Over-Expose and Under-Develop

So reading from the Jobo USA archives a few months ago was an eye opener. In particular, this article ( http://jobo-usa.com/images/archive/JQ7.pdf ) by David Belew ("last seen 2006" on Photrio) I've found his recommendations on which reel size for which film and his processing steps helped get my Jobo work on track. My hat's off to the guy for just making it all that much clearer and easier in two pages than just about anything else I've seen. Following this has been the greatest advice I've found in the last couple of months.

Best thing though has been my switch to his developer of choice (Ilford ID-11) which has made me thankful for my XTOL-R fail (so that I could try this) and this past weekend giving 72 degrees Farenheit (22 C) a shot. Didn't know what to expect. The "tonality" shift was significant, so I pulled the Ilford ID-11 datasheet and noted that at 72 the contrast curve shifts. Not everyone will want this, but I like it a lot. I'd seen this temp shift for Perceptol before but never tried it. So now I'm a believer. "Oooooh.... Aaaaaaah" as we used to say. Did 4 rolls of Ilford Delta 400 at boxspeed and found some really great results (IMHO).

So why is 68 seen as normal? "Normal for what?" Love to know. Just as Barry Thornton wondered how it was that someone decided 18% Gray was normal when as BT writes, he thought it should average more closely to 34%.... I think it's fair to wonder these things for about.... oh... one nanosecond and get back to shooting.

But the whole leaves me wondering about the old adage, "Over-expose and Under-develop" and whether or not this simply means over-expose (use a slower ISO) - which is easy - but the Under-develop part I'm not sure about. Doesn't this mean simply use the time we would normally use when re-rating the same film to a slower ISO? or does it mean to even shorten it from there?

I try to be methodical and not change to many variables at a time, and then allow enough repetitions to see whether the observed changes really are a result of change in process or may be attributable to something else. So I haven't actually tried to test this out yet other than varying the development time 20-C baseline for straight up ISO changes according to the manufacturer's recommendation, some other source, or standardized calculation estimate. But I'm not sure I even have this right... in terms of the adage. So curious what your experience has been.

I always process at ambient room temperature and adjust developing time accordingly.
As long as I am not using something like Diafine, my results at 18C (~65F) are indistinguishable from my results at 20C (68F) which are indistinguishable from my results at 22C (~72F). I rarely have to deal with ambient temperatures up at 24C, but I don't recall having any problems with them.
The T-Max films were originally brought out with T-Max developer, and there is a recommendation to use the two together at 24C. That recommendation, like many others in the Kodak literature, is oriented toward commercial processors with a need for throughput. Higher temperatures = faster processing = more potential business and profit.
The only time I use an "over-expose, under-develop" workflow is when I have a higher than normal contrast situation with important shadow details. Increasing the exposure protects the shadow details, while under-developing tames the contrast.
Within reason, development time and/or temperature can always be adjusted to control contrast,
As for the article you cited, I see nothing different or unusual about Mr. Belew's recommendations. He is careful about pH of his developer, and prefers working at a slightly higher temperature. As commercially available developers are well buffered, I don't expect that most will notice any benefit from the pH control he advocated. I would agree with his pH controlling efforts if he was making up his own, non-buffered developers.
And as for his preference for a slightly higher temperature of 72F, I am quite confident that he would have achieved essentially the same results at 68F with longer development. But if he was getting what he wanted .....
No matter who you are and what choices you make, you need to adjust things until you get the results you like.

JWMster said:

So reading from the Jobo USA archives a few months ago was an eye opener. In particular, this article ( http://jobo-usa.com/images/archive/JQ7.pdf ) by David Belew ("last seen 2006" on Photrio) I've found his recommendations on which reel size for which film and his processing steps helped get my Jobo work on track. My hat's off to the guy for just making it all that much clearer and easier in two pages than just about anything else I've seen. Following this has been the greatest advice I've found in the last couple of months.

Best thing though has been my switch to his developer of choice (Ilford ID-11) which has made me thankful for my XTOL-R fail (so that I could try this) and this past weekend giving 72 degrees Farenheit (22 C) a shot. Didn't know what to expect. The "tonality" shift was significant, so I pulled the Ilford ID-11 datasheet and noted that at 72 the contrast curve shifts. Not everyone will want this, but I like it a lot. I'd seen this temp shift for Perceptol before but never tried it. So now I'm a believer. "Oooooh.... Aaaaaaah" as we used to say. Did 4 rolls of Ilford Delta 400 at boxspeed and found some really great results (IMHO).

So why is 68 seen as normal? "Normal for what?" Love to know. Just as Barry Thornton wondered how it was that someone decided 18% Gray was normal when as BT writes, he thought it should average more closely to 34%.... I think it's fair to wonder these things for about.... oh... one nanosecond and get back to shooting.

But the whole leaves me wondering about the old adage, "Over-expose and Under-develop" and whether or not this simply means over-expose (use a slower ISO) - which is easy - but the Under-develop part I'm not sure about. Doesn't this mean simply use the time we would normally use when re-rating the same film to a slower ISO? or does it mean to even shorten it from there?

I try to be methodical and not change to many variables at a time, and then allow enough repetitions to see whether the observed changes really are a result of change in process or may be attributable to something else. So I haven't actually tried to test this out yet other than varying the development time 20-C baseline for straight up ISO changes according to the manufacturer's recommendation, some other source, or standardized calculation estimate. But I'm not sure I even have this right... in terms of the adage. So curious what your experience has been.

Click to expand...

According to what photo-history that I have read, photography was invented and for a long rime developed (no pun intended) in Europe where "room temperature" seems to be 20C (or 68F). There are large sections of North America (and I am sure other parts of the world) where keeping the temperature of a darkroom (or any room) at 20C/68F requires air conditioning in hot weather and heat during cold. Where have/are most of the companies making film and paper located.? Mostly in Northern Europe/England, Rochester, NY in North America and other "cool" places. Hence we have 20C/68F processing temperatures. If you never read any photo-history, these temperatures were intentionally picked to make you mad........Regards!

JWMster said:

But the whole leaves me wondering about the old adage, "Over-expose and Under-develop" and whether or not this simply means over-expose (use a slower ISO) - which is easy - but the Under-develop part I'm not sure about. Doesn't this mean simply use the time we would normally use when re-rating the same film to a slower ISO? or does it mean to even shorten it from there?

Click to expand...

I don't remember that old adage. I did spend a lot of time learning to expose correctly though.

Arklatexian said:

If you never read any photo-history, these temperatures were intentionally picked to make you mad........Regards!

Click to expand...

Most developers have a time/temperature chart you can follow if your solutions are not at 68.

Not sure if this answer fits, but as I understand it - an example:

I generally love Rodinal for film developing. It just "marries" my printing style. But it's not the best shadow developer - you can lose a stop of shadow detail with it. every film and developer combo has its own quirks.

So I have to give my film an extra stop to even 2 stops of exposure, depending on conditions. Then I have to develop to hold back the extra highlights. I can reduce time, reduce temperature, or change dilution, or some or all of the above. I generally don't mess with temp., but if I run some film at 1+50 for 8 minutes and feel it's too hot, highlights harsh or blown, I may decide to go 1+60 for 7 minutes. I keep all these results in a binder with a lot of notes.

So one could say that what I consistently do is "over expose and under develop", but my take is I've simply found the correct exposure and development times for a given scene, tuned to my final output (which is darkroom printing).

Yes, I follow the chart. I also use a spreadsheet to bracket films at ISO / Developer dilutions that might not be on the chart and haven't had an issue. I've just wondered about this adage as I've seen it in many places. And yes, I've also read about and done N+1 and N-1 development. I've just wondered whether Barry Thornton, Harry Fearn and some others were talking about the digitaltruth / massive development type of chart, or some other guidance. Will keep looking. Thanks!

Love the explanation for 20/68 as "normal". Wonder how Kodak (?) picked 18% for the gray card? Surely in Rochester, a gray day is a lot darker than Florida... and a lot grayer than 18%. On the other hand, maybe Barry Thornton's England/Scotland bit is darker... and so his 34% complaint reflects his weather?

Perhaps this is a method of increasing the density of shadow detail on the neg? Highlights take care of themselves, film can handle them and printing them is a matter of dodging and burning. However, if the shadows are empty on the negative nothing can restore the detail, it has gone forever, overexposure puts the shadow detail higher up the toe.

Perhaps the concept of "expose correctly" may be one of those situations covered by Yogi Berra's saying: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is."

tedr1 said:

Perhaps the concept of "expose correctly" may be one of those situations covered by Yogi Berra's saying: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is."

Click to expand...

The adage I grew up with was expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Overexpose and under develop only addresses one lighting situation.

JWMster said:

Wonder how Kodak (?) picked 18% for the gray card?

Click to expand...

It is essentially the mid-point in reflectance (it is a logarithmic thing).
Which makes it useful as a reproduce-able standard.
And that is where its value lies.
Statistically, 12% is closer to the average reflectance of average scenes, so that is the sort of reflectance that many meters are calibrated to.
It has nothing to do with light levels.
If you are lucky, Stephen Benskin will chime in, and you will learn lots more (and to a much higher level of accuracy!) .

faberryman said:

I don't remember that old adage.

Click to expand...

Me neither.

over expose over develop that is what i do
and i love it. i think it helps the photographer
expose for the shadows and get the highlights
cause whatever was infront of the camera is gonna
be on the film. much easier to print though as a LF negative
i tend to use a 300 watt bulb and rc paper.
skip, go for bulletproof, you won't be sorry !

faberryman said:

The adage I grew up with was expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights...

Click to expand...

I enjoy, "Expose for the secrets and develop for the surprises." Ted Orland.

I tend to expose the way I want to and develop just about right. Sometimes bullet-proof, cosmic-ray blocking negatives are what I want, too!

I suppose a little bit of over-exposing and under-developing might make negatives generally easier to scan. Nice bla-looking negatives that respond well to digital manipulation.

Shadows and highlights - that's the one we all know. The other is less common, but it's still out there in a LOT of books on film photography, and spoken of like gospel. I'll recheck Bruce Barnbaum's book, but I'm pretty sure he gives it as well.

Key thing for me is I've also seen lots of folks processing at 72F (22C) and not paid much attention. Tried it, and gotta say I think I like it. Plus, ambient water temp is unevenly running around 71F in my neighborhood beginning this time of year. Add a degree, and you're back in control.
But the key thing I noticed on the Ilford Datasheet is the two contrast curves. Makes a fellow say, "Hmmmmmmmmmmm." Can't say that the axis identifiers were more than obtuse to me, but the two curves did get my attention. So different Time / Temp combos don't strictly adjust for film speed - even according to a neutralizing formula, but seems as though if you're trying to keep it neutral, you'll still find a different contrast. Going for N+1 or N-1 typically means time alone as I've done it, read about it, too. So I suppose it's a variable I hadn't allowed for on its own.

JWMster said:

But the key thing I noticed on the Ilford Datasheet is the two contrast curves. Makes a fellow say, "Hmmmmmmmmmmm." Can't say that the axis identifiers were more than obtuse to me, but the two curves did get my attention. So different Time / Temp combos don't strictly adjust for film speed - even according to a neutralizing formula, but seems as though if you're trying to keep it neutral, you'll still find a different contrast..

Click to expand...

I must admit I had never noticed the two contrast curves in the Ilford sheets. Can you point out where these are found? Thanks

pentaxuser

Here's the datasheet for Ilford's Delta 400: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/dp400-120 (denoted as Datasheet A18) and you have to open the PDF and then look at page 5. Halfway down it's Development Time vs. Contrast. Note I misread the higher temp is actually shown at 75 F ( 24 C ), but my eyeball "thinks" (yes that's a problematic expression and completely unscientific) it sees a slight difference at 22C. Not just an American convenience for higher temp locales, some of the proponents are in Europe where things run a tad cooler. What I'd be curious about is how is the Contrast measured? Densitometry? Dunno. Scale says, "Contrast (G)". No notation as to what the G stands for is given, but maybe it's something along the lines of D-Max that's supposed to be readily understood by the cognoscenti (of which I am clearly NOT!).

I don’t understand which two charts you are talking about. I see one for degrees F and one for degrees C. They’re both quite direct in the relationship between time and temperature. But because the lines are all straight I don’t see any magical contrast benefits of using 72 degrees F.

The article you linked tells a story of improved negatives by developing at 72 degrees F. And with all that experience there could be something to it.

But not that I see from the ID-11 datasheet.

There is nothing meaningfully different between those two curves. They have essentially the same shape. All they tell you is that you can attain the same contrast in fewer minutes if you use a higher temperature.
It is the shape of the curve that tells you about how a developer and film combination behaves.

That’s what I see too. Just a direct tome and temperature conversion.
But there could be benefits from choosing 72-degrees F. There could be a lot of reasons.

Exposure shifts the scene right or left on the H&D curve, lopping off portions of the scene if one is not careful. Development matches the negative values to the printing paper. Mix and match as you see fit.

Gee, thanks for looking. In my business, we call this cognitive dissonance, as looking at the same thing I don't see it quite that way. This isn't unusual but actually what drives markets to function the way they do where perception of facts contrary to expectation is ignored as unimportant until overwhelmed and a trend reverses. Don't mean to suggest there is a trend here, only that it is difficult to see that there is more than an initial eye sees as meriting attention and therefore I can understand my point being dismissed. That's the way the brain works. But the key may instead lie in not trying to see it with your eyes alone but to actually read some values off the chart.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the way I read this is simple. Using the digitaltruth web page, if you can start with Ilford Delta 400 with ID-11 1:1 and a given time of 14 minutes at 20C. You read this off the curve # 2 as a Contrast of approximately 0.78 G - again, the lower curve. Do the same ISO on this film and convert the Temp to 24C and your time cuts to 9:23 which reads closer off the upper cuver # 1 as closer to 0.7 G and last I checked, that's going to be a real mathematical difference of about 10%.

I don't know how significant that is to the eye, so visually, I'd imagine it to be much more subtle. And cutting the temp difference from 4 to 2 in using 22C as I did following David Belew will probably prove subtler still. Too subtle to care? Maybe, in which case don't bother. Fine. Fairly, I still have no idea exactly what G means, how it measures contrast, or where the greatest impact is, but using the charts, if there were no difference, the slopes would be the same only shifting up or down - like the very straight lines on the Time / Temp chart. But here on the Temp+Time vs. Contrast chart, clearly, the slopes change as you can see from the space between the lines grows (ID-11 chart) consistently as time extends until it reaches a more constant rate of change somewhere beyond 20 minutes and the lines would appear over the extension shown to be more or less a straight upward shift at that point. Facts could be otherwise, but Ilford probably is right in assuming the audience interested in development times beyond 20 minutes is small enough they can work it out on their own. My guess is that this is what David Balew noticed, and chose to work to his advantage. Note that as he says, he did a fair amount of commercial development work for other photographers. And there's a chapter in one of Barry Thornton's books where he recounts demonstrating the difference between grain and contrast in perceived sharpness where he "proves" to his audience of photographers that contrast is more significant to apparent resolution than grain. So there may be some point to the madness and more gained than it would seem. I'm guessing if it were completely unimportant, why would Ilford bother to show it for 4 different developers? Each of the graphs is different in ways that may be helpful to choosing the developer for the intended effect given the other variables. Something to ponder.

I've been reading about the Piezo crowd, and to their credit they note that the differences are subtle. I have not gone down their road. But I would agree that steps forward in image making tend to come in small increments, so I'm not going to say there's "magic". But of small steps made consistently will add up to a difference that eventually may yield something you can "see". Seems to have worked for me so far. Still, I am humbled because solving technical problems is just "nice to have". The real challenge is having something worth viewing. If I can find that the way you guys seem to have done, then maybe this matters.

Skip:
The slopes change, but the result is the same, because the shapes of the curves are identical. You will achieve exactly the same increase in contrast through increase in time or through increase in temperature.
Unless of course you start working up in the shoulder of the film and developer's curve (or down in the toe), in which case you may very well see the curve's shape being distorted in different ways depending on temperature.
Earlier in the thread you made reference to Bruce Barnbaum. He is an interesting reference, because he advocates way more exposure than most, certainly way more than the ISO or even the Zone system standard. His approach is much more likely to result in a negative that has much of the detail up in the shoulder of the curve. In turn, he uses printing techniques that are oriented toward retrieving that detail from the shoulder compression that results.
He creates excellent prints, but he certainly has to work for them! Personally, I prefer to work more with the longer, straighter portion of the curve. I prefer the rendition that results, particularly of the mid-tones and the not overly compressed highlights.
It depends of course on your goal. If you prefer working up in the shoulder of the curve - you like well detailed shadows, compressed mid-tones and almost featureless highlights - then increased temperature will make it easier (or at least more convenient) to achieve your result through an increase of time.
Most of us prefer to balance the results - ideally detailed shadows, mid-tones and highlights in a perfect world. The films and developers are designed for that using a variety of time and temperature combinations.
The reason that Ilford shows curves for a variety of developers is that that information assists commercial processors who target particular contrast and have constraints imposed by the temperature control systems in their commercial processing machinery.
By the way, G most likely refers to Gamma.

Matt:

Thanks. FWIW, you are giving me far more than I'm worth here, but I thank you for trying to explain this. Looking at a def of Gamma, looks like I've been distracted by something that's not really material within the range of the chart relative to the 0 - 2.2 range. Imperceptible almost.
Okay. Looks like I'm going to have look for another factor to explain a "better", "new and improved" tonality that doesn't amount to "all the other shots were just poorly exposed and now you're nailing it". Cause that's possible, but not likely. I am using a Rolleiflex and I switched developers and exposure meters, and they all seem to be agreeing with me for some reason, but otherwise I'm buffaloed about why everything suddenly seems to be working. I've used good gear before, my technique didn't revolutionize, and I didn't lower my standards to suddenly "like" my stuff. The stuff is just better, and I thought I was on to it. Now I'm lost... but happy lost... and like to stay that way. Oddly, it wasn't just Delta 400, but the dial-in seemed to be coming together with TMY-2, as well once I switched to the TLR. Now it doesn't seem to mind what's the film or the camera... it's just better. Yes I'm more consistent. Yes... to a lot of things.... especially happy lost / confused.. and making some decent pictures. Beats the opposite. Does this happen to everybody?

JWMster said:

Looking at a def of Gamma, looks like I've been distracted by something that's not really material within the range of the chart relative to the 0 - 2.2 range. Imperceptible almost.
Okay. Looks like I'm going to have look for another factor to explain a "better", "new and improved" tonality that doesn't amount to "all the other shots were just poorly exposed and now you're nailing it".

Click to expand...

Well, considering that at 72-degrees F you will get more developing done in less time, you may have simply lucked into higher contrast and found that you like it.

Going back to your original post, that Jobo article does claim [ "better", "new and improved" tonality ] by virtue of the temperature change alone.

Bill: And that suggestion may either be true, or enough to make my eyes think it's true. Thanks, Bill.