Paper development times

[bonk]

I have really never given the development time of the photographic paper much thought.

So far I always used the development time that was suggested by the manufacturer as the minimum time and I took the paper out of the developer after that time or if the developer was used a bit, after I could not see the image getting darker anymore.

But after reading the chapter „Factorial Development“ in „The Print“ by Ansel Adams it occurred to me that it may actually be important to get the development time of photographic paper in the first tray as correct as possible. In that chapter he writes about how to adjust the development time based on the changing emergence time of some key part of the image while it develops.

Now my question is: Can it influence the overall print quality if the paper is in the developer for too long? How long is too long how long is exactly right?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like Dektol because I standardized at 2 minutes for development, thus eliminating one variable. That leaves exposure times, filter times, dodging and burning with various filters, ... more than enough to play with not even considering the variables added with forms of masking.

 

[GregY]

I''m not much of a numbers guy. Paper ages & I use a variety of papers. I mostly use Ansco (Formulary) 130 or LPD. I take 2min as my starting point and often develop to completion... & in winter time even with a heater and tempering the developer in a bigger tray full of 20C water...i leave my prints in the developer longer. If i got my exposure time right then 2-3.5 minutes. & as an aside the emergence time varies from paper to paper brand.

 

[Pieter12]

I develop all the Ilford papers, RC & fiber for 3 minutes. If the exposure is correct, overdevelopment has never been a factor. I few professional printers I know either will develop as long as 7 minutes or at higher temperatures, like 78-80º for really deep blacks.

 

[bonk]

and often develop to completion

What does „completion“ actually mean? How can I tell that the development is „complete“?

 

[Pieter12]

What does „completion“ actually mean? How can I tell that the development is „complete“?

The blacks have reached their maximum.

 

[MattKing]

To a significant extent, prints are developed to completion, and once the print is so developed, it won't change very much unless it is developed for a much longer time, when unwanted fog becomes an issue.
Factorial development is a method for ensuring consistency in achieving complete development, and is primarily used to compensate for the reduction of activity of developer as more and more prints go through it.

 

[MattKing]

What does „completion“ actually mean? How can I tell that the development is „complete“?

When leaving the print in there for another minute makes little or no difference to how the print looks.

 

[bonk]

Factorial development is a method for ensuring consistency in achieving complete development, and is primarily used to compensate for the reduction of activity of developer as more and more prints go through it.

If that is the case why invent such a complicated technique. Why not just develop the print „until completion“ that is until the blacks have reached their maximum? Is it because Ansel Adams developed his prints emulsion side down and couldn’t look at the prints while they develop (maybe to rule out any fog from safe lights)? Or was he just a total control freak and numbers guy?

When I read this thread correctly, there is not much danger in keeping the print in the developer just a little longer (unless going extreme).

So why bother with the somewhat complicated factorial system it’s measurement and calculation?

 

[MattKing]

Factorial development makes most sense in a multi-print workflow, when you are trying to make several prints one after another from the same negative, and you need them all to match.
It also adds benefit when you are working with larger, fibre prints. In those conditions, the activity of developer can change quite quickly over very few prints, due to developer exhaustion and developer carry-over.
Finally, it helps when you make some prints in one session, and then want to save the developer and re-use it in the next session - it helps you achieve consistency in your efforts to achieve effectively complete development in reasonable times.

 

[albada]

If that is the case why invent such a complicated technique. Why not just develop the print „until completion“ that is until the blacks have reached their maximum? Is it because Ansel Adams developed his prints emulsion side down and couldn’t look at the prints while they develop (maybe to rule out any fog from safe lights)? Or was he just a total control freak and numbers guy?

When I read this thread correctly, there is not much danger in keeping the print in the developer just a little longer (unless going extreme).

So why bother with the somewhat complicated factorial system it’s measurement and calculation?

As Matt said above, it's because AA wanted a batch of prints to look identical. "Completion" is subjective, and would not provide the desired consistency.
But here's an idea I just had:

1. Create a small print that is solid black. Develop and fix it. You only need to do this once.

2. Every time you develop a print, also put the black print (made above) into the developer, and every few seconds, shine a red light on both to compare densities of black. Then you will know when your print has reached D-max.

Has anyone tried this? BTW, use the CD-test to make sure your red light emits no green or blue.

Mark Overton

 

[xkaes]

You can use the manufacturer's recommendation, or what "some other guy" says, or do what Richard Henry (Controls in Black & White Photography) advised -- do your own tests. It depends on what materials you are using -- and that is different for everyone.


http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/henry2.htm

 

[gone]

Ansel Adams was extremely exacting. I suppose he had to be using the LF cameras. For all intents and purposes, and for us mortals (and less anal types) it's what Matt said: You're not going to see any difference in the print by leaving it in the developer longer. I tried this a few times and it always came out this way.

 

[Pieter12]

Ansel Adams was extremely exacting. I suppose he had to be using the LF cameras. For all intents and purposes, and for us mortals (and less anal types) it's what Matt said: You're not going to see any difference in the print by leaving it in the developer longer. I tried this a few times and it always came out this way.

But you will see a difference if you don't leave the paper in the developer long enough. So I tend to err on the side of more time.

 

[pentaxuser]

When I read this thread correctly, there is not much danger in keeping the print in the developer just a little longer (unless going extreme).

So why bother with the somewhat complicated factorial system it’s measurement and calculation?

I think from your point of view the answer is that you don't have to bother. I have always stuck to the manufacturer's time, give or take a few seconds and have never noticed a difference in development of the prints

You need to change the developer in a tray after each session anyway unless the next session is say within less than 24 hours and unless you are a prolific printer on piecework for many hours, it is unlikely that the developer will have processed enough prints to affect the blacks

In the words of the song "Don't worry , be happy

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

William Mortensen advocated very long development times. I experimented with 9 minutes in Dektol 1:2

His claim is high values become more “plastic”. I won’t say he was right, but the prints were satisfying

 

[koraks]

So why bother with the somewhat complicated factorial system it’s measurement and calculation?

Some arguments have already been given, but I think there's one more. Adams (and many others) did small contrast optimizations by tailoring the development of graded paper. You'll notice he gives formulas for a high and a low contrast paper developer and within this concept, it's fitting that he would also maintain control over paper development time. For instance, when trying to get yet a bit more 'oomph' from a print on let's say grade 4 paper, you don't want to develop on the short side because your developer happens to be running on its last legs. And vice versa.

Personally I don't bother with all this and usually mix my paper developer nice and strong so I get complete development in 45 to 60 seconds on RC and within 90 sec max. on fiber. Contrast adjustment is done through green/blue light and burning & dodging.

 

[Ian Grant]

To a significant extent, prints are developed to completion, and once the print is so developed, it won't change very much unless it is developed for a much longer time, when unwanted fog becomes an issue.
Factorial development is a method for ensuring consistency in achieving complete development, and is primarily used to compensate for the reduction of activity of developer as more and more prints go through it.

This is not really true, ideally you process so the deepest shadows reach Dmax plus a little extra, that's usually 2 mins @ 20ºC, it's important to be consistent. That's with Bromide papers, over development just starts loss of delicate highlights, muddies mid-tones and shadow details.

With Warm-tone papers development time has a large effect on image colour/warmth, over development produces colder tones, shorter times increase the warmth.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

When I read this thread correctly, there is not much danger in keeping the print in the developer just a little longer (unless going extreme).

So why bother with the somewhat complicated factorial system it’s measurement and calculation?

When I'm printing exhibition prints, and/or a number of prints off the same negative, a change in development time makes a noticeable difference. 25% extra makes a significant change, but even 10% extra can be subtlety different, and the changes are less noticeable while wet and more pronounced after drying and dry down effects.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

Phil Davis in his first edition of Beyond the Zone System claims that extending development of prints has little impact on the final image. I tend to agree, others have stated the opposite, that leaving a print in the developer longer than the recommended time deepens blacks. I keep my prints face down in the developer to lessen any safe light fog, so I use a set time. In terms of batch processing, I use a paper drum, single shot of developer that is discarded, same time for every print.

 

[warden]

I follow Ilford's RC paper recommendation of 1 minute for the Multigrade 1+9 developer I use, and do not stray from that. If black isn't achieved I adjust the enlarger settings or contrast. I don't want to add developing time to the variables that I'm juggling.