My Dev Times - some are shorter some longer...

[Tom Stanworth]

I am not a zonie. I just like negs that 'print well'. I tend to start with a lower EI than the box speed and start by developing 15% less than recommended. Naturally I have my own EIs and dev times for various developers (saldy as I have moved about the globe I often cannot get certain devs or some are impractical so I have been thru a fair few).

Why are some of my times substantially lower than the recommended times and some substantially higher.

For example, using ID11, I develop APX100 for 2 mins less at 20 degs C than recommended on the ID11 box. I rate at 64-80 however.

Using the same ID11 I develop TriX for longer than recommeded by 1 minute, still rated at 250! Using box speed for triX and Box Speed for ID11 I get underexposed well under developed negs! Using the same ID11 I have to well under-do the APX100 otherwise it gets horribly dense.

Why using one dev and the manufactureres times are some up and some down to get negs that print on teh same grade approximately. I can only presume that manufacturers develop to a set CI and match all films, but if I stick to their times I get HUGELY different CIs - how can this be so. Just using the naked eye it is very obvious that this is the case.

If it aint broke don't fix it...I know. My times work and print fine. I just don't get it!

Another example is Pan F. If I use manufactureres times I get exceedingly thin negs. I rate instead at 25 and develop for far longer than Ilford recommends. I generally find I develop closer to teh manufacturers time for faster films and quite a bit less with many slow films...but Pan F is very slow and I need to really soup it!!??

Can anyone explain this (without suggesting I go get a densitometer and do extensive testing to prove my observations are indeed valid.) Anyone have similar experiences?

Tom

 

[Ole]

I can't explain it, but it's perfectly normal.

I tend to develop everything about 20% longer than recommended, except EFKE R25 and R50, and MACO/Rollei IR820/400. Those I develop close to twice the recommended time...

 

[ann]

equipment used, how we agitate, what the light source is, etc. all come into play.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I am not a zonie. I just like negs that 'print well'. I tend to start with a lower EI than the box speed and start by developing 15% less than recommended. Naturally I have my own EIs and dev times for various developers (saldy as I have moved about the globe I often cannot get certain devs or some are impractical so I have been thru a fair few).

Why are some of my times substantially lower than the recommended times and some substantially higher.

For example, using ID11, I develop APX100 for 2 mins less at 20 degs C than recommended on the ID11 box. I rate at 64-80 however.

Using the same ID11 I develop TriX for longer than recommeded by 1 minute, still rated at 250! Using box speed for triX and Box Speed for ID11 I get underexposed well under developed negs! Using the same ID11 I have to well under-do the APX100 otherwise it gets horribly dense.

Why using one dev and the manufactureres times are some up and some down to get negs that print on teh same grade approximately. I can only presume that manufacturers develop to a set CI and match all films, but if I stick to their times I get HUGELY different CIs - how can this be so. Just using the naked eye it is very obvious that this is the case.

If it aint broke don't fix it...I know. My times work and print fine. I just don't get it!

Another example is Pan F. If I use manufactureres times I get exceedingly thin negs. I rate instead at 25 and develop for far longer than Ilford recommends. I generally find I develop closer to teh manufacturers time for faster films and quite a bit less with many slow films...but Pan F is very slow and I need to really soup it!!??

Can anyone explain this (without suggesting I go get a densitometer and do extensive testing to prove my observations are indeed valid.) Anyone have similar experiences?

Tom

I never clutch at straws for ISO and expect them to work perfectly, I start with ISO and make a series of exposures +/- one EV step each side of the ISO in one-third EV step increments, (seven exposures) and then process to instruction so that only one variable is changed at a time.
Once I`ve found the negative of optimum density for my needs by making prints from the bracketed negatives, it becomes my personal EI.
I then alter the development time to suit my needs for the desired contrast if necessary.
Exposure for density and development for contrast.
I guess we`ve all got our own methods that work for us, ZS or non-ZS.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I can't explain it, but it's perfectly normal.

I tend to develop everything about 20% longer than recommended, except EFKE R25 and R50, and MACO/Rollei IR820/400. Those I develop close to twice the recommended time...

I may try one of those IR films soon.
Cheers.

 

[kb244]

You pretty much develop to your style of shooting, I think if you shoot black and white you are not finished til you develop it yourself, since over time you develop a consistancy that matches your shooting and exposure style. So I don't find it too odd to develop longer or shorter, or to even expose for a different ISO since the film's true ISO is rarely what it says on the box.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I never clutch at straws for ISO and expect them to work perfectly, I start with ISO and make a series of exposures +/- one EV step each side of the ISO in one-third EV step increments, (seven exposures) and then process to instruction so that only one variable is changed at a time.
Once I`ve found the negative of optimum density for my needs by making prints from the bracketed negatives, it becomes my personal EI.
I then alter the development time to suit my needs for the desired contrast if necessary.
Exposure for density and development for contrast.
I guess we`ve all got our own methods that work for us, ZS or non-ZS.

Thats exactly what I do, changing exposure and development incrementally. To an extend you can do the exposure adjustment in camera by bracketing so even one roll tells you quite a bit. Then looking at how subsequent changes in dev time affect exposure again by bracketing (or shooting multiple sheets for LF)

However once I have done this I am left with the same question - why do some require more than the manufacturer recommends and other less...using the same manufacturers developer! I know Agfa times are based on a higher CI than other nanufacturers, but the case I was discussing referred to ID11 - seems very odd.

I wont lose sleep over it but wondering if some smartypants can offer a reason why this is so. Surely all manufacturer times are based on teh same CI. It is impossible to see how this is so looking at the negs all of which I meter the same, process the same in terms of agitation, water etc.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

You pretty much develop to your style of shooting, I think if you shoot black and white you are not finished til you develop it yourself, since over time you develop a consistancy that matches your shooting and exposure style. So I don't find it too odd to develop longer or shorter, or to even expose for a different ISO since the film's true ISO is rarely what it says on the box.

Absolutely. I am not surprised that they differ, but why some higher and some lower with the same manufacturers materials compared to their own times when I am effectively a constant (same exposure technique, agitation technique etc? It is not logical (Captain)

 

[Jim Jones]

If you were a master chef, you wouldn't use unaltered recipies from a Betty Crocker cookbook: you'd season to taste. Film is like that. The ISO rating of film is derived by a technical method. Exposure and development should be determined esthetically, and is often different than the ISO rating indicates. Cook according to taste; photograph with taste.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

If you were a master chef, you wouldn't use unaltered recipies from a Betty Crocker cookbook: you'd season to taste. Film is like that. The ISO rating of film is derived by a technical method. Exposure and development should be determined esthetically, and is often different than the ISO rating indicates. Cook according to taste; photograph with taste.

Maybe I do have erratic, bad taste after all.

 

[Ole]

It is not logical (Captain)

It's supposed to be Art. That seems to eliminate the need for logic.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

However once I have done this I am left with the same question - why do some require more than the manufacturer recommends and other less...using the same manufacturers developer! I know Agfa times are based on a higher CI than other nanufacturers, but the case I was discussing referred to ID11 - seems very odd.

Surely all manufacturer times are based on the same CI. It is impossible to see how this is so looking at the negs all of which I meter the same, process the same in terms of agitation, water etc.

It`s partly technical to suit your own metering and processing methods and partly down to personal preferences. Different photographers will have different goals and objectives, some like soft delicate prints, others like a bit more punch and contrast, but that`s B&W for you and what makes it so unique and great.

Different manufacturers seem to have their own system for so called `ideal` contrast for our negatives, just use them as a starting point and adjust to suit your own personal needs. It would be much less confusing if they all adopted the same system. It`s best to judge a negative by how well it prints, not by how it looks.
Enjoy.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

It`s partly technical to suit your own metering and processing methods and partly down to personal preferences. Different photographers will have different goals and objectives, some like soft delicate prints, others like a bit more punch and contrast, but that`s B&W for you and what makes it so unique and great.

Naturally, but this is not what I am refering to!...Those preferences are generally the same whether using D400 or Hp5+..yet developed according to the manufacturers instructions they may come out with (not the same CI as you would expect assuming metering, agitation is the same) but different ones. Do you see where I am coming from? What you are referring to is totally different..e.g..Tom S likes hard prints so tends to expose less and develop more (across the range!)


Different manufacturers seem to have their own system for so called `ideal` contrast for our negatives, just use them as a starting point and adjust to suit your own personal needs. It would be much less confusing if they all adopted the same system. It`s best to judge a negative by how well it prints, not by how it looks.

Exactly, but why is it if you develop films according to manufacturers instructions they do not come out with similar shadow detail and contrast! This is the crux of it and it is this which requires me to develop some more and some less to reach some kind of personal standard across the board. Fp4+ in ID11 is not too far out apart from more exposure generally required. Try Pan F accoridng to the packet in Ilford devs and it comes out with no shadow detail at all and grossly under developed. If there is a common standard from each manufacturer why do I find that I cannot go across the board with a rule such as, "to get negs I like using Ilford materials I have to expose at 1/2 Box speed and develop 15% less" Why do I develop some 15% less and other 25% more to get negs that print on teh same grade!!!!
Enjoy.

Am I mad or are you all missing the point?

There are few variables here, my 'preferred look and contrast range being constant. I am using the same metering technique each time. I am using different films (often from the same manufacturer but not always...and even if using a different manufacturers film with a common developer, surely the developer manufacturer use the same CI for,say APX100 as they did for FP4+....) and comparing to the dev times provided by one manufacturer for one developer. I also have teh same likes and dislikes regardless of film in terns of the contrast required to pring on my head etc......

So, as before, most things are constant (metering, dev time, agitation, how I like my prints to look). I do these things the exact same way regadless of the film.

....So compared to times provided by the same manufacturer for even their own materials (ie compare times for FP4+ and Panf+ in ID11), developed as per teh instructions, one film might come out horribly dense (not subjective but visibly far more dense) than another film. I know we all make our own adjustments depending on what we like. But what I am asking is why when one manufacturer tests films in their devs and surely standadised on a CI, do they come out with such vastly different densities which required the likes of us to cut some times and increase others. Surely there would be a rule...."I develop less than AGFA instructions state as they develop to a higher CI than suits me...but a touch more than Ilford states as my head requires a bit more density".

 

[Tom Stanworth]

It's supposed to be Art. That seems to eliminate the need for logic.

But I have seen pictures of Ilford people and they wear labs coats!?!? Do manufacturers really work to a CI standard or do they also subjectively determine what the correct dev time is.

BTW Pan F in Ilfosol is magic....but having used the starting point for Fp4+ in ID11 and finding it quite close (except for me exposing more), I was amazed to see how badly the Pan F in Ilfosol came out after using the manufacturers starting point! I thought I had a duff batch! Only when I exposed it at EI 25 or even a 1/2 stop slower (whatever that is) and developed for 5.5mins 1+9 (the time recommended for pan F at 50 in Ilfosol S at 1+14 is 6 mins!!!) did I get a normal looking neg with a tonal scale, shadow detail and some highlights. I dont geddit.

 

[eclarke]

Nithin' means nothin' but the print and it is 100% subjective...EC