Question about development times/temps.

[Ossifan]

Dear fellow forum members,

Would anyone here be able to provide me with recommended or tested development times using Panthermic 777 and the following two films?

Arista II 400
Fomopan 400

Unfortunately, the Massive Development Chart at Digitaltruth only has recommended time/temp for Tri-X. I can try to back into it using the numbers from the Frugal Photographer; however, if someone has already worked this out, I would be very grateful if you would share your information with me.

Thanks and regards,
Alex

 

[wogster]

Dear fellow forum members,

Would anyone here be able to provide me with recommended or tested development times using Panthermic 777 and the following two films?

Arista II 400
Fomopan 400

Unfortunately, the Massive Development Chart at Digitaltruth only has recommended time/temp for Tri-X. I can try to back into it using the numbers from the Frugal Photographer; however, if someone has already worked this out, I would be very grateful if you would share your information with me.

Thanks and regards,
Alex

Go back to the chart, find another developer that has both a Tri-X and your film time, compute the difference, then apply that to the time for Tri-X in your developer, to compute a rough time for your film in your developer.

This would give you a starting place, you would need to process a non-critical roll and then adjust the time. Times on the MDC are entered by users. Other darkroom users sometimes have various reasons for using a different time then one that would be best for you.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

The Frugal Photographer has a .pdf here that has times for Kodak films. Comparing on the MDC, Tri-X 400 (assuming 400) seems to be generally about 80% of the processing times compared to Arista II when considering temps, times and developer. Same, the Fomopan 400 seems only slightly longer than the TriX 400 times. I might try the 777 Panthermic with the Arista ii at about 14 minutes at 70F and the Fomopan at about 12.5 minutes same temp. As mentioned, start with a junker roll and go from there.

 

[Ossifan]

Thank you both - your advice is much appreciated.

Warm regards,
Alex

 

[df cardwell]

777 demands careful testing.

It was formulated in an era when a much higher density and contrast was common;
indeed Harvey was clear in numerous articles in the 1940's that the developer was designed to give a higher CI (our term, not his) than D-76. Without adequate development time, the tonal relationship will not work. Test your results by printing them !

 

[JLP]

Is Arista II not rebadged HP5+?
I develop HP5+ in Harvey's at 23C 11 minutes continuous agitation (Jobo) Exposed as iso 200

Hope this helps.

 

[Ossifan]

JLP - VERY helpful (especially if it's true!), thanks.

df cardwell - also very helpful and something I was afraid of, which is why I was hoping to cheat by benefitting from someone else's careful testing on these two films. Alas, it appears that I'll have to feel my way in the dark. (pun intended)

Cheers,
Alex

 

[df cardwell]

Alex

It is conventional today to evaluate negative exposure and development as it is evaluated in a film lab. See Beyond the Zone System, etc.

As with any convention, it is not the ONLY way to solve a problem. In Zone-speak, base your your exposures, with 777 (and many other older developers, including Rodinal) on Zone II, or III. Base your development times on Zone VII or VIII. And for goodness sake, judge the overall printability of the negative by PRINTING it. You may well find that Dektol is far too contrasty to manage the higher densities of 777. In other words, evaluating 777 as though you were using D76 will be frustrating.

Using Selectol or LPD or D52 will make give your paper a softer response and let you get at the goodness of the 777 curve.

 

[Larry Bullis]

So, Don, you've just explained why my tests with E12 gave me a development time of 12 minutes with one film, but when I printed the negatives, I was down to a 0 or 00 filter with MGWT. They were, however, printable, and had excellent scale. About 7:30 emerged through testing in actual use!

MW suggested in a workshop that we use a zone II break from the base to establish our exposure index, but my impression at the time was that it was due to the papers then (1965). The amount of silver in the papers had been reduced from those of the '30's and 40's, maybe even the '50's so that it was very difficult to see the difference between z0 and zI.

 

[Ossifan]

Don - thank you again. Of course I will print (I have a wet darkroom) and your Zone-speak advice is helpful and encouraging. It looks like I can't escape some testing and likely failure, but then how does one get better, really.

I appreciate everyone's help here - thanks for making the forum a great place for me.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[df cardwell]

Alex: just turn on some nice music and go play. You'll get your perfect negative in no time.

Larry (Bowzart): Ain't it just the way that revisiting Minor's advice keeps paying off ? And YOU'RE the one that reminded me about the Zone II target !

 

[Larry Bullis]

Y'know what they say about advancing age. Long term memory remains, but the short term goes.

It's awful hard to SEE a zone I separate from black. I check it with a densitometer and shoot for a Z1 of around 0.1, but the visual just doesn't work. It's hard to know whether it is the paper or film. I have an Ansco paper sample book of prints from the '40's. I don't often look at it because it makes me cry.

 

[Ossifan]

df cardwell: thank you! Dave Matthews and 777 here I go... ;-)