Is there a multispeed developer out there?

[tlitody]

Is there a developing method than can develop a film which has some frames exposed at 400, some at 800 and some at 1600 and produce all negs developed to similar contrast index.
I'm thinking maybe one of the two bath developers or compensating using stand or semi stand might do it.
Which would you suggest I try.

 

[kauffman v36]

i could be wrong but i dont think this exists. dev. doesnt have a speed, the time determines the speed perse. unless you can develop seperate parts of the film for diff times i dnt think theres anything you can do.

 

[mwdake]

Diafine?

Seems like pretty much most films develop in Diafine with 3 mins in each bath even at different speeds.
I have not used Diafine but it might be worth a try for what you trying to do.

 

[Anscojohn]

Is there a developing method than can develop a film which has some frames exposed at 400, some at 800 and some at 1600 and produce all negs developed to similar contrast index.
I'm thinking maybe one of the two bath developers or compensating using stand or semi stand might do it.
Which would you suggest I try.

************
D23 has long been a favored developer for "checkerboard" rolls. It is possible to give full development to the lower exposed frames without blocking up the highlights in the frames with more exposure.

 

[BetterSense]

I would say D23, Diafine, or very very dilute Rodinal.

 

[removed account4]

caffenol C

 

[mts]

Anything that yields a long low-gamma relatively straight characteristic curve for the emulsion in question. D-23 is a fine choice for most pictorial films. You can always burn another roll of film using similar exposures and then process pieces of it until you are happy with the result. Testing is always going to be better than choosing your processing blind.

 

[DLM]

Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 60 minutes. I do it all the time with rolls where I guesstimated the exposure, and also put different speed films in the tank, like a roll of 400 and a roll of 100. They always come out fine.

 

[kauffman v36]

well....i learn somethign new everyday. lol. the OP is not the only one who benefited from all these answers.

 

[wclark5179]

Just a thought...

Develop at 800 ASA.

1 stop under/over for the rest.

There would be a difference, but how much could be compensated in the darkroom?

How much latitude with your film?

 

[debanddg]

Like DLM, I would vote for Rodinal 1:100 dilution @ 20 degree Celsius for 60 minutes stand development.. Please ensure that you are using more than 3 ml of Rodinal / 35 mm roll.. Have done it multiple times and have not found any issues..

 

[Leighgion]

Another vote for stand development in Rodinal 1:100. Agitate gently first minute, then let go for 60. Not ideal for ALL films, but I've been quite pleased with its results on emulsions ranging from Fomapan 100 and Tri-X at 400, 800 and 1600.

 

[Niall Bell]

For what it's worth, and not trying to confuse the issue, I use Rodinal 1:200 2 hours semi- stand (4 inversions every 1/2 hour). I've done this with a wide range of film types.

Negatives always perfectly printable.

Niall

 

[pentaxuser]

In a word Prescysol. It's from a UK source but may be exportable. Peter Hogan the originator of it makes it himself. It's a staining developer. The time is identical for all films. I haven't used it yet but its on the list. Those who do seem very satisfied.

pentaxuser

 

[edp]

In a word Prescysol. It's from a UK source but may be exportable

Same thing as Pyrocat HD isn't it?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[darkosaric]

Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 60 minutes. I do it all the time with rolls where I guesstimated the exposure, and also put different speed films in the tank, like a roll of 400 and a roll of 100. They always come out fine.

+1

I do this for all toy cameras, Tangor box and similar situation where I don't know exact exposure. 60min stand, agitation at start and at 30min.

 

[pentaxuser]

Same thing as Pyrocat HD isn't it?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have heard that said but then again I have heard a lot of things said

You'd really need to hear from those who have experience of both for a proper "compare and contrast" comment.

pentaxuser

 

[tlitody]

Anything that yields a long low-gamma relatively straight characteristic curve for the emulsion in question. D-23 is a fine choice for most pictorial films. You can always burn another roll of film using similar exposures and then process pieces of it until you are happy with the result. Testing is always going to be better than choosing your processing blind.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "long low-gamma relatively straight characteristic curve for the emulsion in question".
Providing the curve is straight and a 1600 neg zone 1 gets enough density, then it should work. I think I feel some testing coming on.
Thanks all for suggestions.

 

[eclarke]

The OP is saying that he has frames on the same roll which are over and under exposed due to rating at different speeds. The best thing is don't do this in the future...

 

[Kirk Keyes]

The OP is saying that he has frames on the same roll which are over and under exposed due to rating at different speeds. The best thing is don't do this in the future...

Amen.

And then process this roll for the frames with the least exposure. You can easily handle the overexposed frames in printing. B&W film almost always has a lot of lattitude towards overexposure.

 

[Schlapp]

Rodinal 1:100 I think too

 

[BoxBrownie]

Rodinal 1:100 I think too

Another vote for this solution - Rodinal 1:100, 60mins, agitate for first 30 seconds. I have used this with Foma 100 rated at EI400 when I had nothing else and the results weren't much different from EI100 which really did surprise me. I was a bit sceptical before I tried it but I am now using this method for most of my point and shoot pics. I think the key to it is no more agitation after the initial agitation - that is don't touch it, move it or go near it if you can help it - don't even look at it!

 

[fschifano]

The short answer is no there isn't. The best you can hope for is some sort of compensating developer; one that will develop as much shadow detail as possible on the under exposed frames without blowing the highlights all to hell on the over exposed ones. There are a few ways to accomplish this. The best of them will deliver relatively flat negatives, but this is not as much of a problem as it would seem to be. You can always jack up the contrast when you print the negative by using a harder paper.

So what makes for a good compensating developer? Well, there's highly dilute Rodinal that seems to be popular. Sorry folks, but I'm not a fan on two counts. Rodinal is not a speed enhancing developer, and you will lose a lot of low density details. Stand development is a risky business if you want to avoid uneven development from what's known as bromide drag. Dilute D-23, Microdol-X, or Perceptol might work reasonably well since they're metol only formulae and aren't known for building a lot of highlight density. Then there's Diafine, the classic, two bath, speed enhancing developer. This works best with Tri-X rated anywhere from 1000 to 1600, but I've used it with some moderate success on other films. Normall exposed and over exposed frames will be incredibly dense, but you can print through that. Under exposed frames will look ok.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Many years ago when meters were not very accurate, I used divided development fairly often. In my own recent but limited experience, I was disappointed with the results. The negatives were very thin. This may be due to today's thinner emulsions not holding enough developing agents to properly develop the film. I have heard several others complaining about this problem. Fortunately most films have a wide latitude and there are variable contrast papers.