Mass dev chart sucks?

darkroommike said:

At one time some of the Ilford charts were pulled from the Massive.

Click to expand...

That I cannot believe! Why would what is probably the largest manufacturer of B&W film rely upon some unknown and unproven data from a 3rd party. I think that this can be filed by Donald Trump under 'F' for 'Fake News'.

Sorry I had miss read the text, thinking you meant that Iford used the data from the MDC. Not that they had pinched it from Ilford who removed it from the MDC

crumpet8 said:

Hey,

So Ive never had faith in that site, but was trying rodinal recently and tried developing some HP5. What I found was 6 mins at 20 C for normal developing at 1 to 25 dilution. I havent tried printing yet, but my negatives seemed a little thinner than usual.

Mass Dev Chart is essentially a wikipedia where anyone can add "data" that is most likely not as precise as the ilford pdf sheets for example?

Click to expand...

You were expecting more? It's an unofficial site. Agfa was been out of the film business for years except for certain specialty films.

darkroommike said:

At one time some of the Ilford charts were pulled from the Massive.

BMbikerider said:

That I cannot believe! Why would what is probably the largest manufacturer of B&W film rely upon some unknown and unproven data from a 3rd party. I think that this can be filed by Donald Trump under 'F' for 'Fake News'.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that it was the other way around...Ilford's copy righted material was published on the MDC website...and then pulled down (off of the MDC website).
Certainly, Ilford did not publish info that was originally found on the MDC website.

I would be more supportive if the charts had aim contrast index listings.

michael_r said:

In theory I'd agree (and I'm not implying the MDC is a good source, I too would suggest people start by consulting manufacturer data sheets) but in some cases the development times in the manufacturer data sheets can be way off. Not sure how that happens, but it does.

Click to expand...

If you care to read the post I made immediately above this one of yours the explanation is there how data sheets and instruction on boxes can be wrong. It isn't a problem requiring the investigatory skills of Sherlock Holmes.

If you look at the number of films and the number of developers, combined with the variation of film speed and dilutions MDC suggest can be used, it is no wonder that some, times/dilutions are way off beam. (Or in other words completely wrong). Does anyone actually believe they personally check each and every combination of developer/film, then put the information on the web for free?. It is much more likely they harvest the information from other diverse and unknown sources then, publish them as the Holy Grail of photographic truth.

Of course,sometimes they get it right, but that can be down to the fact that some combinations don't alter, or it is pure guesswork. I doubt very much they alter the setting when a manufacturer changes the emulsion recipe. In fact film manufacturers don't always advertise the fact that they have changed anything. A recipe for some gross errors when developing an odd film/developer combination.

There will be a large proportion which are blatantly wrong, as I found out with Delta 100 and FX39. It wasn't exposure error because the edge markings were as faint as the image! I put about as much faith in the complete accuracy of MDC, as I do with Wikipedia, Facebook and even some of the information on this site..

BMbikerider said:

If you look at the number of films and the number of developers, combined with the variation of film speed and dilutions MDC suggest can be used, it is no wonder that some, times/dilutions are way off beam. (Or in other words completely wrong).

Click to expand...

Without contrast aims I would find it difficult to verify times. If you don't know what you are supposed to get, how will you know whether you got it or not?

It's like hiring a contractor. Throw out the lowest bid, throw out the highest bid, and think twice about the rest.

DREW WILEY said:

It's like hiring a contractor. Throw out the lowest bid, throw out the highest bid, and think twice about the rest.

Click to expand...

+1

Eric Rose said:

I have used MDC with confidence for sometime. It's great as a starting point.

To suggest the whole thing "sucks" as you say is a gross overstatement based on one line item.

Click to expand...

Yeah that was a bit harsh. I see it’s more of a niche for people who experiment with Less common developer and film combinations. I don’t experiment much, just found it strange the time given for Rodinal and hp5 was off, but being unofficial it really depends how people are metering I guess... some critical info missing,

Gerald C Koch said:

You were expecting more? It's an unofficial site. Agfa was been out of the film business for years except for certain specialty films.

Click to expand...

I was expecting more from my photog teacher who insisted the times were good.

Thanks for the input everyone, good to hear various opinions. I’m probably done with my experimenting for a while so won’t be back to MDC anytime soon, but will try some stand development with Rodinal when I have time, in which case I’ll be reading old threads here as the info is atleast explained

BradS said:

I'm pretty sure that it was the other way around...Ilford's copy righted material was published on the MDC website...and then pulled down (off of the MDC website).
Certainly, Ilford did not publish info that was originally found on the MDC website.

Click to expand...

I found the chart I spoke of earlier. Here is the link: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Film-processing-chart-.pdf Read down to the bottom.

if the MDC had step wedges made from each negative for every developer
or densitometric data it would be best. espeically if they not only had that stuff
but they showed the negatives and listed the paper it printed on, and how it was
printed, and then showed the print, and showed the negative infront of newspaper.
as for what it is, it is pretty good, a peer to peer developed ball park figure / starting point
for someone to say "hmmm i will at least get negatives if i process my film for this tme and temp"
the info given by EK and HK and everyone else for their developers and suggestions by
randomes on the inter webs and your neighbor's 13year old daughter who heard from a friend
on snapchat in one of her stories &c are just starting points too ...
at least the MDC had the film and the developer ! LOL BOGOF