Mass Dev chart, versus...?

[Craig]

MDC: 14.25 (what is .25 anyways).

14-1/4. I.e. 14 min, 15 seconds.

If I'm understanding this thread correctly, you're basically wanting to create a new version of the MDC?

 

[radiant]

14-1/4. I.e. 14 min, 15 seconds.

If I'm understanding this thread correctly, you're basically wanting to create a new version of the MDC?

Not directly version of MDC but more easier to use + reliable (source always mentioned).

 

[Paul Howell]

So, what would be the process to vett the submitted data?

 

[radiant]

So, what would be the process to vett the submitted data?

Maintainers would take look at the data before publishing, approving submitted data. There should be either official reference link or proof of measurement. That is the point; no more random "I developed this for xyz minutes and the pictures look great when scanned!".

If we could even list just the manufacturers published data in one place, it probably would be really nice. No need to dig around looking for datasheets etc. Just easy quick & easy search.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well the MDC shows that development of FP4 in D76 at 1:1 and 20c should be 11 minutes. For the last 50 years or so, I have developed FP4 in D76 at 1:1 and 20c for 12.5 minutes and I'm not about to change that.

Your timer must be broken or you're developing at 50C because, 10 - 11 minutes for FP4 in D76 and 20C is about right.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I don't get this whole discussion. To be precise: I do get that there may be errors and discrepancies in the MDC. What I don't get is the idea that a user-submitted-data site like filmdev is more accurate, or that, for need of better accuracy, another user-submitted-data is necessary, or that what we find here — i.e., user-submitted data — is more accurate. I may have missed something, but isn't the data on the MDC already user submitted? I mean, it's not some dude in his basement (yeah, that guy) "testing" every single film/dev combo possible. They have a huge list of contributors — some who might even be members of Photrio : https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=contributors

I'm not defending the site — as I said, I've had good and bad experiences with the data, similar to the experience I've had using data from users here and on filmdev.

Regarding mistakes and discrepancies, wouldn't it be simpler, since the website already exists, that their apps are extremely practical, and that it has a "Notes" section, for users to send their data there? I'd love to be able to read in the notes things like "67% of users who have sent data on this combination have suggested a reduction of 10% of the development time". As soon as they would reach a certain critical percentage of users suggesting a different starting point for the development time (cause we all agree, not matter what, it will always be a starting point, right?), they would simply change the data.

 

[flavio81]

I don't get this whole discussion. To be precise: I do get that there may be errors and discrepancies in the MDC. What I don't get is the idea that a user-submitted-data site like filmdev is more accurate,

At least on filmdev there is a complete explanation, sample pictures, and you get to see who is claiming the time/temp/agitation figures. Plus comments at the end of every post.

A massive difference with the MDC. Pun intended.

 

[radiant]

Your timer must be broken or you're developing at 50C because, 10 - 11 minutes for FP4 in D76 and 20C is about right.

Ilford datasheet says it is 11 minutes.

(edit: got it wrong)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ilford datasheet says it is 15 minutes.

It says 11 minutes rated at 125. 15 minutes is rated at 200.

 

[radiant]

It says 11 minutes rated at 125. 15 minutes is rated at 200.

Yes, sorry my bad.

MDC is correct on that one.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

At least on filmdev there is a complete explanation, sample pictures, and you get to see who is claiming the time/temp/agitation figures. Plus comments at the end of every post.

I'll say it again. Sample pictures are totally useless in evaluating a negative if you don't know how the negative was scanned and how it was later processed, be it in a darkroom (type of paper, developer, contrast level, etc.) or on a computer (Lightroom, Photoshop et al.). The only way sample pictures would be relevant is if they were of the negative.

The who doesn't matter to me (although I did like the band when I was young ).

 

[flavio81]

You can test my idea here (so far only Ilford datasheet times for demonstration purposes): https://jouni.kapsi.fi/filmdev2/ - just type for example "hp xt 80" in to the search box and magic happens

Nice! I like how the search is extremely quick. Which makes me think the whole data has already been loaded into my computer. Which is fine, though.

 

[flavio81]

I'll say it again. Sample pictures are totally useless in evaluating a negative if you don't know how the negative was scanned and how it was later processed, be it in a darkroom (type of paper, developer, contrast level, etc.) or on a computer (Lightroom, Photoshop et al.). The only way sample pictures would be relevant is if they were of the negative.

The who doesn't matter to me (although I did like the band when I was young ).

Not completely useless. You can check, for example, resulting grain structure and have a hint of how much shadow detail you will get.

But it gives more substance to the claimed figures.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Not directly version of MDC but more easier to use + reliable (source always mentioned).

Mentioning a source doesn't make the data reliable if you don't have ways to check how reliable your source is.

Works for journalism and film development times .

 

[radiant]

Nice! I like how the search is extremely quick. Which makes me think the whole data has already been loaded into my computer. Which is fine, though.

Thanks! It doesn't really matter even if the data was loaded to your computer, it would be such a tiny amount of data even it would consist of all film developer+film combos.

Mentioning a source doesn't make the data reliable if you don't have ways to check how reliable your source is.

Ok - if you go to that direction;if you cannot trust manufacturer datasheets, then there is no way you can trust any user data at all. Yes I know datasheets might contain errors - but what is more reliable than for example Ilford as film company? I mean do we forget what it takes to make commercial film and maintain quality? As if they cannot determine developing times?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ok - if you go to that direction;if you cannot trust manufacturer datasheets, then there is no way you can trust any user data at all. Yes I know datasheets might contain errors - but what is more reliable than for example Ilford as film company? I mean do we forget what it takes to make commercial film and maintain quality? As if they cannot determine developing times?

The manufacturer's data is not user data. I can pretty much trust that if they know how to make the film they pretty much know how to develop it. Add that to the fact that many add the caveat that their times should generally be used as starting points.

User data is Bill from Canandaigua telling me that he soups Rollei Retro in D-23 50 seconds less than what Shirley from Chautauqua recommends. I may try both suggestions one day, and one of them might be great, but since I don't know either Bill nor Shirley and have no way to check on how reliable they are in their testing and results, there's no way I can trust their data simply based on the fact that their name is mentioned.

 

[Paul Howell]

As most folks shoot standard films with standard developers the manufacture's data sheets are most reliable source for starting times. Kodak, ILford, Kentmere, Foma, and Berrger offer many times for many developers, although Kodak limits it's testing to Kodak developers and Fuji just a few non Fuji developers. The MDC is useful when using 3rd party or using a Kodak film with a non Kodak developer. The user must understand that the manufacture tests with high quality gear using densitometry, who knows how the average Joe in a home darkroom is testing any given film and developer combo.

 

[radiant]

I hate the term "starting times" or "starting points". One vague phrase more and I will fall down: "Adjust to your personal preferences".

No. Please just tell me how I can develop good negatives.

I will argue that 99.9% do not even undestand or aren't interest in "adjusting" or "finding their own EI". You need to give people the most succesful way. I mean this is photography, not some crazy lab experiment hobby FFS.

(says a guy who has been diving in the world of film characteristic analysis)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not directly version of MDC but more easier to use + reliable (source always mentioned).

THAT I would really be in favor of! Charge on!

 

[Donald Qualls]

this is photography, not some crazy lab experiment hobby

But photography is a lab experiment hobby. As soon as you take processing in your own hands instead of paying a "professional" to do it for you, you start experimenting. And if you do that, you owe it to yourself, at least, to understand enough about it to know how to make it better. If you play golf more than once a year, chances are you spend at least a little effort to try to lower your scores; if you develop your own film beyond shooting a couple rolls of HP5+ and buying a bottle of Df96 (which has exceptionally good instructions), you ought to be spending at least enough effort to know how to tell underexposed or underdeveloped from overexposed or overdeveloped.

No, everyone shooting film doesn't need to learn how to arrive at their personal EI for a given film/developer combination -- but they should learn how to add 10% to development time if the scanner shows a curve that's got no width to it.

 

[radiant]

THAT I would really be in favor of! Charge on!

We only need to type in manually the manufacturer data and we would have a pretty awesome database in our hands. The web UI is already working.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I hate the term "starting times" or "starting points". One vague phrase more and I will fall fown "Adjust to your personal preferences".

No. Please just tell me how I can develop good negatives.

I will argue that 99.9% do not even undestand or aren't interest in "adjusting" or "finding their own EI". You need to give people the most succesful way. I mean this is photography, not some crazy lab experiment hobby FFS.

(says a guy who has been diving in the world of film characteristic analysis)

Exactly on target. I do not want "Well start here and then after you have ruined your film just screw around because I know it is around here somewhere. My uncle's best friend in outer Wyoming knows someone who once took photographs and he heard about this development time in the bathroom from a truck driver on Interstate 80."

 

[Sirius Glass]

But photography is a lab experiment hobby. As soon as you take processing in your own hands instead of paying a "professional" to do it for you, you start experimenting. And if you do that, you owe it to yourself, at least, to understand enough about it to know how to make it better. If you play golf more than once a year, chances are you spend at least a little effort to try to lower your scores; if you develop your own film beyond shooting a couple rolls of HP5+ and buying a bottle of Df96 (which has exceptionally good instructions), you ought to be spending at least enough effort to know how to tell underexposed or underdeveloped from overexposed or overdeveloped.

No, everyone shooting film doesn't need to learn how to arrive at their personal EI for a given film/developer combination -- but they should learn how to add 10% to development time if the scanner shows a curve that's got no width to it.

No, people want the correct data the first time. The development time bell curve is wide enough to hit the target. If the development time proposed is kinda sorta ok on alternate Thursdays with a Gibbus moon ... then do not even bother anyone to bring it up.

 

[Donald Qualls]

people want the correct data the first time.

We don't always get what we want, though, do we?

This thread has multiple examples of film manufacturer data that's either just plain wrong (due to transcription errors, for instance) or completly missing (T-Max 400 in ID-68, for example). It's also full of people complaining that "close enough to print/scan" isn't good enough, while simultaneously acknowledging that your results and mine at the same time and temp, same batch film, same batch packaged liquid concentrate developer, might well differ significantly.

It's obviously not always this way, but I've never had grossly wrong developing information from any public source. Negatives that were a little denser than I wanted, a couple times, negatives thinner than I like, more frequently -- but never anything I couldn't pull the images out of with a little effort at either the scanner or enlarger.

In fact, I'd put to you that "the correct data" doesn't really exist. If I develop with your times, I may get negatives you'd consider unacceptable, and vice versa.

I say again. If someone is going to develop beyond a one-time "see if I like it" experiment, they need to learn how to do it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We don't always get what we want, though, do we?

This thread has multiple examples of film manufacturer data that's either just plain wrong (due to transcription errors, for instance) or completly missing (T-Max 400 in ID-68, for example). It's also full of people complaining that "close enough to print/scan" isn't good enough, while simultaneously acknowledging that your results and mine at the same time and temp, same batch film, same batch packaged liquid concentrate developer, might well differ significantly.

It's obviously not always this way, but I've never had grossly wrong developing information from any public source. Negatives that were a little denser than I wanted, a couple times, negatives thinner than I like, more frequently -- but never anything I couldn't pull the images out of with a little effort at either the scanner or enlarger.

In fact, I'd put to you that "the correct data" doesn't really exist. If I develop with your times, I may get negatives you'd consider unacceptable, and vice versa.

I say again. If someone is going to develop beyond a one-time "see if I like it" experiment, they need to learn how to do it.

I had very underdeveloped Delta 3200 @ 3200 in PYROCAT HD a Jobo processor that were so thin I could barely see the image on the negative using the MDC. And similar with replenished XTOL. It took several rolls of time to get it close enough to be able to start using the film. That is not even beginning to start to be "close enough". That was when I kicked MDC to the curb and started using trusted APUG posters.