Mass Dev chart, versus...?

Donald Qualls · Mar 4, 2022

Pushing two stops from real speed in a homebrew developer may not be the best example, though replenished Xtol at stock times should be close enough to still print reasonably well. For the Xtol case, I'd likely check against DD-X times for the same film just as a reality check -- because any source can have errors.

Sirius Glass · Mar 4, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
Pushing two stops from real speed in a homebrew developer may not be the best example, though replenished Xtol at stock times should be close enough to still print reasonably well. For the Xtol case, I'd likely check against DD-X times for the same film just as a reality check -- because any source can have errors.

I will keep that in mind. Thank you.

cliveh · Mar 4, 2022

With FP4 exposure, I'm using box speed and 11 minutes dev it is not. Printed on a condenser enlarger, just to add another criteria to the mix.

grain elevator · Mar 4, 2022

I never understood the need for these things. There are manufacturer development times. And if your combination is not in them, you can extrapolate from different charts. Say you use film A, for which there is no chart with developer X. So you look in the chart for a different developer Y, best is usually one from the same manufacturer as your film A, what other film B which is in the chart for developer X your film A shares the same times with, or approximately so. Look into the data sheet for developer X for the times for film B, use them.
Sure, there may be effects that strictly speaking forbid doing this, but I'm sure it's a much better bet than trusting random times that may come from someone who just scanned his first roll of self developed film.

MattKing · Mar 4, 2022

We have around 12 people in our Darkroom Group. No two people prefer their negatives exactly the same way, although lots of us develop negatives that many of us are content to work with.
Usually, the manufacturers' suggested times give us negatives that we can work with happily. We do, however, reserve the right to tinker.

radiant · Mar 4, 2022

MattKing said:
No two people prefer their negatives exactly the same way

Could you elaborate how they prefer their negatives?

I mean to get a good print you need to hit certain contrast index range and the overall latitude must be also in certain range to avoid burning/dodging?

DREW WILEY · Mar 4, 2022

There are reasons I seldom use manufacturer's development times. For one thing, they are generally too optimistic with respect to advertised film speed itself relative to my own requirements. Second, they are obviously going to recommend mainly their own developers, along perhaps with a few better known off the shelf products by prime competitors. I want specific results, not generic results. So in the end, whether I start with a film manufacturer recommended time and developer, or somewhere else, like the MDC, experimentation and fine-tuning is inevitable. That fact will never change. Black and white film development is all about personalizing the results. There never is and never will be just one correct answer.

But as far as a "good enough" negative means - I'd say versatility in terms of having all the information you need on it in a realistically usable fashion given modern printing papers. Very few negs yield a hole-in-one print, at least if you have high quality expectations. Some amount of manipulation, like dodging and burning, or adjusting VC contrast settings, is inevitable.
But your negative should be fairly cooperative in the process. If overexposed or underexposed, overdeveloped or underdeveloped, disappointment is likely. It takes some practical experience shooting, developing, and printing to determine your own needs best.

MattKing · Mar 4, 2022

radiant said:
Could you elaborate how they prefer their negatives?

I mean to get a good print you need to hit certain contrast index range and the overall latitude must be also in certain range to avoid burning/dodging?

Amongst my friends in the Darkroom Group, I would say that my preference is for negatives with a bit less exposure and development than the preference of some others.
I tend to favour highlight and mid-tone rendition and put less weight on shadow rendition.
Others in the group have preferences that differ.
Our printing strengths and preferences also have an effect on our preferences for negatives.
And the tone and mood we gravitate to in our photographic choices.
Most importantly though, I feel no need to avoid burning/dodging - they are important creative tools.

This oft shared image is from a negative that appears to the eye to be so thin as to be barely there. Both optical prints and digital scans come out very satisfyingly.

glbeas · Mar 4, 2022

Maybe MDC should install a rating system for each combo like the restaurant and travel sites do. If a combo is a disaster give it one star, if it works great give it five stars. Even better would be a place to leave comments on why you think so.

DREW WILEY · Mar 4, 2022

I think that kind of rating system would just open an unnecessary can of worms. Around here someone walked in to a restaurant, disliked it, then mistakenly gave a horrible rating to the restaurant next door instead. There are just so-so many potential combinations of developers and films. Some get experimented with quite a lot, some perhaps only by a single individual, only once. Nothing of that nature is ever going to be perfect because people have different opinions over methods as well as what constitutes an acceptable end result.

Sirius Glass · Mar 4, 2022

glbeas said:
Maybe MDC should install a rating system for each combo like the restaurant and travel sites do. If a combo is a disaster give it one star, if it works great give it five stars. Even better would be a place to leave comments on why you think so.

The problem with that is that some Bozo with little experience poisons the score. Only people who think exactly like me should be allowed to evaluate the score. [Reductio ad absurdum]

DREW WILEY · Mar 4, 2022

I don't get it. Are you demonstrating your own style of development agitation?

Sirius Glass · Mar 4, 2022

cliveh · Mar 5, 2022

How does the MDC know what type of enlarger you are using?

Sirius Glass · Mar 5, 2022

cliveh said:
How does the MDC know what type of enlarger you are using?

No.

Stephen Benskin · Mar 5, 2022

cliveh said:
How does the MDC know what type of enlarger you are using?

Exactly, that's my main concern. Film is developed to match certain conditions. These not only include the type of enlarger but also the paper. Which might mean silver, but it could be platinum with a DR of 1.60. Kodak uses a LER of 1.05 for a diffusion enlarger, while Ilford uses 1.10. There is also the assumed subject Luminance range. What is considered the normal or average range. There is also a difference between extended processing for changes in the EI setting and for changes in the Luminance Range. I'm assuming the chart uses changes in the EI setting but they don't specifically specify or define the difference between the two.

Of course, the ideal method would be to do a series of sensitometric strips at various times and create a time / contrast curve. If everyone did that, you wouldn't need the chart. For those less advanced, using the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point would also eliminate the need for such a chart.

npl · Mar 5, 2022

I'm not sure we need to reinvent the MDC, there's no better database. However, it would be great with a "few" more contraints on the submitted data (https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=submit) : mandatory notes, source, date of consultation for official datasheet (important because they can change !) and agitation method, optionnal external links to share photos or articles or anything relevant. A rating system may lead to issues, but a comment section for each combo (like a blog post) would be great. Wouldn't hurt also to modernise the search function..
Side question : do you guys use the app ? I find it very convenient and use it everytime. You can save and customize every combinaison, and configure the timer for dev, stop, fix and wash for your routine and agitation method. For long development I can read/watch something, a sound is played 3 seconds before it's time to agitate and for the duration of the inversion, as well as an alarm when the time is up. Very handy.

Paul Howell · Mar 5, 2022

Except for those of use odd film and developer combo, for many years I used Edwal 12 and MCM 100, not even listed on the MDC, I have used Edwal FG7, DK 50, Clayton F76+ and F90, only a few films listed. I have used what I found on the MDC with caution then fine tuned with a ring around test. With a standard film matched with a standard developer shot with a newer camera with matrix metering, only minimum of any testing is needed.

Donald Qualls · Mar 5, 2022

radiant said:
to get a good print you need to hit certain contrast index range

Well, first you have to decide what you want from a "good print". Even Ansel Adams noticed that he printed some of his classic negatives much darker late in his career than when they were fresh -- in part because of changes in his inspection lighting, but also partly because his preference for the final print changed. However! He got those prints from the exact same negatives that had produces the lighter, airier negatives of thirty or forty years before. Multicontrast printing paper was probably almost as great a boon to darkroom work as foot pedal controls on enlarger timers...

Alex Benjamin · Mar 5, 2022

radiant said:
I mean to get a good print you need to hit certain contrast index range and the overall latitude must be also in certain range to avoid burning/dodging?

Why would you want to avoid it? Dodging and burning is no a means to correct faults or mistakes in the exposure of the negative. They are part of the process of getting a finished print out of your negative, this, as much as getting a good exposure was. It's where you put the final touches that give it expression and meaning.

Some—I'm one of them—would even argue that that's when the real work, and fun, begins.

cliveh · Mar 5, 2022

All those marks and figures may look like an expert in printing, but I would suggest it is complete bullshit.

Sirius Glass · Mar 5, 2022

Donald Qualls said:
Well, first you have to decide what you want from a "good print". Even Ansel Adams noticed that he printed some of his classic negatives much darker late in his career than when they were fresh -- in part because of changes in his inspection lighting, but also partly because his preference for the final print changed. However! He got those prints from the exact same negatives that had produces the lighter, airier negatives of thirty or forty years before. Multicontrast printing paper was probably almost as great a boon to darkroom work as foot pedal controls on enlarger timers...

My ophthalmologist recently told me that after the age of 70, generally closer to 90 the eyes start loosing its ability to see contrast, so painters and photographers start making the paintings and photographic prints with more contrast. She and her colleagues studied Ansel Adams and other photographers and they have come to the conclusion that the loss of perceiving contrast results in darker photographic prints.

DREW WILEY · Mar 5, 2022

When dodge and burn protocols get too complicated, I resort to masking instead. For those who want to play with that concept in a simplified manner, the Alan Ross method might be tempting. But I have my own substantial toolbox of specific techniques. And masking can do a lot more than simple dodging and burning. .... Still, don't underestimate just how useful a tool basic dodging and burning can be, especially given the split printing options of VC papers, which can be selectively applied to prints already exposed more basically.

So do I factor all of that into what I consider a properly exposed and developed negative to begin with. Yes, quite often I do. ... which doesn't mean I necessarily have to go that extra step. I tend to print specific negatives several distinct ways, all of which might turn out good, but for different reasons. That's the whole point of working with a "versatile" negative.

But Siriusly, Sirius, I suspect the notion that Ansel was printing darker due to advancing age or failing eyesight older is nonsense. Even the notion he was generally printing darker is highly doubtful. He didn't need to make distinctly lower-contrast work prints for publication, because the emergence of drum scanners largely alleviated that requirement. For the rest, I he was probably just adapting to newer papers and getting a bit better printing all along, at least until his health made it unrealistic any longer. But I'm not going to get into a side debate. I tortured our resident Moderator too much already during the week.

Sirius Glass · Mar 5, 2022

I still dodge and burn. I too Alan Ross' workshop in Yosemite which taught using a spot meter with and without the Zone System [adding in his own incites], dodging and burning, as will as masking. I learned a lot in the workshop and have ordered a negative carriage with pins to start applying his masking techniques. My ophthalmologist is entitled to her opinion so how about not shooting the messenger?

DREW WILEY · Mar 5, 2022

Can't comment on opthamologists or optometrists. My eyes are so sensitive to bright light during examination that they dread me. But for many years, I simply paid with prints.

Mass Dev chart, versus...?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency