"Intermittent Agitation with HC-110 @ 1:90 was the ONLY technique Ansel Adams endorsed for reduced development with modern films." Why?

I'm near quoting from the Darkroom Cookbook: an intriguing sentence I wish had been expanded.

If I'm inferring from it properly, that means Adams would NOT have recommended "standard" N-1 development with the films of the 1960s-70s--that is, reducing development time WITHOUT reducing agitation and increasing dilution. My question is: why not? Speed loss? Something wrong with the curve -- compressed mid-tones?

I'm curious because the general advice given in Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness, generally echoed elsewhere and often given to students I know, is simply: if you're shooting in sunlight/high contrast settings, increasing exposure by 2/3 a stop and cutting back development by about 1/3 will produce finer negatives with better shadow and highlight detail, increased resolution, and decreased grain.

But that advice doesn't specify solvent versus acutance developers, or mention reduced agitation at all. Thanks for your wisdom.

There are all kinds of things Ansel didn't do. And he certainly wasn't an all-encompassing resource for such topics. There are others avenues he no doubt tested, but never perfected or routinely practiced. He did what worked for him, and generously shared that with others. But as the saying goes, Different strokes for different folks.

In this case, I think there is simply a misunderstanding. He once explicitly stated that in the case of dissimilar lighting ratios on a specific ROLL of film, it might be wise to process it N-1, in contradistinction from sheet films, which can be segregated into different respective development regimens. I happen to disagree with his advice about roll film, and would rather approach the problem from the standpoint of a more versatile film in terms of curve structure to begin with, rather than tonal compression via reduced development.

Likewise, Thornton's advice, at least as cited on the previous post, seems like just more generic mumbo-jumbo to me.
In the real world, the solution lies in the details and specifics, not lumping everything together under the same questionable umbrella. But probably such prescriptions have common beginner errors in mind, or inexperienced metering habits, and wish to err on the less harmful side. So I'm not calling it outright bunk.

ame01999 said:

My question is: why not? Speed loss? Something wrong with the curve -- compressed mid-tones?

Click to expand...

Could it not also simply have to do with the practical nature of film development times becoming too short for proper and consistent film development at N-1 & N-2 dilutions?

ame01999 said:

I'm near quoting from the Darkroom Cookbook: an intriguing sentence I wish had been expanded.

Click to expand...

Which edition? I checked the 3rd ed., but can't seem to find that quote.

I can't find anything corresponding to this in Ansel Adams's The Negative, copyright 1981. Developing times for N-1, N, and N+1 for several films using two dilutions of HC-110 are given. The two dilutions of HC-110 stock solution were 1:7 and 1:15, these are equivalent to a 1:31 and (I think) a 1:63 dilution of the "syrup". Roll films were developed on Nikor reels, agitation 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Sheet film developing was done in tray, constant agitation such that each sheet cycles through the stack in 30 seconds. Testing was done by John Sexton.

David

When considering fine controls it may be fair to ask: “Did you use a tripod?” If not, you’ve lost as much critical sharpness as you might gain through reduced development.

T

Bill Burk said:

When considering fine controls it may be fair to ask: “Did you use a tripod?” If not, you’ve lost as much critical sharpness as you might gain through reduced development.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of something I read that Crawley said. on the subject of acutance developers, that unless your lens is very sharp, the acutance developer will actually reduce the apparent sharpness of the print.

All advice about which films, developers, EIs, agitation schemes, temperatures, and times you should use for your photography will fall into one of the following categories:

1. Well-intentioned advice that produces results you will end up liking
2. Well-intentioned advice that produces results you will not end up liking
3. Bad advice

Because of the subjective nature of art, the only way to be 100% certain which type of advice you've encountered is to try it out and form your own opinions.

Case in point: I read Edge of Darkness and got really excited about the concept of maximizing apparent visual sharpness, acutance developers that produced edge effects, two bath approaches, etc. etc. So I ran several rolls of different films through BTTB to try out different approaches, and ultimately concluded that I didn't like the developer for anything, in any format.

This experimentation led me to get interested in Pyro developers, which I had known about for a long time, but never messed with. Ultimately I decided to try Pyrocat HD(C). In 35mm, I found it to be too grainy for my liking, even with fine-grained films like FP4+. In 120 I absolutely love it. It's my go-to for FP4+ in 120 now.

Barry Thornton's advice to use a low-solvent, metol-based, two-bath developer ended up being Type 1 advice for me. His advice to try pyro-based developers (though I decided on Pyrocat instead of his DiXactol) ended up being Type 2 advice for me, at least for some films and formats.

One runs into all kinds of things which might have applied meaningfully to this or that past film, but doesn't necessarily work the same way with current films.