Massive Dev Chart question re: film speeds and development times

[lhoff601]

Hi,

I use the massive dev chart app to calculate my development times and was wondering why they frequently list film speeds with a period at the end, and what the significance of that period is.

example:
Ilford Delta 400 film, in Xtol, @ 20 degrees C:
[TABLE="width: 500"]

Speed
Time


400
7:30


400.
5:30

[/TABLE]

Does anyone know what the difference between 400 and 400. is?:confused:

Thanks!

 

[pdeeh]

None. Its a typo.

Also remember that the MDC is compiled from an unholy mixture of sources - manufacturer's data old and new, plus huge numbers of user-submitted data. Selecting a time from the MDC can be a lottery, don't Ilford don'have a start time for Delta 400 in Xtol in their datasheet? If so you're far better off starting with that.

 

[cliveh]

Hi,

I use the massive dev chart app to calculate my development times and was wondering why they frequently list film speeds with a period at the end, and what the significance of that period is.

example:
Ilford Delta 400 film, in Xtol, @ 20 degrees C:
[TABLE="width: 500"]

Speed
Time


400
7:30


400.
5:30

[/TABLE]

Does anyone know what the difference between 400 and 400. is?:confused:

Thanks!

No I don't, but you should use anything stated on the massive development chart as a guide rather than follow verbatim.

 

[David Brown]

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216122447.pdf

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf

 

[sagai]

I really cannot get my head around why would use any other developer rather than ilford made for such a delicate film ...

 

[Truzi]

I agree that the Dev Chart should be used only as a guide, but notice the "notes" at the end of the table for some entries. Sometimes the notes can answer a few questions.

 

[eng1er]

I really cannot get my head around why would use any other developer rather than ilford made for such a delicate film ...

I can't get my head around why people are so worried about other people's experimentation. In thirty years I've not poo-pooed other people's choice of camera/film/developer/paper/etc., but rather listened with interest in order to increase my own knowledge and perhaps stumble onto something I might employ myself.

Possible reasons someone might choose a different developer than you think best:

1. The film has to get processed and it's what they have on hand and their isn't a local retailer to get something different in time (a common scenario these days).
2. They are trying the particular combination of film and developer in order to achieve a certain specification/parameter/look they are after.
3. They want to experiment to see what happens.

I suppose we could all do it Fred Picker style: exclusively Tri-X and HC-110 and dismiss the validity of any other process, but that wouldn't be particularly interesting and wouldn't be very good for the manufacturers (unless you were making Tri-X and HC-110).

 

[pentaxuser]

I keep on using Xtol with Ilford films and have my heart in my mouth every time. So far so good and I have been getting away with it for years but the great Lord Galley will get me sooner or later. The odds are against me but I need to face the danger. It approaches High Noon. Cue Tex Ritter I hope Grace waits for me

pentaxuser

 

[sagai]

Only for Ilford, I would blindly rely on their recommendations.
For experiment yes, their are million other ways, the question is if I have any chance to do it better.

 

[Chris Lange]

There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Xtol, or any other developer for that matter is inferior to Ilford's developers. Neither at developing Ilford film, nor that of any other manufacturer.

That said, I would follow the data in the Ilford technical publications for a guideline if you are unfamiliar with how this particualr combination works.

 

[David Allen]

I have never understood why people refer to the Massive Development Chart.

The information that this contains represents thousands of different users all of whom will have different cameras to you with different lenses, different levels of flair within their system, different ways of agitating, different types of water, different ways of metering, differing ideas about tonal values, different end production methods (wet RC, wet fibre based, digital prints at home, digital prints at a lab, Instagram only, etc, etc). For those working hybrid they will also have differing monitors. For those working wet, one person will find John Blakemore's prints a 'delight in subtle tonality' and another will find them plain flat and grey.

Take a couple of hours to do the tests yourself and then you will have pinned down what YOU want to achieve with your final output format.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[removedacct1]

Ilford does provide development data for Delta 400 (at 400ASA) in Xtol: 11.5 minutes in Xtol 1:1 See: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271219521241.pdf
The Massive Dev Chart states the exact same figure: 11.5 minutes in Xtol 1:1 for Delta 400 exposed at 400 ASA.

That's good enough for me. Trashing MDC for "inaccurate/skewed user data" seems arbitrary to me. Ive yet to see evidence that it is giving grossly inaccurate information. And yes - I generally look to see how the MDC suggestions compare to what the manufacturer offers. Case in point above

 

[K-G]

If you look in the note-column of MDG for Delta 400/Xtol , there is a note for the 5.5 min alternative . It states that it is for continous agitation. The standard procedure for MDG is, according to their own statement, 30 - 60 seconds initial agitation and thereafter three inversions every minute.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[K-G]

MDC , not MDG ! Sorry.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[megzdad81]

I also saw a similar listing for a 100 iso last week, and the difference was that one was developed for a shorter time at 23C instead of 20C.

And I have always been a believer in 'I'll give it a shot" ...

 

[M Carter]

Hey, if I try a new film/dev. combo, google and the massive chart are where I start. There's enough info on the web to (a) get a rough feel of what's working for people and (b) realize you really have to do your own tests.

With one 36 exposure roll of 35mm film, I can test 4 iso's at 4 different developer time & agitation combos, and have 2 more brackets of 4 iso's to fine tune or test harder pushes. One roll and 2 or 3 batches of 1-shot developer. That's a couple hours and less than ten bucks. You do need a good pair of scissors and a reel & tank. But you will know what dev. times work best for various speed ratings, and you will know which ISO is really the best for shadow detail and highlight tonality.

 

[sagai]

I am shy to ask what does development time really refer to for manual development.
Is it for the duration between finishing of pouring in and starting of pouring out the developer liquid?
...

 

[Alex Muir]

I am shy to ask what does development time really refer to for manual development.
Is it for the duration between finishing of pouring in and starting of pouring out the developer liquid?
...

That is the calculation I use. A consistent approach to this is a good idea. Do things the same way each time you process. I find the MDC a good resource for basic information. I've tried a number of the combinations for various products and had no disasters yet.
Alex

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Pentaxuser,

Nothing wrong with Xtol......

I do have to say developer choices are very important, so much is down to what you want from your negatives at the end of the day. Surely experimentation must play a very big part especially when trying a new film, format, or film application or subject and we should not forget that $ per film is important to many people, perhaps, especially students. I have never subscribed to any magic bullet developers, also it seems developer choice is much more of a topic in North America than it ever was in Europe, that is away from forums such as APUG where detail and very significant developer knowledge exists. My choices are driven by habit ( and laziness ) we use DDX in a Refrema, its consistent and perfect for my limited amount of work, and lets not forget...to me.. FREE. When working as a photographer / printer I used ID11 ( D76 ) if I didn't have access to a Refrema I would use a liguid one shot.. I watch in amazement at people's dedication in mixing their own from raw chemicals....I have no wish to open a debate on any developer or process the only subject I struggle with is 'stand development' is anathema to me...

As to developer information from us, or other manufacturers, we always say its guide, a where to start, a mid-point with the least risk of an under or over... I always think we kind of supply the instruments but you compose and play the tune.

Remember the most important part of good printing is a good neg.......

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[David Allen]

Remember the most important part of good printing is a good neg

+1

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[Xmas]

I have no wish to open a debate on any developer or process the only subject I struggle with is 'stand development' is anathema to me...

Alas it is laziness and Patterson multi tanks to blame

HP5+ in Microphen (actually ID68 more frequently) for Ilfords time or Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes both at 20C cant see any detectable difference. If don't have 3, 5 or 8 films of the same type I use Rodinal...

The reason I pick a PQ developer v MQ is dermatitis...

My negs are pig to wet print anyway, whatever I do.

 

[pentaxuser]

Dear Simon when I posted my comment about Xtol and the "risks" of using it and the "possible wrath of Lord Galley" my tongue was so far in my cheek that it has taken a team of skilled surgeons days to release it.

I had assumed that the poster who mentioned astonishment that any developer other than an Ilford one could possibly be contemplated for such a "delicate" film D400( where on earth did anyone get the idea that D400 was delicate??) also had his tongue firmly in his cheek and I was responding in kind

Given the full text of my reply with reference to High Noon and one of its stars, Grace Kelly, I am amazed that its whimsical nature didn't come across. I suppose that it might explain why at my stand-up comedian debut everyone stood up and left

I had thought of cracking the joke that I had taken a picture of a very attractive bride at a wedding with D400 and Xtol and the groom has been chasing me ever since. The neg was fine technically but the Xtol has transformed her face into that of Rosa Kleb in from "Russia with Love"

I have never seen Ilford take an "anti-other makes" stand or even hint at it and is to be applauded for that.

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The same very basic rule applies, irrespective of what is published at the MDC. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights - within reason.

Anybody who uses the MDC must simply realize that it is a starting point, for all the reasons that David Allen pointed out.

And Simon Galley is 100% correct when he says that the secret to good printing starts with a good negative.
What is a good negative, then?
It is one where the tones that you want to print to represent your vision, print with relative ease while using the paper of your choice.
Here is the point: No other photographer can tell you what YOUR good negative looks like. Only you can. Because only you know how you like your prints to look. So it is up to each user to find ways of processing their film such that they print the way they want them to print.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Pentaxuser,

I knew where your tongue was !... just thought it a good 'intro' to a kind of 'general' post... I do remember Rosa Kleb though... natty pair of shoes....

I did wedding photography for several years... 90% people work 10% camera work as my old boss used to say, you had to be very wary at one Church as the 'emerging from the car by the gate shot' very nicely lined up with the pub opposite, a joyful and beaming bride with bridesmaids did not always appreciate 'The Fat Ox' emblazoned above them....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[pentaxuser]

Dear Pentaxuser,

I knew where your tongue was !... just thought it a good 'intro' to a kind of 'general' post... I do remember Rosa Kleb though... natty pair of shoes....

I did wedding photography for several years... 90% people work 10% camera work as my old boss used to say, you had to be very wary at one Church as the 'emerging from the car by the gate shot' very nicely lined up with the pub opposite, a joyful and beaming bride with bridesmaids did not always appreciate 'The Fat Ox' emblazoned above them....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited[/QUOTE

Nice one. There has to be room for our double act somewhere

pentaxuser