-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Short roll develop
-
A
- Thread starter rufusm
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI Chemicals
- Started by Beevo
-
Sold FREE for Shipping, 4 rolls of Kodachrome 120
- Started by Roseha
-
For Sale Cable release with adapter
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
Want to Buy Konica film, preferably pro 400
- Started by Warmaji
-
For Sale FS: Bossy Turtle 4x5 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
bobwysiwyg
Allowing Ads
No, if you are referring to affects of doing this on the ten images.
MattKing
Moderator
What developer and what dilution are you using?
Shorter rolls may permit you to use less stock/concentrate.
For example, if you use HC110 dilution H, a full roll may need a minimum volume of 380ml of dilute working solution in order to have enough concentrate (6 ml) in the mix, whereas a 20 exposure roll might only need a minimum volume of 250ml?? of dilute working solution in order to have enough concentrate (4 ml??) in the mix.
Assuming of course that 250ml is enough to cover the film.
Shorter rolls may permit you to use less stock/concentrate.
For example, if you use HC110 dilution H, a full roll may need a minimum volume of 380ml of dilute working solution in order to have enough concentrate (6 ml) in the mix, whereas a 20 exposure roll might only need a minimum volume of 250ml?? of dilute working solution in order to have enough concentrate (4 ml??) in the mix.
Assuming of course that 250ml is enough to cover the film.
Thanks Matt, I'm using Ilfosol 3 1+9/HP5+ 300ml. Aside from maximizing developer I was wondering more about the effects that developing a short roll might have on the negatives. Moving forward I am finishing off the Ilfosol 3 and going back to D76/ID-11 and I assume is should be fine for short roll development. As I noted above I will be rolling film to give around 15 exposures, does this seem odd or do I need to adjust anything in process as I am under the impression that less frames will receive 'more' fresh developer during it's time in the soup.
Ronald Moravec
Allowing Ads
Absolutely not. That is my calibration procedure.
You can not save the developer if one shot. Start anew.
You can not save the developer if one shot. Start anew.
2F/2F
Allowing Ads
Theoretically, there will be a difference in results between developing 10 shots and 36 shots in the same amount of chemistry at the same working dilution. In practice, I don't think it will be a very big difference unless you are using highly dilute working solutions that contain close-to the amount of minimum developing agent necessary to completely develop the film. In this highly diluted case, the short roll would be notably higher in contrast, as the other 26 shots would not be there sucking as much activity out of the developer as they do in a 36-shot roll. The same thing happens in more standard dilutions, but the difference is very mild. Even when developing the full roll in these cases, there is plenty of surplus activity left in the developer when you dump it. Because of this, when using more standard dilutions, development rate does not slow as much as it does with more dilute developers as developing time passes.
As an example, look at some info about HC-110 developer. Used at the most common dilution, B (1:31 concentrate to water and 1:7 stock to water), and using 240 mL of working solution for one roll of 35 mm film, you end up with nearly 8 mL of concentrate in your developer bath (approximately 7.8 mL). Kodak states that at least 6 mL per roll ought to be used. They state that the average roll of film exhausts about 4 mL of this 6, leaving 2 mL of surplus concentrate per roll, or a 50 percent safety net.
Most people who have done tests will tell you that the minimums stated by photo manufacturers can almost always be safely halved, and full development will be reached. I fully agree with this. 5 mL of Rodinal is more than enough to develop the film completely IME, even though Agfa recommended a 10 mL minimum, just as 3 mL of HC-110 concentrate is enough, even though Kodak recommend 6 mL.
So, speaking of developing a whole roll of 36-shot film using dilution B, you easily meet Kodak's minimums for the amount of concentrate that must be in the working solution. You have over twice as much concentrate in the bath as is used up by a typical roll of film. This large surplus of extra concentrate keeps the developing rate relatively constant throughout the time of development.
Now, let's look at an "unofficial" HC-110 dilution that is used by a good deal of people. It is 1:63 concentrate to water (1:15 stock to water), and is usually called "dilution H." In your 240 mL of developer, this gives you 3.75 mL of concentrate. This is much closer to the real-world minimum needed to completely develop a roll.
Don't be a afraid of using this dilution, though. It will work just fine. It just leaves much less surplus concentrate beyond that which is needed than does dilution B. For example, given that in the real world, you need 3 mL of concentrate to fully develop an average roll, the surplus you have with dilution B is nearly 5 mL, or about 1-2/3 times the amount of concentrate that you need. As was mentioned previously, this large surplus keeps developing rate very constant throughout the developing time, because when developer poops out, there is plenty left to move in and take its place. However, with dilution H, the surplus is only 0.75 mL, or 1/4 times the minimum; in other words, with dilution H, you have about 6x more surplus developer than you have with dilution B. Because of this, much less developer moves in to "cover" the partially used developer, thus development rate decreases more than it does in dilution B, as development time passes. To say this another way, the effect of time on contrast loses a notable degree of the linearity that is achieved with stronger mixes of working solution.
So, take your 1/3 roll of 35mm film and put it through the same analysis. If you need 3 mL to develop an average roll of film in the real word, then you only need 1 mL to develop 1/3 of a roll.
In dilution B, you thus have nearly 7 mL of surplus developer, and nearly 8x more concentrate than you need to fully develop the roll.
In dilution H, you have 2.75 mL of surplus developer, or 2.75x more concentrate than you need to fully develop the roll.
As you can see, with dilution B, you have many more times the surplus concentrate than you have with dilution H. However, even in dilution H, you end up with a higher percentage of surplus developer than you had using dilution B with a full roll. Thus, you have linearity of development rate that is at least equal to what you had with a full roll in dilution B; this is significantly more linear than what you get when developing the full roll in dilution H. Therefore, at a given time in dilution H, you will have more contrast with 1/3 of a roll than you will with a full roll, because development time's affect on contrast in more linear when processing the 1/3 roll than it is with the full roll.
With dilution B, however, both the full roll and the 1/3 roll have plenty of surplus, so both lead to a fairly linear relationship of development time to negative contrast. You don't get nearly as much, if any, difference in linearity between the two.
Just a long winded way to explain what I originally wrote.
As an example, look at some info about HC-110 developer. Used at the most common dilution, B (1:31 concentrate to water and 1:7 stock to water), and using 240 mL of working solution for one roll of 35 mm film, you end up with nearly 8 mL of concentrate in your developer bath (approximately 7.8 mL). Kodak states that at least 6 mL per roll ought to be used. They state that the average roll of film exhausts about 4 mL of this 6, leaving 2 mL of surplus concentrate per roll, or a 50 percent safety net.
Most people who have done tests will tell you that the minimums stated by photo manufacturers can almost always be safely halved, and full development will be reached. I fully agree with this. 5 mL of Rodinal is more than enough to develop the film completely IME, even though Agfa recommended a 10 mL minimum, just as 3 mL of HC-110 concentrate is enough, even though Kodak recommend 6 mL.
So, speaking of developing a whole roll of 36-shot film using dilution B, you easily meet Kodak's minimums for the amount of concentrate that must be in the working solution. You have over twice as much concentrate in the bath as is used up by a typical roll of film. This large surplus of extra concentrate keeps the developing rate relatively constant throughout the time of development.
Now, let's look at an "unofficial" HC-110 dilution that is used by a good deal of people. It is 1:63 concentrate to water (1:15 stock to water), and is usually called "dilution H." In your 240 mL of developer, this gives you 3.75 mL of concentrate. This is much closer to the real-world minimum needed to completely develop a roll.
Don't be a afraid of using this dilution, though. It will work just fine. It just leaves much less surplus concentrate beyond that which is needed than does dilution B. For example, given that in the real world, you need 3 mL of concentrate to fully develop an average roll, the surplus you have with dilution B is nearly 5 mL, or about 1-2/3 times the amount of concentrate that you need. As was mentioned previously, this large surplus keeps developing rate very constant throughout the developing time, because when developer poops out, there is plenty left to move in and take its place. However, with dilution H, the surplus is only 0.75 mL, or 1/4 times the minimum; in other words, with dilution H, you have about 6x more surplus developer than you have with dilution B. Because of this, much less developer moves in to "cover" the partially used developer, thus development rate decreases more than it does in dilution B, as development time passes. To say this another way, the effect of time on contrast loses a notable degree of the linearity that is achieved with stronger mixes of working solution.
So, take your 1/3 roll of 35mm film and put it through the same analysis. If you need 3 mL to develop an average roll of film in the real word, then you only need 1 mL to develop 1/3 of a roll.
In dilution B, you thus have nearly 7 mL of surplus developer, and nearly 8x more concentrate than you need to fully develop the roll.
In dilution H, you have 2.75 mL of surplus developer, or 2.75x more concentrate than you need to fully develop the roll.
As you can see, with dilution B, you have many more times the surplus concentrate than you have with dilution H. However, even in dilution H, you end up with a higher percentage of surplus developer than you had using dilution B with a full roll. Thus, you have linearity of development rate that is at least equal to what you had with a full roll in dilution B; this is significantly more linear than what you get when developing the full roll in dilution H. Therefore, at a given time in dilution H, you will have more contrast with 1/3 of a roll than you will with a full roll, because development time's affect on contrast in more linear when processing the 1/3 roll than it is with the full roll.
With dilution B, however, both the full roll and the 1/3 roll have plenty of surplus, so both lead to a fairly linear relationship of development time to negative contrast. You don't get nearly as much, if any, difference in linearity between the two.
Just a long winded way to explain what I originally wrote.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you elaborate on your calibration procedure in regards to my short roll question and I have no intention of reusing one shot.
I know you are all on the edge of your seats on how rufusm's short roll turned out...mother (neg) and baby (print) are doing just fine. 
The negatives printed as normal for my liking, grade 3-3 1/2 with no visible differences. Hey 2F/2F, nice repost and thanks for the info, I haven't used HC-110 since I used to slosh around 4x5's. Never tried it for 35mm or mf though.
I have noticed in this forum there are many 'big brains' and by all means please continue your 'long winded way' to expand your points, thanks. Good forum.
The negatives printed as normal for my liking, grade 3-3 1/2 with no visible differences. Hey 2F/2F, nice repost and thanks for the info, I haven't used HC-110 since I used to slosh around 4x5's. Never tried it for 35mm or mf though.
I have noticed in this forum there are many 'big brains' and by all means please continue your 'long winded way' to expand your points, thanks. Good forum.
Ronald Moravec
Allowing Ads
My test subject is MacBeth color patches, an 18 step stepwedge, a doll with linen white blouse & black pleated skirt all set on a peice of heavily textured black wool.
The idea is to expose enough to get detail in the wool, skirt, and dark steps of the step wedge.
Then develope so the whites separate and are not grey. Short development gets grey whites, over development gets no detail and light tones merge. Always print the blacks to black as the enlarger exposure. Develope to whites correct.
If everything is correct, this prints on #2 paper with no burn or dodge.
Any subject with detailed blacks and textured whites will work. Say a white stucco house with black shutters.
I usually make 6 exposures and cut if off in the dark and develope it. Then print.
That is my calibration. If I take portraits or landscapes, they all print the same.
Been doing this for 40+years and only the target has improved. I started with only the wedge and that does work ok. Be sure to allow for bellows factor when exposing up close. 1/2 stop for 35 mm, 1 stop for 4x5.
The idea is to expose enough to get detail in the wool, skirt, and dark steps of the step wedge.
Then develope so the whites separate and are not grey. Short development gets grey whites, over development gets no detail and light tones merge. Always print the blacks to black as the enlarger exposure. Develope to whites correct.
If everything is correct, this prints on #2 paper with no burn or dodge.
Any subject with detailed blacks and textured whites will work. Say a white stucco house with black shutters.
I usually make 6 exposures and cut if off in the dark and develope it. Then print.
That is my calibration. If I take portraits or landscapes, they all print the same.
Been doing this for 40+years and only the target has improved. I started with only the wedge and that does work ok. Be sure to allow for bellows factor when exposing up close. 1/2 stop for 35 mm, 1 stop for 4x5.
Since getting back into this, of late I have been getting the exposure 'correct' in camera, then going the enlarger/mg filter route where by I expose for my whites and use filtration to deal with the blacks and mid tones.
I've been using HP5+ at box speed with ilford suggestions for process. To get the blacks you get at grade 2, I need grade 3-3 1/2, what are the benefits in calibrating to grade 2 where in my process contrast it to my liking?
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |