Massive Dev. Chart -Revised Paterson Data - Question

Marco S. · Nov 11, 2005

I'm planning to use Paterson FX-39 for some Delta 100, 120 roll film. I noticed this on The Massive Dev. Chart, Michael Scarpitti's Revised Paterson Data:

*Times given below are for 35mm work. For roll or sheet film, extend times approximately 20%. "

I don't understand why development needs to be extended for 120 roll film. Why is this?

Marco

pauldc · Nov 12, 2005

As I understand it, the base of the film is different and may need longer development times - it is not unusual. Also, different contrast levels may be needed for 120 compared to 35mm. If you look also at the genuine Paterson info they also recommend longer times for 120 film.

My experience with the Paterson developers is that the times are too long but at the same time the alternative data is too short and too dilute to give me decent contrast. In the end I worked out my own times which came to somewhere in the middle of the 2 extremes.

Good luck

clay · Nov 12, 2005

I agree with this assessment. The Paterson times are a bit long, and the Scarpitti times are a bit short for the sort of negatives with which I like to print. I have noticed a nice compensating effect that can be achieved when using the 1:14 dilutions with Tri-X and Delta 400 that does not occur with the 1:9 dilution.

pauldc said:
As I understand it, the base of the film is different and may need longer development times - it is not unusual. Also, different contrast levels may be needed for 120 compared to 35mm. If you look also at the genuine Paterson info they also recommend longer times for 120 film.

My experience with the Paterson developers is that the times are too long but at the same time the alternative data is too short and too dilute to give me decent contrast. In the end I worked out my own times which came to somewhere in the middle of the 2 extremes.

Good luck

roteague · Nov 12, 2005

Since Michael Scarpitti has been banned from almost every photographic forum on the Internet, you may have trouble finding out. I'm not a B&W person, but if you start a new thread asking people for development times with the film/developer process you may get the answer you are looking for.

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 12, 2005

MPolo said:
I'm planning to use Paterson FX-39 for some Delta 100, 120 roll film. I noticed this on The Massive Dev. Chart, Michael Scarpitti's Revised Paterson Data:

*Times given below are for 35mm work. For roll or sheet film, extend times approximately 20%. "

I don't understand why development needs to be extended for 120 roll film. Why is this?

Marco

From what I can gather, Michael Scarpitti uses Leica 35mm SLR cameras and does not use Medium Format at all. His advice is based on the use of a (Rolleimat) condenser enlarger and he has standardised on printing with Ilford Gallerie grade#3 rather than the usually recommended grade#2 paper and thus needs a softer negative to print with. This is something that comes down to personal preference and what may suit one individual photographer may not suit another. It is best to experiment particularly if you are using Medium/Large Format as you may find that you like a negative which is a little bit more vigorous which prints well on grade#2 or with filtration around grade#2.5 if using VC paper whether using a condenser or diffuser type enlarger.
There`s different strokes for different folks.
Michael`s method suits his own personal preferences.

Ole · Nov 12, 2005

From my knowledge of Scarpitti, as well as having read many of the same books he has, my guess is this:

Willi Beutler (him again) recommended minimum development for 35mm film in order to minimize grain which could otherwise be detrimental to picture quality. That is: Just sufficient development to give good shadow detail, while targeting printing on G3 paper.

For larger film sizes a "normal" development was recommended, about 20% longer. So it isn't the MF and LF times which are longer; it's the recommended 35mm times which are shorter!

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 12, 2005

Ole said:
From my knowledge of Scarpitti, as well as having read many of the same books he has, my guess is this:

Willi Beutler (him again) recommended minimum development for 35mm film in order to minimize grain which could otherwise be detrimental to picture quality. That is: Just sufficient development to give good shadow detail, while targeting printing on G3 paper.

For larger film sizes a "normal" development was recommended, about 20% longer. So it isn't the MF and LF times which are longer; it's the recommended 35mm times which are shorter!

That sound about right, Ilford used to recommend that FP4 Plus in 35mm be developed in ID11 diluted 1+1 for 8.5 minutes @ 20C/68F and 11 minutes for #120/220 size rolls, now the same time is given for all formats. (11 minutes).
Developing times are starting points that should be adjusted to give the desired contrast that each individual photographer needs for his/her own personal requirements.

Marco S. · Nov 12, 2005

roteague said:
Since Michael Scarpitti has been banned from almost every photographic forum on the Internet, you may have trouble finding out. I'm not a B&W person, but if you start a new thread asking people for development times with the film/developer process you may get the answer you are looking for.

I was not aware of who he was, (pretty new here and to BW) I just happened to come across the link to his development data when I checked for the development times for Delta 100 and FX-39 on the Mass. Dev Chart.

I appreciate everyone's replies. I print using a #2 filter on RC paper on a 23C condenser enlarger. I also noticed much of the development data is not for condenser enlargers. I currently use DD-X for the Delta 100, but it seems to me that it's usually recommended for the faster (ie 400-3200) Deltas than for 100.

I don't have a reference on what well exposed negatives should look like, so it's difficult for me to understand what to look for in different film and developer combinations.

Marco

Dave Parker · Nov 12, 2005

MPolo said:
I was not aware of who he was, (pretty new here and to BW) I just happened to come across the link to his development data when I checked for the development times for Delta 100 and FX-39 on the Mass. Dev Chart.

Hang around long enough and you will figure out who he is...

Dave

Amund · Nov 12, 2005

Satinsnow said:
Hang around long enough and you will figure out who he is...

Dave

He hangs out at the leica.com forum these days.....

pentaxuser · Nov 12, 2005

blix@broadpark.no said:
He hangs out at the leica.com forum these days.....

That's interesting and may explain why in recent threads he appears to be missing from Cafe Ilfopro. Back in June/July he appeared on about every second posting. The moderator there had issues with him but appeared from his(the moderator's) replies to him to be stuck with him. The site did not seem to have the ability to ban him.Has Cafe Ilfopro now found out how to do it and banned him as well?

Pentaxuser

roteague · Nov 12, 2005

MPolo said:
I was not aware of who he was, (pretty new here and to BW)

He was just banner from here last week - third time, under a third different alias.

srs5694 · Nov 12, 2005

re: Michael Scarpitti

MPolo said:
I was not aware of who he was, (pretty new here and to BW) I just happened to come across the link to his development data when I checked for the development times for Delta 100 and FX-39 on the Mass. Dev Chart.

He occasionally pops up on the Usenet rec.photo.* newsgroups, under the alias "uraniumcommittee." If his banning on other sites is because of the behaviors he exhibits there, it's because he can't seem to restrain himself from hurling insults (mostly calling people stupid in various ways) when he disagrees with somebody else. He's single-handedly driven people away from the Usenet newsgroups, which is very unfortunate.

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 13, 2005

MPolo said:
I was not aware of who he was, (pretty new here and to BW) I just happened to come across the link to his development data when I checked for the development times for Delta 100 and FX-39 on the Mass. Dev Chart.

I appreciate everyone's replies. I print using a #2 filter on RC paper on a 23C condenser enlarger. I also noticed much of the development data is not for condenser enlargers. I currently use DD-X for the Delta 100, but it seems to me that it's usually recommended for the faster (ie 400-3200) Deltas than for 100.

I don't have a reference on what well exposed negatives should look like, so it's difficult for me to understand what to look for in different film and developer combinations.

Marco

You will probably find the results are too soft if you use grade#2 filtration and possibly with grade#3 filtration.
Try Ilfospeed grade#3 graded paper.

FrankB · Nov 14, 2005

roteague said:
He was just banner from here last week - third time, under a third different alias.

I have also had "input" from him via PM on this site. After some thought and discussion with other APUG subscribers at the recent UK gathering I forwarded it to the moderation team.

Massive Dev. Chart -Revised Paterson Data - Question

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency