Properly developed?

[Harry Lime]

How do you determine if your negatives are properly developed?

Over the years I have judged them by eye, but now am curious what the scientific method would involve. Is it time to get a densitometer?

Thanks,

Harry Lime

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you want to measure these things with a densitometer, then read Ansel Adams' _The Negative_ or Phil Davis' _Beyond the Zone System_ for a couple of different approaches to measuring and to using that information.

If you want to do it without a densitometer, then look at your negs on a light table, and see if you have adequate shadow detail where you want it. If not, then you're underexposing, and should rate your film at a lower speed.

Once you've settled on a film speed that gives you enough shadow detail, contact print your negs at the minimum time for the maximum black (or near maximum, some would argue) in the blank areas of the negative, and look at the highlights. If they are blown out, reduce development time. If the images are flat, then increase development time.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

How do you determine if your negatives are properly developed?

Over the years I have judged them by eye, but now am curious what the scientific method would involve. Is it time to get a densitometer?

Thanks,

Harry Lime

You determine if your negatives are developed properly by printing them. Getting the exposure right is the main concern. If the negatives are too hard they`re over developed and if too soft, they`re under developed although the lighting conditions make a significant difference. A subject photographed on a bright sunny day will print more vigorously than one taken on an overcast day. The grade of paper should be chosen carefully to obtain the optimum tones.
Judging a negative by eye comes with practice and experience but is best judged by how well it prints.

 

[jim appleyard]

All of the above! Plus, your negs should print on grade 2 or 3, or the equivalent on variable contrast paper (the instructions with each paper are a bit different) with a minimum of dodging and burning. Your prints should show as much range from black to gray to white as possible.

 

[df cardwell]

They should literally fall out of the enlarger and print up so easily and well you cry all night.

You don't need a densitometer unless you want to make film testing a hobby. Then when would you shoot ?

.

 

[Gerald Koch]

To minimize grain with 35mm films your negatives should be developed to print on grade 3 paper or equivalent VC filter.

 

[flogger]

I normall follow manufacturers instructions for darkroom work. However I recently discovered that contrasty negs scan better, perhaps it's my scanner, who knows?

www.northernskies.piczo.com

 

[Harry Lime]

Sounds like what I've been doing for the past 8-10 years, is on the right track.
;-)

One more question.

Does XTOL strip the backing off of film as Rodinal does?
Is the clearbase of your xtol negs a medium steelgray or mostly clear?

thanks

Feli

 

[fhovie]

I have given a lot of thought to the idea of "properly developed" Properly developed is where development time delivers the inteded range of densities for the exposure given. Thus said - film speed and expansion and contration factor heavily into the excersize. I would think that nominal film speed is the exposure and develpment required to put a full range of zones in a scene to the full range of paper. If you must use grade 3 (I do not) that would be a density range from BF to 1.0 + BF. To record something at zone 2 and something at zone 8 or 9. This will render most scenes accuratly from viewfinder to print. Including shadow and highlight detail. In most situations, this will yield a flat print. I generally try to get most of the scene into the whole range of the paper. That usually means slightly less exposure and slightyly more development. (I usually use a lower speed film for expansion like FP4) I usually use a higher speed film for full range scenes. (TRI-X)

If I suspect a failure in the process - like bad developer - I inspect the printing on the edge of the film. My normal processing will make the lettering a deep grey. Push processing makes them an opaque black. If it is a thin grey (0.4 density) I may suspect a development problem. Having a densitomer and doing film testing will teach you more about your process in just a few rolls than a lifetime of Kentucky windage.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The reason to target for grade three with 35mm is that a thinner neg is a less grainy neg. I shoot very little 35mm B&W anymore, so I usually target to grade 2 (medium and large format), unless I'm using a high-speed developer that tends to produce grainy results that I would want to minimize.

 

[df cardwell]

There are two schools of thought... that is TWO, not one... about proper development.

To grain-a-phobic ( filter my bias if you wish ) photographers, who want ultimate sharpness and minimal grain, you give minimal exposure and sufficient development to print on Grade 3 paper. This is a hang-over theory from the days of Super XX, when grain really interfered with the image, and photojournalists preferred pushing Plus X to shooting Super XX. That was, oh, maybe 1949 or so.

The enlightened view is that we take 35mm into marginal light, split second, once in a lifetime situations and it is far better to give generous exposure and minimal development so that failures ( due to exposure ) are rare. With contemporary films, like the latest incarnation of Tri X, TMY and goodness gracious, TMX, every film and developer combination is fine grained, and the only inexcusable error is to miss the picture.

Comparing the results of the 2 schools of thought, a devoted grade 3 shooter can produce dazzling prints much of the time. Using this technique is like throwing darts and trying to hit the outer 1/8" of the board. A small error, and you're off the board.

The school of generous exposure holds that if you aim for the middle of the usable range of the negative, you have to screw up to a monumental level to approach a bad negative.

Using TMY with Xtol, it is child's play to make exhibition quality 16x20s that graitify tough clients. Even the much maligned combination of Tri X and Rodinal is 16x20 sized portraits if you've troubled to make an interesting portrait. Yes, you can see the grain if you look for it, and nobody but a pedigreed grain sniffer will ever look for it.

In short, if you get the adequate shadow detail for your pictures, and if you seldom lose an image to underexposure, you are giving the right exposure. If you find that you are split filtering, burning and dodging, maybe the development and exposure are not working together.

Finally, there are films that can either give long scale highlights or short scale, depending on the developer. If you use HC110 because it is some sort of cosmic bliss pot, but you are always burning in the hot highlights in the image, maybe you should switch to Xtol, because HC110 is meant to make highlights run brilliant, or hot. Xtol cools off highlights, on the other hand. If you are using Xtol, and always trying to put some zip into the brights, go to Aculux or Rodinal, or even HC110, which are progressive steps up the bright highlight ladder.

In other words, if the pictures you make suit you, you're there. Go shoot. If you're struggling, always adding some trick or method after the fact to salvage a picture, you're NOT there.

good luck, and remember... no densitometer.

.

 

[avandesande]

I have 'reference negatives' that i can eyeball next to new negatives and get an idea of how decent they are. The reference negatives have tonality that I like and print well.

The other reason people chase 'grade 3' is because the callier effect is worse in denser/high contrast negatives. The callier effect is the scatter of light, which will make your highlights look blocked out, even if the detail is in the negative.

 

[Harry Lime]

thanks everyone


Harry Lime