrastgrades at the print stage to compensate. However, I do use different times depending on the subject contrast level and that works very well.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I insist: those two ISOs I talk about, are not my personal choices, but repeatable, measurable values anyone around the world can seek, find and check, a science...

The ISO standard is intended to be a fixed repeatable value for a specified contrast under specific test parameters. What you describe are EI's whether you want them to be or not. If you follow the intended shadow keyed metering for neg stock you will find that the effective shadow speed varies much less across multiple contrasts (maybe 1/3 stop or so) than the zone system's mangling of sensitometry would have you believe.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That lacks relevance... And speaking with more clarity about the light a film needs, doesn't.
I consider, reading on a box something like sun 250 / shade 600, could have been a better approach...
But if you don't, that's fine too...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm interested in everybody's approach, including Lachlan's...
To those using TMY2: what are your times and ISOs for direct sun, bright overcast and dull overcast?
Thanks a lot.

 

[Bill Burk]

Before each run I check my historical graphs to find the time to hit ASA / ISO parameters. For fresh 100 and 400 Kodak films it’s 13:30 in D-76 1:1 for me.

I appreciate that Kodak thought it was a good idea to try for the same developing times, because this can’t be an accident. and it isn’t the case with older film.

If I don’t have other designs, I will develop to 0.62 contrast index.

But when I have designs, I think of an appropriate target contrast index and select the developing time from a time-contrast chart.

Several examples of different designs where I wouldn’t necessarily choose 0.62 contrast index.
-Handheld available light.
-Flat lighting on a foggy day.
-Graphic arts, for example copy negatives from prints.
-Abstract art.
-Emulating old film like trying to hit the shoulder and block highlights
-Unusual filter like dark blue 47b

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks, Bill... The subject's obviously a little complex... I didn' know about tmx and tmy designed maybe to require same development at least for an MQ 1+1: that can't be casual, and seems great!
Seems like a lot of people just use film's latitude and then get whatever they can with VC printing...
I feel, with box speed and just one time, sunny images don't look fine, they're kind of cole (weather, not tone), but I dislike the dull light negatives even more: that light really needs expansion!
That's why I think a two development times system can be a good compromise between technique and practicity...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Kind of cold, I meant...

 

[Vaughn]

I operate off the SBR I measure -- don't care what the sun is doing (out or hiding, etc). I measure the shadow I want detail in, expose for that, then develop based experience and the needs of the image and process.

So, I have an infinte set of developing times.

 

[Bill Burk]

Juan,

Don’t think folks are arguing when they explain EI vs ISO

It’s normal for us to use the words ISO and ASA when referring to the real sensitivity of the film developed to the international standards as they are followed by the manufacturer in the factory.

Then when we do things differently in our dark rooms and maybe don’t get the full speed because of the way we meter and develop, like when you double the speed to push it a stop... Then we use the phrase Exposure Index or EI.

Just a convention for talking about film speeds, nothing pedantic. Well, maybe me pointing this out is, by definition, pedantic.

 

[Bill Burk]

Juan,

Yes! The subject with flat lighting can look better with longer negative development time.

When you give film longer development for that reason, then it is easier to print.

I like negatives that print easily.

But the people who use variable contrast paper instead of variable developing time... They have worked it out for themselves in a perfectly valid way. They can just dial in a higher grade filter to add those lighter tones that don’t actually exist in the flat negative.

I mostly use graded paper, but because most of the time I develop normally, I sometimes get a flat negative that forces me pull out the multigrade paper.

It’s fun when you give a negative more development because you know it needs it. And then you go to print and it looks good on grade 3. It’s nice when things work out like you have in mind.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The real deal braker is, taming contrast and getting great contrasty shadow detail under direct sunlight, is a big, precise thing... Only by doing it OK in negative, it works beautifully...
Then, just one more, longer development time, for all levels of soft light, can make a really good use of VC printing because those types of light are very close in contrast among them...
I thought a lot of people were going to say hey, that's what I'm doing...

 

[Bill Burk]

The real surprise is when you find out that a grand landscape in bright sunlight needs longer development time... it’s trickier for the intimate scenes in nature in bright sun, where there are shady areas with animals and you want the mountains in the back to look good too. Those are the ones where you might have to develop normal or a little less.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Juan,

Don’t think folks are arguing when they explain EI vs ISO

It’s normal for us to use the words ISO and ASA when referring to the real sensitivity of the film developed to the international standards as they are followed by the manufacturer in the factory.

Then when we do things differently in our dark rooms and maybe don’t get the full speed because of the way we meter and develop, like when you double the speed to push it a stop... Then we use the phrase Exposure Index or EI.

Just a convention for talking about film speeds, nothing pedantic. Well, maybe me pointing this out is, by definition, pedantic.

No just , just accurate!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

I use one time, after establishing how the developer I am using will give me a good, no... an Outstanding Negitive, that will print well on FB #3 graded in Ansco 130, but I am ready to try Amidol or a combo of the two.

I print for maximum time in the developer, and I use the same Ansco 130 for RC papers, MG, etc.

I do meter 'Zones', the blacks, mid tones and highlights with a spotmeter when possible, or either my Luna Pro F or a Weston V, however my Canon F-1 AE meter is good enough that I do no worry if I can no, because of moment, mine, the subject or events.

I've used several developers with different films, D76 1:1, with Tri-x or Hp-5+, or HC110, Hutchens's ABC Pyro, with Acros original, Rodinal for t-max 100, etc.

Two of those will need updating with new Acros and T-max high speed and I'm no fixed on Efke, Forma films, etc.

I generally shoot 135 in 36 frame rolls, and I hate to have to adjust development for just one or a few frames/target.

I do no doubt I would have better results with differential development, but I simply opt no to .

Wow you do a lot.

I have tested 8 different films and a mix of fresh and expired, 35mm, 120 and 4x5.

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

I have a few sealed bulk expired rolls that will need testing...

The manufacturers usually provide a time contrast chart. That’s a great thing to have when you are deciding how long to develop. If I had created the massive dev chart site, I would have structured the data to time-contrast. Because I feel it’s that site’s major drawback. You hardly eve can tell what contrast the time they give is supposed to achieve.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I appreciate his posting here, and I've learned from him, I meant...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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...