Mass Dev chart, versus...?

[Craig]

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

Shoot XP2 and have it developed in C41 chemistry by a professional lab that uses control strips and ensures their process is in control every day. That's the only way to ensure consistency.

If you're not using mechanized, calibrated and repeatable processing the results will be different. If we have two people who use the same film and developer, but one does rotary processing in a Jobo and the other uses semi-stand agitation, the developing times will be wildly different. Then we get into temperature, are both people using lab grade calibrated thermometers?

Until all those factors can be controlled, that's why developing times will always be personal for your methods of agitation, temperature control and way of mixing chemicals. We have not even considered individual tastes and desired outcomes. The contrast range I want for a particular subject matter may not be what you want for a different subject; so there can be no single definition of what a "good" negative actually is.

At best, the manufacturers datasheets can only be a starting point because of all these variables.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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

Well, since the differences between the work print and the finished one are plainly visible and follow the patterns seen on the work print, your opinion can only be informed by knowledge unknown to others. 'T would be nice if you would share it.

 

[radiant]

Shoot XP2 and have it developed in C41 chemistry by a professional lab that uses control strips and ensures their process is in control every day. That's the only way to ensure consistency.

Yes, I agree. And what I've read XP2 is great film too.

If you're not using mechanized, calibrated and repeatable processing the results will be different. If we have two people who use the same film and developer, but one does rotary processing in a Jobo and the other uses semi-stand agitation, the developing times will be wildly different. Then we get into temperature, are both people using lab grade calibrated thermometers?

Until all those factors can be controlled, that's why developing times will always be personal for your methods of agitation, temperature control and way of mixing chemicals. We have not even considered individual tastes and desired outcomes. The contrast range I want for a particular subject matter may not be what you want for a different subject; so there can be no single definition of what a "good" negative actually is.

At best, the manufacturers datasheets can only be a starting point because of all these variables.

This bugs me a bit. I think good negative is easy to define; one that prints well on grade 2. One that has plenty of details in terms of tones and sharpness.

My question is: does the things you listed above vary so much in total that without calibration you cannot achieve my previous need?

 

[radiant]

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.

Because that is extra work. If you can - why not make a negative that is easy to print? Please note I'm not saying one shouldn't dodge/burn.

 

[MattKing]

IMHO, a good negative isn't necessarily one that prints well on grade 2. A good negative is one that prints well using the tools that come easily to hand when one is printing.
It is important to realize my perspective on this - I always use roll film, I frequently only get to pick and choose from available light and my subjects of interest range over a reasonably wide spectrum.
If I worked in an environment where I controlled the light, and worked with subjects with some consistency - e.g. in a portrait studio - I would agree that a good negative is one that prints well on grade 2. If I worked with sheet film, and was able to tailor each development to the photograph on a single sheet, I would agree that my target would be for a negative that prints well on grade 2.
But as I have to deal with more variables than either situation supplies, my aim needs to be lots of good negatives, where each negative is printable somewhere within reach of grade 2, and where as many as possible can be printed well using the range of contrast grades available to me, and (at least some times) practical amounts of dodging and/or burning.

 

[radiant]

IMHO, a good negative isn't necessarily one that prints well on grade 2.

But aren't we aiming for grade 2 negatives when targetting CI 0.58 for example and by expansion/contraction to squeeze the SBR into printable density?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I've conducted a film/dev tes for every film type I use; simple and reliable data.

 

[Craig]

This bugs me a bit. I think good negative is easy to define; one that prints well on grade 2. One that has plenty of details in terms of tones and sharpness.

You're assuming the use of silver paper and that a full range of tones is desired. What about those who do platinum/palladium printing? Or lith? Or if you're copying documents or maps you would need a much higher range of contrast. What if I'm envisioning a final image that has very high contrast and I want purposely blocked up shadows? There are almost an infinite range of possibilities that could make a "good" negative for a particular purpose.

As an analogy, what if I asked you what is the best vehicle to buy? The answer would be very different if you want a city commuter car for a single person or if you own a ready-mix concrete delivery business for construction projects. The "best" vehicle varies with the intended application, just as does a "good" negative.

 

[Craig]

My question is: does the things you listed above vary so much in total that without calibration you cannot achieve my previous need?

Let me ask a question in return. Suppose we have a developing time given for 20°C temperature. However, when my thermometer says "20" the developer is really at 18°C, and when your thermometer says "20" the developer is really at 22°C. Everything else is the same in our methods. Do you think our negatives will be identical?

I know they won't, even though to the best of our knowledge we developed identically. That's why there is always the disclaimer that times are starting points, as the film makers can't know that everyone is using the exact same methods and equipment everywhere in the world.

People also agitate in different ways and for different times, that will give different results. What if I'm mixing a liquid developer, such as HC-110 or Ilfotec HC and I mismeasure the small amount needed because I used cheap measure cylinder that isn't accurate. My developer will be either weak or too concentrated compared to the standard, that will affect the developing time and density achieved.

There are far too many variables in the photographic process to have a definitive "one time fits all" that will always give everyone the results they want. Even with one film and one developer, the developing time will change depending on the subject, it's brightness range and how much of that range you wish to capture.

 

[MattKing]

But aren't we aiming for grade 2 negatives when targetting CI 0.58 for example and by expansion/contraction to squeeze the SBR into printable density?

Probably.
But we aren't always targeting that CI, and certainly aren't always trying to squeeze that Subject Luminance Ranges ("SLR, formerly SBR) into a printable density.
In almost all cases, I prefer to use printing controls to deal with wide or narrow SLRs, rather than film development controls, because I use roll film.
Even when I have an entire roll with similar subjects illuminated in consistent light, I prefer to tailor the development to create negatives whose exposure and contrast leads to the mid-tone rendition I prefer, and use split grade and other printing controls to deal with the extremes of SLR.
Here are two images from the same roll of film - actually adjacent frames on the same roll of film:

While the digitization and resizing processes necessary for showing them here makes a scientific analysis of the difference between the negatives problematic, I think it is clear that it is truly impossible to optimize the development for that single roll of film in a way that ensures that both negatives be printable with the same grade of contrast and no additional printing controls. My development (and in the second case, lighting control) targets are instead directed toward negatives where both can be well printed, using the controls available to me at that stage.
That may average out so that an "average" scene can be printed well at grade 2 without additional controls, but as I rarely can count on average scenes, I don't proceed that way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shoot XP2 and have it developed in C41 chemistry by a professional lab that uses control strips and ensures their process is in control every day. That's the only way to ensure consistency.

If you're not using mechanized, calibrated and repeatable processing the results will be different. If we have two people who use the same film and developer, but one does rotary processing in a Jobo and the other uses semi-stand agitation, the developing times will be wildly different. Then we get into temperature, are both people using lab grade calibrated thermometers?

Until all those factors can be controlled, that's why developing times will always be personal for your methods of agitation, temperature control and way of mixing chemicals. We have not even considered individual tastes and desired outcomes. The contrast range I want for a particular subject matter may not be what you want for a different subject; so there can be no single definition of what a "good" negative actually is.

At best, the manufacturers datasheets can only be a starting point because of all these variables.

The different processing methods are already accounted for by the manufacturers: small tank, large tank, rotary [Jobo] ... and by stock, 1:1, ... , replenished. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Back to the problem that the MDV has corrupted data in the database and once a database has been corrupted Computer Science has shown that cleaning it up is a long and difficult task. It is much easier to abandon a corrupt database and start a new one with guardrails in place from the start.

 

[Sirius Glass]

IMHO, a good negative isn't necessarily one that prints well on grade 2. A good negative is one that prints well using the tools that come easily to hand when one is printing.
It is important to realize my perspective on this - I always use roll film, I frequently only get to pick and choose from available light and my subjects of interest range over a reasonably wide spectrum.
If I worked in an environment where I controlled the light, and worked with subjects with some consistency - e.g. in a portrait studio - I would agree that a good negative is one that prints well on grade 2. If I worked with sheet film, and was able to tailor each development to the photograph on a single sheet, I would agree that my target would be for a negative that prints well on grade 2.
But as I have to deal with more variables than either situation supplies, my aim needs to be lots of good negatives, where each negative is printable somewhere within reach of grade 2, and where as many as possible can be printed well using the range of contrast grades available to me, and (at least some times) practical amounts of dodging and/or burning.

Exactly and that is why we need development times that produce printable negatives, not printable Grade 2 negative. The criteria should be based on negatives being dense enough to be easily printed with sufficient contrast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But aren't we aiming for grade 2 negatives when targetting CI 0.58 for example and by expansion/contraction to squeeze the SBR into printable density?

Since most color and black & white negative films have a SBR of 14 stops, compression is not a factor very often. Compression should be taken care of when one adds contrast time to development and that should not be the driver for the development time, that information should be in choices of densities and in notes with additional tables for those conditions.

 

[cliveh]

Well, since the differences between the work print and the finished one are plainly visible and follow the patterns seen on the work print, your opinion can only be informed by knowledge unknown to others. 'T would be nice if you would share it.

How can you possibly know that the patterns on the work print and the finished print are plainly visible and follow the patterns seen on the work print? To me it looks like a reduced exposure at a higher contrast. Perhaps you can take some of the figures and justify their value in relation to the second print?

 

[Craig]

IMHO, a good negative isn't necessarily one that prints well on grade 2.

Here is an example of a Karsh portrait that is definitely not a grade 2 print. There is virtually no shadow detail at all and it breaks the "rule" of having the subject tone almost identical to the background. However, I think you'll agree that it's a very powerful portrait but the negative didn't have an average SBR range, nor all the tones to print on grade 2.
https://karsh.org/photographs/boris-yeltsin/?order=name

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sirius - glad you are the one who has finally invented a 14 stop range color film. Nobody else ever has, not even close. Getting 14 stops of USABLE information on even black and white film is quite a trick. The the first hurdle is finding a scene with more than 11 stops in it. I sometimes run into 12 stop ranges in certain extreme conditions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius - glad you are the one who has finally invented a 14 stop range color film. Nobody else ever has, not even close. Getting 14 stops of USABLE information on even black and white film is quite a trick. The the first hurdle is finding a scene with more than 11 stops in it. I sometimes run into 12 stop ranges in certain extreme conditions.

Admittedly it is rare, but I did it in the Moab area a few times. The problem is how to get it to print on paper. That takes a lot of darkroom work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on what you enjoy. I'm perfectly comfortable with the extra step of unsharp masking if necessary. But current premium VC papers certainly make printing long scale negs easier too. My favorite 8x10 film in extreme Southwestern situations was unquestionably Bergger 200, which had a longer straight line way down into the toe than even TMY400, reminiscent of old Super XX, but finer grained. Too bad both are gone. The only remaining "straight line" film is Fomapan 200, which is far less malleable to exposure and gamma manipulation, and overall, too inferior in several ways to be a realistic substitute, but nonetheless capable of good results under certain conditions. I gave up on it due to the poor quality control. If I were headed that direction now, I'd thaw out an 8x10 box of "getting expensive" TMY400. For the moment, I'm just shooting it in 4X5.

 

[cliveh]

The lighting ratio of the original scene will often determine the contrast of your negative developed for the time/temperature you wish to use. If you wish to alter this contrast you can employ printing filtration as you see fit.

 

[DREW WILEY]

cliveh - Although that works bringing the bottom and top density endpoints closer together, I tend to disdain typical contraction or "minus" development of long scale scenes, ala Zone System technique or otherwise, because it squishes all the tonality in between too. Instead, my preferred method for dealing with high contrast is to use a film with a very long straight line and minimal toe to begin with, develop it normal contrast, then rein it in selectively using masking, VC split printing, whatever. Staining pyro developers also help, especially with highlight reproduction.

 

[cliveh]

cliveh - Although that works bringing the bottom and top density endpoints closer together, I tend to disdain typical contraction or "minus" development of long scale scenes, ala Zone System technique or otherwise, because it squishes all the tonality in between too. Instead, my preferred method for dealing with high contrast is to use a film with a very long straight line and minimal toe to begin with, develop it normal contrast, then rein it in selectively using masking, VC split printing, whatever. Staining pyro developers also help, especially with highlight reproduction.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I don't count out any useful tool. The more options in your tool box, the better. But each of us has our favorites.

 

[warden]

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.

Yes I do, and for the reasons you said. It's a practical tool, even if you don't stray from manufacturer's recommended times. I have saved custom settings for my films and developers and it works great. I also like the volume mixing calculator.

 

[JNP]

Don't people still bracket when they have unknown and known unknowns ?