Salgado Statement on using D-76 - what do you make of this?

Thank you to those who replied to my last thread, and as a result of that, I mixed up D-76d from raw chemistry and developed Tri-X with it, and I am going to try D-23 next. I haven't printed them yet, but the negs look good. This new post is on a similar theme and for anyone who has seen Sebastiao Salgado's amazing prints from 35mm Tri-X with his project 'Workers' and 'Migrations', this thread may interest you. He has fantastic printers who manage to extract shades of grey any lesser printer couldn't, so I don't think it is all to do with what film developer is used. However the developer that was used has always interested me.

I found this interview on the internet with Salgado, about his use, or his lab's use, of D-76 during his days of using film, mostly Tri-X but some P-3200 too. It is scant on detail, and his English isn't always the best, but from what he says here, his lab modified the formula of
D-76. He says:

"When I used films, it was necessary to produce a special developer for the films as I exposed them in a very special way. I always overexposed my negative and underdeveloped the film to have a negative very gray, to have all the details in the shadow. I photographed a lot against the light, and I have a lot of shadow areas. To have the data inside the shadow area, it was necessary to do a special development, and I used one Kodak developer called D-76. However, I made the developer myself and modified the formula of D-76 to have a different kind of negative - much grayer negative".

I can't believe he literally 'made the developer' himself, I think he means it was a bespoke developer made for him, but in any case, what do you think this 'special developer' could have been? How would modifying the formula of D-76 give 'more greys'??!! Is he talking about divided D-76 perhaps? Any thoughts?

Seems he is exposing for the shadow details, what Ansel Adams called N+, that sets the shadow at zone II or III, then reduces development time so as not to blow out the highlights zone VII. Without additional information it is difficult to know. In this case D76 works just as well as others who use the Zone System.. AA used D23, Edwal FG7 (long gone) a number of Ansco developers, and later in life HC 110. Those who follow Phil Davis Beyond the Zone System use a number of low contrast developers including one developed by Davis for Tmax 100. TirX is a very forgiving film, works well with high contrast scenes as does Tmax 400. I have used several divided developers over the years, Diafine, divided D76, Berry Thornton's version, in my experience if using a divided developer expose for Zone III, then follow directions, usually 3 to 4 mints in part A and part B. Salgado might also split print.

TomTX said:

Thank you to those who replied to my last thread, and as a result of that, I mixed up D-76d from raw chemistry and developed Tri-X with it, and I am going to try D-23 next. I haven't printed them yet, but the negs look good. This new post is on a similar theme and for anyone who has seen Sebastiao Salgado's amazing prints from 35mm Tri-X with his project 'Workers' and 'Migrations', this thread may interest you. He has fantastic printers who manage to extract shades of grey any lesser printer couldn't, so I don't think it is all to do with what film developer is used. However the developer that was used has always interested me.

I found this interview on the internet with Salgado, about his use, or his lab's use, of D-76 during his days of using film, mostly Tri-X but some P-3200 too. It is scant on detail, and his English isn't always the best, but from what he says here, his lab modified the formula of
D-76. He says:

"When I used films, it was necessary to produce a special developer for the films as I exposed them in a very special way. I always overexposed my negative and underdeveloped the film to have a negative very gray, to have all the details in the shadow. I photographed a lot against the light, and I have a lot of shadow areas. To have the data inside the shadow area, it was necessary to do a special development, and I used one Kodak developer called D-76. However, I made the developer myself and modified the formula of D-76 to have a different kind of negative - much grayer negative".

I can't believe he literally 'made the developer' himself, I think he means it was a bespoke developer made for him, but in any case, what do you think this 'special developer' could have been? How would modifying the formula of D-76 give 'more greys'??!! Is he talking about divided D-76 perhaps? Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's hard to say, but perhaps you could try writing to him directly. He himself may not know exactly what is chemically different, as the development is done by assistants. It could be simply dilution 1:1!

Basically he found an EI and development time for a particular film, in a modified developer. Like most of us. I'm sure his choice is EI and development time had more of an effect than modifying the developer...

The obvious thing to do is to try it?

It’s important info that he overexposes and underdevelops. That helps me understand his rich grays.

I don’t know what constituents he alters but many people mix their own D-76.

If Salgado explains more, I would be interested to know.

Like Bill Burk said, a lot of people make their own D-76. Kodak published the formula for it soon after they introduced it. Back then, most serious photographers preferred to mix their own chemicals, even if they were using formulas invented by chemists at big manufacturers like Kodak. Kodak made money anyway because they were a major maker of the various chemicals used to make developers. It was common in the past for camera stores to stock jars of metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, etc. for those who wanted to mix their own. There are still those who do this, and over the years a number of alternative D-76 formulas have been created and published both by Kodak and by photographers. Companies like Photographers Formulary sell the raw chemicals needed for DIY chemical mixing.

I don't know what Salgado uses. He may have modified the standard D-76 in some way, or he may be using one of the many alternative formulas that have been created since the original D-76 was introduced in 1927.

chriscrawfordphoto said:

Like Bill Burk said, a lot of people make their own D-76. Kodak published the formula for it soon after they introduced it. Back then, most serious photographers preferred to mix their own chemicals, even if they were using formulas invented by chemists at big manufacturers like Kodak. Kodak made money anyway because they were a major maker of the various chemicals used to make developers. It was common in the past for camera stores to stock jars of metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, etc. for those who wanted to mix their own. There are still those who do this, and over the years a number of alternative D-76 formulas have been created and published both by Kodak and by photographers. Companies like Photographers Formulary sell the raw chemicals needed for DIY chemical mixing.

I don't know what Salgado uses. He may have modified the standard D-76 in some way, or he may be using one of the many alternative formulas that have been created since the original D-76 was introduced in 1927.

Click to expand...

That's right, so just try it. Start what you do know: over-expose and pull-process. Salgado rarely did his own lab work -- Philippe Bachelier was one of his assistants, and did the lab work during Genesis.

Since the lab work had to be done beween people, Salgado probably worked in a very consistent way -- a whole roll at a time, not sheet film. So: the method is probably pretty consistent to be at all reliable between shooter and processor. Try.

I understand his developer of choice was ATM49 now sold as ADOX 49.

miha said:

I understand his developer of choice was ATM49 now sold as ADOX 49.

Click to expand...

Agfa Atomal and May & Baker Promicrol used the same developing agent 2 (beta-hydroxyethyl) aminophenol sulphate, which was manufactured in Russia for use in a non photographic process, when that process ceased it was no longer financially viable to manufacture. Both developers were reformulated.

Both developers have similar properties, finer grain than D76 and no speed loss. I did use Promicrol around 1970.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Agfa Atomal and May & Baker Promicrol used the same developing agent 2 (beta-hydroxyethyl) aminophenol sulphate, which was manufactured in Russia for use in a non photographic process, when that process ceased it was no longer financially viable to manufacture. Both developers were reformulated.

Both developers have similar properties, finer grain than D76 and no speed loss. I did use Promicrol around 1970.

Ian

Click to expand...

When did the reformulation take place? I guess Salgado already used the "newer" version.

I believe that James Ravilious did something similar. He down rated his films by a stop and used the developer 1+2 for the standard 1+1 times.
I can't remember if it was D76 or Perceptol.

miha said:

I understand his developer of choice was ATM49 now sold as ADOX 49

Click to expand...

I think the ATM 49 relates to the period he switched to medium format for the Genesis project before he switched to digital.

Bill Burk said:

It’s important info that he overexposes and underdevelops. That helps me understand his rich grays.

I don’t know what constituents he alters but many people mix their own D-76.

If Salgado explains more, I would be interested to know.

Click to expand...

Paul Howell said:

Seems he is exposing for the shadow details, what Ansel Adams called N+, that sets the shadow at zone II or III, then reduces development time so as not to blow out the highlights zone VII. Without additional information it is difficult to know. In this case D76 works just as well as others who use the Zone System.. AA used D23, Edwal FG7 (long gone) a number of Ansco developers, and later in life HC 110. Those who follow Phil Davis Beyond the Zone System use a number of low contrast developers including one developed by Davis for Tmax 100. TirX is a very forgiving film, works well with high contrast scenes as does Tmax 400. I have used several divided developers over the years, Diafine, divided D76, Berry Thornton's version, in my experience if using a divided developer expose for Zone III, then follow directions, usually 3 to 4 mints in part A and part B. Salgado might also split print.

Click to expand...

Did you ever get the problem with bromide drag/streaking with divided developers? I tried Tetenal Emofin, and Divided D-76 and Diafine and all of them gave bromide drag after the first use, this was for 35mm Tri-X. I gave up with divided devs after that! I don't doubt for a moment that Salgado's printers use more than one grade on a print, they also selectively bleached areas of the print to bring out detail in the shadows.

TomTX said:

Did you ever get the problem with bromide drag/streaking with divided developers? I tried Tetenal Emofin, and Divided D-76 and Diafine and all of them gave bromide drag after the first use, this was for 35mm Tri-X. I gave up with divided devs after that!

Click to expand...

Yes occasionally in the past with Tri-x and Emofin, but I suspect I was trying to develop too many films with one batch of developer. Never with Barry Thornton's two-bath and Ilford films.

Andrew O'Neill said:

Basically he found an EI and development time for a particular film, in a modified developer. Like most of us. I'm sure his choice is EI and development time had more of an effect than modifying the developer...

Click to expand...

Surely we also need to know how he metered the scene, especially shooting against the light?

I suspect his idiomatic English makes that description above seem a little mysterious, but without a clearer description there's no guarantee that he approached everything in a logical way.

Results are good, though, I grant you.

Just chucking this out there, but wouldn’t David Kachel’s SLIMT (selective latent image manipulation technique) be better?

This would lift the shadows a bit, and because negatives are given normal development time in normal developer dilution with normal agitation after the SLIMT solution, the shadows would have near normal contrast.

The highlights, however, are *proportionally* effected by SLIMT, where the highest high tones are brought back towards normal contrast more so than tones a little above middle grey.

If I was printing his negatives, that’s what I’d be campaigning for.

snusmumriken said:

Surely we also need to know how he metered the scene, especially shooting against the light?

I suspect his idiomatic English makes that description above seem a little mysterious, but without a clearer description there's no guarantee that he approached everything in a logical way.

Results are good, though, I grant you.

Click to expand...

Well, naturally... and yes his results are very good...

Paul Howell said:

Seems he is exposing for the shadow details, what Ansel Adams called N+, that sets the shadow at zone II or III, then reduces development time so as not to blow out the highlights zone VII.

Click to expand...

Bill Burk said:

It’s important info that he overexposes and underdevelops. That helps me understand his rich grays.

Click to expand...

snusmumriken said:

Surely we also need to know how he metered the scene, especially shooting against the light?

Click to expand...

N+1 in the classic Zone System is developing more than "normal" (not less, as Salgado does). It has nothing to do with exposure. In the Zone System, exposure is based on a shadow value. Salgado likely used an in-camera meter or some other kind of averaging meter. "Overexposing" with such a meter in contrasty situations compensates for the meter's tendency to underexpose in such situations, in essence getting the shadow exposure close to where a Zone System practitioner would have placed it in the first place.

This whole parlance of "overexpose and underdevelop" for contrasty situations is really just a down-and-dirty way of getting the correct shadow exposure with an averaging meter in contrasty situations. It's typical lingo of small-camera users and probably easier to apply to their metering situations and faster-paced way of working than basing exposure on a shadow value. Any good Zone System practitioner has "rich grays" if they want.

Likewise, "pull-processing" is similar, but not as precise as, Zone System contractions. "Pulling a stop" is basically N-1. "Pushing" is analogous to Zone System expansions; again, just not as precise.

No one thinks it's magic when a ZS user says, "I metered for the shadows, checked the highlights and saw that what I wanted in Zone VIII fell in Zone IX, so I gave N-1 development."

However, I think what Salgado is doing is working hard to get a negative with all the "data" in it he can, which ends up a bit flat and somewhat overexposed. This gets the shadows and midtones well up onto the straight line portion of the Tri-X 400 film he was likely using so the shadow separation isn't affected by the toe. Then contrast is ramped up in the printing. Looking at his work, I see a lot of soft light, not only the contrasty situations he mentions. However, I think he really wanted separation in the midtones and shadows, which led to his ensuring adequate exposure there. It would be interesting to know how his work was printed.

Whatever developer he used, I think it was likely a bit compensating, which helps boost the shadow and midtone contrast in realation to the highlights, which gets developed proportionally less (I see a lot of edge effects too, which points to compensation). It may have been D-76 with a different alkalai and higher dilution than normal.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love his work and the look of his prints. I suspect that has more to do with finding the right personal E.I. and "normal" development for what he does with whatever developer he used and then really great printing.


Best,

Doremus

snusmumriken said:

Surely we also need to know how he metered the scene, especially shooting against the light?

Click to expand...

Or even see what he is referring to "much greyer negatives

pentaxuser

miha said:

When did the reformulation take place? I guess Salgado already used the "newer" version.

Click to expand...

Somewhere around 25 years ago. It was a very versatile developer, it could be used dilute one shot, or self replenished.

M&B used to have multi page photocopied data sheets, I think I still have one for the original Promicrol. M&B used to synthesise b&w and colour developing agents, and produce chemistry, these days that part of the group is Champion. The newer Promicrol is quite different.

Agfa though chose to use what is effectively a colour developing agent in their reformulated Atomal, so it's much closer to the original, Promicrol sales were very much lower so it was cheaper to reformulate as a PQ developer.

Ian

It's all in the past now. S Salgado has been photographing digitally for years now.

I've met Salgado and I think he is talking crap to hype up his MO of film images.

Maybe he's using the D-76 that totally omits the hydroquinone and only uses Metol...

TomTX said:

Did you ever get the problem with bromide drag/streaking with divided developers? I tried Tetenal Emofin, and Divided D-76 and Diafine and all of them gave bromide drag after the first use, this was for 35mm Tri-X. I gave up with divided devs after that! I don't doubt for a moment that Salgado's printers use more than one grade on a print, they also selectively bleached areas of the print to bring out detail in the shadows.

Click to expand...

I nearly always use Kodak brand D-76 1:1 so never have any issues with anything

The magic of giving film greater exposure than the film requires is that you don’t have to bleach shadows. If there is something in the shadows you only need to dodge to bring out detail in the negative that is normally printed down to black.