Mass Dev chart, versus...?

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes, the value of this site is as relative as MDC when you expect certainty of the figures, let alone for your own working environment and conditions. You can get a first global impression of what a developer does with your film compared to others in terms of grain, contrast, muddiness, clarity and perhaps a bit of sharpness too. Do you want it neat and sophisticated or coarse and gritty and what would fit the most with your subject is the idea.

That would be the ideal. But that's not what I'm getting from the site. On Lightroom or any other similar program I can go from "neat and sophisticated" to "coarse and gritty" and the other way around in a fraction of a second, I can pump the contrast, muddy the shadows, magically make most of the grain disappear. Filmdev would do what you do it says if you would get a scan of the negative without any manipulation (and we can all agree that scanning is already a manipulation, even more so since all people don't have the same scanner). As it is, it doesn't even give you "a first global impression of what a developer does with your film compared to others".

I'm not knocking the site down. I'm just saying it doesn't do what it says (or implies) it does.

 

[Paul Howell]

And what you print? Then all the edits in Lightroom are meaningless, it how the film and developer match a person personal style.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And what you print? Then all the edits in Lightroom are meaningless, it how the film and developer match a person personal style.

Exactly. From the mid-50s to the late 70s, Tri-X was the film of choice for many photojournalists and documentary photographers, and there wasn't at the time as many developers available commercially as there are today. You could have a pretty good idea of what Tri-x in Rodinal at x dilution for y amount of time at z degrees would give, it's the time in the darkroom, paper choice, paper grade, etc., that would define the style you want to give it. And each photogs or printers came up with different results from the same basic material. That's why you'd never think of looking at a finished print on a museum wall and say "this is what Tri-x in Rodinal 1+25 looks like".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, when you consider my data analysis is "see how it enlarges", it doesn't take long (a glance at the negative normally answers that). The fact is, I have developers and times for all the films I use so I can get what I want. But I do like to try new things to see what I'll get. So, there aren't any hours of frustration.
Well, there were two exceptions: it took a lot of film to figure out the best way to expose and develop Rollei Superpan 200 and I never did figure out the best way to develop Foma Retropan 320.

it takes six rolls or sheetsof film for a proper film/dev test.

 

[Don_ih]

it takes six rolls or sheetsof film for a proper film/dev test.

Well, what In determined was essential for Superpan was a soak in an alkaline bath after rotational development in d76. Would that be found by way of what you suggest? (An honest question, by the way.)

 

[Paul Howell]

it takes six rolls or sheetsof film for a proper film/dev test.

I respectfully disagree, although trained my Minor White in the Zone System for my proposes, primarily as a photojournalist, I have never shot more than 2 rolls to test a film, and most often just one use. With a modern AF 35mm with matrix metering I've found that I can shoot at box speed, use a standard developer with manufactures time and dilution without testing. With my older and aged 35mm, MF and LF cameras and hand held meters I usually shoot 1 or 2 rolls to find a good working ISO which varies up to 2 stops. With sheet film, maybe 4 to 6 sheets for a ring around.

What combo of film and developer, what dilutions, matches with what paper, that a fuzzy answer, boils down to personal preferences of how any angles can dance on the head of pin.

 

[radiant]

With a modern AF 35mm with matrix metering I've found that I can shoot at box speed, use a standard developer with manufactures time and dilution without testing.

This.

I will argue that most of the negative problems happen at exposure. People just try to fix that problem by messing around with gazillion of film types and developers.

I have discussed with few friends about full automatic vs manual measurement. Everyone I've talked are sure they can measure better themself than automatic. I strongly disagree with that. I cannot understand why people believe so. There are few rare exceptions of course, but most of photographers fail at measurement because it is complicated and humans are lazy. I'm counting myself in.

One of my friends shot photographs with good caution, using tripod, measuring manually, using all his technical energy to get good photos. Then he bought Mju II. His photography got conciderably better and he was just laughing to himself after first rolls. "I buy this plastic automatic and it makes much better photos than I have ever shot?!"

My point is that we try to fix a problems by repairing from totally different place than where the actual problem is. I believe it is because we are lazy and trust more to ourself than to others. Which are both part of human nature.

I think this goes into same series where every time aeroplane pilot flies inside cloud by accident all instruments break down. Especially the artifical horizon instrument..

 

[Don_ih]

This.

I will argue that most of the negative problems happen at exposure. ...I believe it is because we are lazy and trust more to ourself than to others. Which are both part of human nature.

I think this goes into same series where every time aeroplane pilot flies inside cloud by accident all instruments break down. Especially the artifical horizon instrument..

I agree that most problems are at exposure, for whatever reason (faulty equipment, faulty mind). But many people choose "manual everything" because they feel a greater sense of accomplishment from getting a good result that way. When they get a good photo, it feels like it was a result of what they did, not what the camera did. That is not something a photojournalist can afford to screw around with, of course. But that same photojournalist may set aside his automatic camera in favour of a manual rangefinder when he isn't working. It doesn't mean he's distrustful or thinks he's superior at determining exposure. It just means he wants to use that camera.

 

[radiant]

When they get a good photo, it feels like it was a result of what they did, not what the camera did. That is not something a photojournalist can afford to screw around with, of course.

Yes true if you accomplishment in photography is correct exposure. I think it is something else 99.9% it is not the camera, the lens or the film/dev combo. It is about you capturing the correct moment from correct position. That is the accomplishment I think.

Also I think nobody cannot afford to screw up the good photo.

 

[Don_ih]

Yes true if you accomplishment in photography is correct exposure. I think it is something else 99.9% it is not the camera, the lens or the film/dev combo. It is about you capturing the correct moment from correct position. That is the accomplishment I think.

Also I think nobody cannot afford to screw up the good photo.

Exposure isn't the camera. Exposure is choosing what will show up on the film. You can expose the same scene a number of different ways and get different photos. It is actually an accomplishment. Every aspect of photography is a decision. An automatic camera like the mju ii does some of that deciding for you.

 

[otto.f]

That would be the ideal. But that's not what I'm getting from the site. On Lightroom or any other similar program I can go from "neat and sophisticated" to "coarse and gritty" and the other way around in a fraction of a second, I can pump the contrast, muddy the shadows, magically make most of the grain disappear. Filmdev would do what you do it says if you would get a scan of the negative without any manipulation (and we can all agree that scanning is already a manipulation, even more so since all people don't have the same scanner). As it is, it doesn't even give you "a first global impression of what a developer does with your film compared to others".

I'm not knocking the site down. I'm just saying it doesn't do what it says (or implies) it does.

In the end the whole idea of internet peeping of analogue work is a slippery slope

 

[Paul Howell]

When I taught photography in the late 80s and early 90s after teaching sunny 16 I would have class meter the same scene each with his/her own camera. Cameras ranged from newish AF models, some with matrix some with average, most will older cameras that had sitting around the house. Then compare reading which typical fell within 2 stops, then there a few that were really off as the cameras had not been recently or ever been CLA. Within a stop or 2 it is possible to find a working ISO to compensate, with a camera really out of adjustment 3 or 4 stops it was difficult to adjust the meter for say a 100 speed film to 25, or a 400 speed film to 3200, and often the meters were no longer linear. As it was an elective for most, rather than buy a hand held meter or have the camera serviced many dropped the course.

 

[cliveh]

The MDC is merely a guide and often very inaccurate. Correct development should be determined by experimentation.

 

[Craig]

With a modern AF 35mm with matrix metering I've found that I can shoot at box speed, use a standard developer with manufactures time and dilution without testing.

The big exception to that I have found is HP5+ in Xtol. Using the published times ( either Kodak or Ilford) results in an underdevloped negative. I had to do the full testing regime to discover that.

Once I adjusted my developing times, the quality of my negatives improved dramatically. At least I know why I wasn't obtaining the full potential from the film and I have better control of the process to obtain a contrast range I want. Other films, yes I would agree the published times and speeds generally yield good negatives.

 

[drmoss_ca]

A personal viewpoint that some will disagree with. Extensive and objective, logical testing of a film (even six rolls of it) with a developer for various times and temperatures is going to suck every last ounce of fun out of it for me. It might make sense if the film is being used as a standardised reference for photometric analysis, or even something as simple as a radiological dosimeter, but when it comes to making pictures, half the fun is the slight degree of imperfection. I'm pleased if I get the shot in or near the X ring but it doesn't have to sit right on the bull (to borrow from another kind of shooting), and then I can be more pleased if I manage to compensate for those imperfections in the darkoom, be it wet or dry. But at the end of it all, the content of the photo is more important to me than the technical quality. Most of the time, the MDC puts me in the right area and I can tweak later if I like.

 

[Don_ih]

A personal viewpoint that some will disagree with. Extensive and objective, logical testing of a film (even six rolls of it) with a developer for various times and temperatures is going to suck every last ounce of fun out of it for me. It might make sense if the film is being used as a standardised reference for photometric analysis, or even something as simple as a radiological dosimeter, but when it comes to making pictures, half the fun is the slight degree of imperfection. I'm pleased if I get the shot in or near the X ring but it doesn't have to sit right on the bull (to borrow from another kind of shooting), and then I can be more pleased if I manage to compensate for those imperfections in the darkoom, be it wet or dry. But at the end of it all, the content of the photo is more important to me than the technical quality. Most of the time, the MDC puts me in the right area and I can tweak later if I like.

And, also, there's some advantage to just trusting that things will be fine. It's liberating.

 

[warden]

The MDC is merely a guide and often very inaccurate. Correct development should be determined by experimentation.

I've found the MDC generally agrees with the manufacturer's recommendations. When it does not agree I take that into consideration, the same as I would if friends here disagreed with manufacturer's recommendations (which also happens of course) and then try for myself.

Personal experimentation is helpful, but so is collecting data from manufacturers, MDC, Photrio, etc.

 

[Paul Howell]

Interesting, I don't shoot HP5 or use Xtol, just of of curiosity have had similar experience with HP 5 paired other developers?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The MDC is merely a guide and often very inaccurate. Correct development should be determined by experimentation.

I have come across many inaccuracies the MDC, to the point that I only use it when I cannot find any information from all the other possible sources that I know of.

 

[otto.f]

MDC is mostly 15 or 20% too short. Not only for me, but for more members of this forum. So that’s a good starting point

 

[Craig]

Interesting, I don't shoot HP5 or use Xtol, just of of curiosity have had similar experience with HP 5 paired other developers?

Generally not, the negatives from ID11/D76 are generally good using Ilfords times. I'm not the only one here who has noticed the discrepancy on HP5/Xtol.

 

[Craig]

I'm pleased if I get the shot in or near the X ring but it doesn't have to sit right on the bull (to borrow from another kind of shooting), and then I can be more pleased if I manage to compensate for those imperfections in the darkoom, be it wet or dry.

For me, the testing took 5 sheets of film. That's not that onerous. Prior to that I was barely getting on target, never mind the bullseye. What if you have thin negatives that you can't compensate for in the darkroom? Then you've wasted a bunch of time and materials, and lost a photo you might have really wanted.

If I'm shooting large format and carried a camera to a location, I want the confidence in my film and developing that I will be able to capture what I'm seeing. Otherwise I've expended a lot of effort for nothing. I can do a lot in the darkroom if I have a good negative, if I have a bad one my options are pretty limited.

 

[Don_ih]

The fact is, if you are unfamiliar with how a film works in the developer you are planning to use, you shouldn't take important photos with that film. If you end up taking an important photo, test another sample of the film before you develop it or use a developer you have used before.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The fact is, if you are unfamiliar with how a film works in the developer you are planning to use, you shouldn't take important photos with that film. If you end up taking an important photo, test another sample of the film before you develop it or use a developer you have used before.

+1

That said, there are few film/developer combinations that are poorly enough documented that you won't get close enough to rescue under the enlarger or after scanning with published developer time/temp figures. Most of those in that category are either very old (17 minutes in D-76, maybe add some benzotriazole and/or chill your developer and compensate the time) or an obscure product on one side or the other.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have come across many inaccuracies the MDC, to the point that I only use it when I cannot find any information from all the other possible sources that I know of.

MDC is mostly 15 or 20% too short. Not only for me, but for more members of this forum. So that’s a good starting point

That is often the inaccuracy, but sometime the times are wildly off. Do not use the MDC times for anything important the first time you try its numbers. Then adjust as necessary. Frankly my experience shows not to trust the MDC.