Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.
True, but I've got to start somewhere, right? I would rather start with the manufacturer's recommendations based on controlled conditions rather than the recommendation of some unknown person who is working under unknown conditions, then posting results to Digital Truth's MDC.Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.
But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.
I thought boric anhydride would become boric acid once dissolved. I assume that it's there as part of the borax/boric acid buffer system.
True, but I've got to start somewhere, right? I would rather start with the manufacturer's recommendations based on controlled conditions rather than the recommendation of some unknown person who is working under unknown conditions, then posting results to Digital Truth's MDC.
For the past couple of years I have been trying out various films, trying to find one or two that I plan to stick with. So far, I have been shooting only a a couple of rolls of each film, following the manufacturer's recommendations without attempting to optimise my results. After I pick my favorite film(s), then I will do more testing to determine what adjustments I prefer.
So far, I have developed about 40 rolls of b&w negative film, following the manufacturers recommendations whenever possible. Out of those, only two rolls were unacceptable to me. One I believe was due to a bad batch of Kodak Xtol, from a lot number that was later recalled. And for the second one, neither the chemistry manufacturer nor the film manufacturer provided a recommended time & temp for that combination, so I followed advice posted on The Massive Development Chart and ended up with severely underdeveoped negatives.
But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.
In my mind, abdicating control of recommended times and temperatures to a third-party, black-box database like The Massive Development Chart shows how far Kodak has fallen.
In other words, Kodak doesn't make or distribute any chemistry so it cannot "fall". And when we look at Kodak-branded chemistry, I would argue that today it's in a far better shape than it has ever been. So practically speaking, it has risen, not fallen.
I believe that F76+ is a PQ (Phenidone in place of Metol) developer. I use Clayton F76+ as my daily developer. I also home-brewed and used D76 (and variants) for thirty years or so until a few years ago when I opted for Claytons F76+. I think that Clayton’s gives excellent results (excellent tonality, fine-grain and open-shadow areas) with traditional as well as T-grained films. I find it easier to vary dilutions if I really have a roll that needs more or less contrast (rare). I also find it convenient (as it’s a liquid) and it lasts about three months if stored in tightly sealed containers in a dark, cool place.
While I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't understand why you and many other people keep referring to a brand as if it was a company. The fact is that Kodak hasn't fallen. It died. It no longer exists, just like the original AT&T or Rollei. Bits and pieces of Eastman Kodak survived as independent smaller companies, and the most successful one (NYSE:EMN) has nothing to do with photography, but Kodak-branded chemistry had nothing to do with Kodak for a very very long time.
In other words, Kodak doesn't make or distribute any chemistry so it cannot "fall". And when we look at Kodak-branded chemistry, I would argue that today it's in a far better shape than it has ever been. So practically speaking, it has risen, not fallen.
I thought boric anhydride would become boric acid once dissolved. I assume that it's there as part of the borax/boric acid buffer system.
Kodak hasn't looked at these times this millennium
But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.
whether you'd like to call this "died" or "fallen" feels not really important to me.
Expose the film at its ISO speed, develop based on manufacturer recommendations. Then adjust if you find you are consistently having problems editing/printing due to insufficient contrast, too much contrast and/or insufficient/excessive density.
Thank you both. I am already doing this to some degree. After every roll is developed, I look at the negatives closely for shadow detail, and if not adequate, I make a note to increase exposure for the next roll.Start with recommended ISO and development time. Negatives too light = Not enough light. Decrease the ISO for the next roll. Negative too contrasty = Development too long. Decrease (-20%) the development time for the next roll. Of course, if the negs are too dark or flat, do the opposite. After 3-4 rolls, you should be close to optimum.
also try to evaluate the negatives for density, but that is more subjective for me. Presently, I do not have access to a darkroom so I am not able to judge density and contrast according to how well the negatives print. I now have enough negatives available for comparison, so I can judge if a roll is denser than average or thinner than average, but it's "my" average, so it's possible my baseline is skewed. I am reminded of an amateur winemaker I once knew who drank only his own wine. He thought it tasted OK, but I thought it tasted weird, compared to commercial wines.
I regret that my comment about the Kodak brand triggered such a defensive response, and for that I apologize. I was in no way suggesting the Kodak products being made by Photosys are in any way inferior or declining in quality. Like you, I have confidence that Photosys can, and will, do a good job of manufacturing chemistry under the Kodak brand.Well... my point was that now we finally got a real chemistry company (Photosys) in charge of reviving the Kodak-branded chemicals and they could use some encouragement and support from the community. It is kind of similar to the ADOX rising from the ashes in Germany. Calling their line of products "fallen" or "dead" doesn't really help. If we want their business to succeed, the least we can do is to spread misinformation about declining quality.
"temporary" -- I hope so!I expect that the Photosys/Cinestill partnership simply made the decision to make use of the MDC, because that is where the majority of new users are looking anyways now. That decision may, of course, be temporary. Photosys has lots of experience over the years using the more traditional information systems.
The trouble with giving recommended times is that the paper and darkroom equipment being used matter a lot. Until you have chosen your enlarger and lens, times are merely suggestions.Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.
"temporary" -- I hope so!
In August of 2022 I had an email discussion with Jon Mided, the Managing Director of Digitaltruth. I learned a little more about how their data is curated, and I made several suggestions about how the database could be made more useful to users. One recommendation was some kind of rating or grading system to indicate how reliable the data is -- including a notation to identify "official" times provided by manufacturers. Do you have reason to believe something like that might actually happen?Actually, I think it more likely that you will start seeing MDC times that are identified as being sourced from the manufacturer.
The trouble with giving recommended times is that the paper and darkroom equipment being used matter a lot. Until you have chosen your enlarger and lens, times are merely suggestions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?