N-2 developing times problem

[Tim Budd]

Hi all

I am in the process of testing for N-2 developing times. I am using FP4+ 120 souped in D-76 1:1 (20 C). I already have my time for N-1, which is (off the top of my head) around 5min 30secs. The problem is, as you can see, that my time for N-2 could go below 5 minutes.

My N-1 time is -25% of my N time, so if the pattern follows, I am looking at sub 5 minutes. This is going to be a problem as I am looking at uneven development here aren't I?

Is there anything I can do to help or I am looking at starting again?

Tim

 

[Fotohuis]

A time for about 4:30 Min is short but not a real problem. If you are doing C41 development the time is 3 Min 15 S but in general you can better prevent shorter developing times than 5:00 Min.

I just ended a discussing about long developing times for R3: 14:00 to start, I am sure that N-2 is here a big advantage !

Robert

 

[noseoil]

I don't use your film / developer combination, but I've had similar problems with Efke 25 and minus development. Rate the film slower and change dilution to see what you get. Are you plotting the curve of your results? This may save you a lot of trouble in the future.

Take a look at the articles section, "how to" and step wedge testing. You aren't using a step wedge, but the plotting may help with a better understanding of test results. tim

 

[josephaustin]

I develop Arista.Edu in HC110 dil b at 4 mins and have not had a problem with uneven development. This is in a drum, processing on a rotary base so I have taken a little off the time it should have, but the paper with the film suggests 4 mins.

 

[Ian Grant]

Drop your dilution to !+2 or 1+3.

Times are available for 1+3 before the days of computers I drew a graph for times at 1+2.

But then I now use Xtol replenished, or Pyrocat HD.

Ian

 

[Donald Miller]

In addition to the short developing times, N minus two developing will severely contract your highlight densities. I would opt for altered exposure and standard development.

In altered exposure, one gives a non image bearing pre-exposure to the film followed by a standard exposure based on highlight as opposed to shadow value placement.

 

[Tim Budd]

Drop your dilution to !+2 or 1+3.

Times are available for 1+3 before the days of computers I drew a graph for times at 1+2.

Yes, I did think of doing this but thought that by not keeping dilution consistant that it might affect results. Or, do you mean that I should re-test for all times at another dilution?

This also may sound silly, but what about if I make the temp colder? That should add time and would it avoid potential uneven development?

I shall try the test with the original short time and see what comes of it and post back.

Tim

 

[noseoil]

If all of your other times are with a standard dilution, keep them! The N-2 time can be done with a different dilution, no problem, but keep track with your notes so you can duplicate times in the future.

One reason Efke 100 is used so much in B&W, along with pyrocat, is that the problem is easier to solve with this combination. Efke 100 is like a rubber band and gives very good results when playing with exposure and development. It has the ability to expand and contract in a very even manner, beyond most films on the market. tim

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not only can you dilute more for N-2 than you would for N-1, N, etc., but you can also agitate less (assuming you're not using a continuous agitation process like a Jobo). I've found with HC-110 Dilution E or G that I can reduce agitation a great deal without causing problems, and reduced agitation, especially with a dilute developer, can increase compensation, which reduces overall contrast (though it also tends to compress highlights relative to shadows, which can be good news or bad news depending on the scene) -- essentially, agiation or no, the shadows get the same development for a given time, but the highlights develop a bit less if there's less agitation due to local exhaustion.