Mass dev chart sucks?

[crumpet8]

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.

I recently found this site http://www.adox.de/RODINAL.pdf which seems more official and recommends 8 minutes at the same dilution. 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?

 

[summicron1]

I don't know that the whole chart sucks, but I've noticed times it gives there for HP5-plus, as well as times at other sites, seem to be over kill.

It says D76 1:1 for 13 minutes at 68 degrees -- when I do that I get way too dens when exposing at 400, but just about right at 800.

So about a year ago I started doing my HP-5 in D76 1:1 at 68 degrees for 10 minutes, just the same as Tri-X, and they all come out great.

Recently looked at pushing some HP5 to 800, and that chart says 16 minutes. I did 13, looked great.

So I dunno where they get their numbers, but as with everything in photography, charts and data are only starting points, you have to test and do what works for you.
Your results may vary. Batteries not included.

 

[bvy]

Unlike Wiki, I don't think you can go in and willy-nilly change numbers. For the most part, the data is from published or reputable sources, not just people's experiences. You do have to look at the footnotes. And the temperature is easy to overlook. Some combinations are only given at a higher temperature. I use it as a quick reference or sanity check, never as gospel.

 

[Eric Rose]

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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is the only chart I use. For some reasons I'm having hard time to find manual for Polypan F.
But I'm using it only as reference. Because I never bother to develop at 20C exact.

Usually it is not the cart, but skills.

 

[darkroommike]

The Massive is anecdotal and in some cases downright bizarre, it should be used as a stepping off place ONLY. Some times are for "unusual" combos, like fine grain developers for push processing, others for fine grain films pushed 2 stops beyond the edge of stupid, etc. Best advice, cross check with another source when possible, and always test!!

 

[BMbikerider]

Ilford for one, advise you NOT to depend on 3rd party times for film development times/developer/dilutions. Even the times printed inside their film boxes cannot be relied upon as the boxes may be printed several years before being used and the recommendations can change. I received this information directly from them after I sent an E Mail following a failure when developing a B&W film which went badly wrong. It turned out that the emulsion had been changed and advised me to refer to their website for the correct information.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

To me, Massive Dev Chart is great. But use the data as starting point. Tweak the data for your preference and save your personal times. From my experience, I have to add more time since I print with a diffusion head. My guess the times are for folks that print on condenser heads. Us it and enjoy it! it doesn't suck.

 

[adelorenzo]

It's a good resource but the thing is anyone can add information and nothing is verified so you have to critically look at what you see. For more common film/developer combos you can probably find manufacturer's information or other sources online to corroborate or debunk what you find. For more unusual combinations of film and developer it's sometimes the only data available so, as others have mentioned, use it as a starting point and see how it goes.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've noticed that lately the MDC chart times seem to be inflating, sometimes rather significantly, for certain combos I've used. Tri-X in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 is about 12 mins in reality. Ilford FP4+ in the same should be 11 minutes. I think they're now calling for 18 minutes for FP4+ or somesuch insanity. Geez, I may as well just stuff my FP4+ in the microwave! But it used to be my go-to for film development. I still consult it when I'm working with some combo I haven't used before, or I need to extrapolate a time for a film/developer combo that's not listed. With few exceptions, I've decided that when in doubt, 11 minutes in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 is a good baseline for virtually all films if something more specific is unknown. I know I'll get a printable/scannable negative from that.

 

[MattKing]

If you are working with an unusual combination it is a useful resource because it shows what people have tried and liked.
And it does include manufacturer's recommendations (where available) amongst the other recommendations.
Like anything else, you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of its information.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have noticed myself that when using Ilford Delta 100 with FX39 the developing times are far far to short. They recommend 7 mins but they should I feel be at least 10-12. All I got from 2 films was a very very thin unprintable negative. It was so thin that using the hardest filter I managed virtually nothing.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I use the information provide by the manufacturer of the film or developer as a starting point. Never needed to go very far from that, the MDC mostly does not agree with my experience, just as much I see on the internet.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Like any recommended times, they're a starting point, after which you need to do your own tests and adjust accordingly. No recommendations can account for your own equipment, materials, and process.

"Testing" doesn't have to be that elaborate, though it can be, if you like to work with step wedges or a densitometer. Do your negs have enough shadow detail to print well, however you're doing it? If not, then reduce the film speed setting on your camera or meter. If you've got shadow detail to spare, try reducing exposure to see if you can increase your ISO setting. If your negs are consistently flat, then increase development time. If you find your highlights hard to print without lots of local burning in, then reduce development time.

 

[faberryman]

The problem with MDC is unverified user data, but a least it is a place to start if you can't find manufacturer data for a particular film/developer combination. You also have to keep in mind that users agitate in all kinds of different ways, and this has an impact on correct development time.

 

[PhxMedFormatPhotog]

Since I have been experimenting with different films lately, I have taken to looking at the manufacturer's recommendation for both the developer (so far exclusively D-76 1+1) and the film, as well as Massive Dev chart (and lately they have all been different) and averaging to get a good starting place on a new film. I evaluate the film and make adjustments for the next roll, and keep my own chart from then on. I, too, use a diffusion head and like a negative with slightly more contrast.

 

[BradS]

I applaud the effort of putting up and maintaining the website but I've never understood why people look at the MDC instead at the manufacture's data sheet. Kodak, Ilford and Foma, and probably, Ferrania too all make pretty decent data sheets available on the web as PDF. The data sheets from Kodak and Ilford are top notch with many details and even Foma's data sheets are pretty informative.

The MDC site used to have a whole section of film developer recipes too...

 

[darkroommike]

Ilford for one advise you NOT to depend on 3rd party times for film development times/developer/dilutions. Even the times printed inside their film boxes cannot be relied upon as the boxes may be printed several years before being used and the recommendations can change. I received this information directly from them after I sent an E Mail following a failure when developing a B&W film which went badly wrong. It turned out that the emulsion had been changed and advised me to refer to their website for the correct information.

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

 

[David Lyga]

To alleviate 'the much' consternation here: the MDC is not the Holy Bible but can be useful. What too many fail to understand is the profound effect that exposure can play in the contrast game. Even one stop over or under (and with meters thinking that everything is 'supposed' to be medium gray that presents a dilemma) the development timing can be quite different for the same film. Get a 'type' of negative you wish to consider normal (i.e., diffusion vs condenser enlarger or other factors that are personal) and start from there. The MDC does not cater to one's preferences and, I will be the first to admit, that there are discrepancies on that damn chart that can easily confound the more serious worker.

Does '100' film ALWAYS require less development than '400' film? Yes and no, depending upon factors mentioned above.

As an aside, I think that Ilford has the most rational development time determination of all the rest, including Kodak. They seem to work in the real world. (Yes, Simon Galley.) - David Lyga

 

[bernard_L]

Mass Dev Chart is essentially a wikipedia

Unlike Wiki, I don't think you can go in and willy-nilly change numbers.

It's a good resource but the thing is anyone can add information and nothing is verified

Indeed, in wikipedia, an erroneous statement can be corrected (not "willy-nilly changed"). Statements in Wikipedia that cannot be traced to a verifiable reference are flagged as such, as a warning to the reader. Nothing like that in the MDC. Just a pile of statements, all on equal footing. Like much of the Interweb thing.

 

[jim appleyard]

[QUOTE="BradS, post: 2055817, member: 2754"
The MDC site used to have a whole section of film developer recipes too...[/QUOTE]

Still there, but under the main body of the site, not specifically the MDC. Try here:https://www.digitaltruth.com/data.php

 

[BradS]

[QUOTE="BradS, post: 2055817, member: 2754"
The MDC site used to have a whole section of film developer recipes too...

Still there, but under the main body of the site, not specifically the MDC. Try here:https://www.digitaltruth.com/data.php[/QUOTE]
Thanks Jim. Looks nicely organized now too.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The best way to figure out a time is to extrapolate it from the given D76 times and another film you have experience with. D76 times are always listed with your film. The only time I use the MDC is if I am using a new developer. Last time I checked it was for Beutler's because it had been years since I'd last used it.

I too find a lot of the information bizarre, but some people like to complicate making toast too. Lol. I think MDC is a good example of how the internet can be bad.

 

[cliveh]

The MDC is crap and anyone who follows their time/temp recommendations beware. The chart is compiled by people handling data and figures, as opposed to practical experimentation.

 

[JWMster]

Agree that the MassiveDev results often give me pause, as in "Huh?"

In order, I tend to look to the following for guidance

1) Manufacturer's webposted datasheet
2) Chris Johnson's book (Practical Zone System) which I use as a guide for adjustment (N+1 and N-1). My limited experience has found his times, dev / film combos useful.
3 Massive Dev Chart / "digital (un)truth" BUT not without confirmation - especially from (below)
4) FilmDev Recipes for real world combos and how they look ( http://filmdev.org/developer/show/1014?page=3 )

I haven't developed my 1st roll of P-30 yet due travel and the flu, but given that I work with XTOL-R and that's not on Ferrania's list, I'll just have to see what happens.
Generally, personal experience and allowing for some trial rolls for "error" along the way has worked pretty so far. But then I'm an uninmportant hobbyist doing unimportant work... so who cares?