Ilford`s technical data sheets usually mention the use of ID-11 for the ISO of their films, based on practical evaluation and not foot speed as is the ISO standard. I`m not sure which developer(s) are used for speed evaluation by other manufacturers, but I have a book called "Photographic Sensitometry" by Hollis N Todd & Richard D Zakia. On page 47, there is mention of the use of a developer for the American Standard PH 2.5-1960 of which the formula is:
Air-Free distilled water = 500ml
Metol developing agent = 1.0 g
Sodium Sulphite ( anhydrous ) = 25.0 g
Hydroquinone = 2.0 g
Sodium Carbonate ( anhydrous ) = 3.0 g
Potassium Bromide = 0.38 g
More air-free distilled water to make 1 litre.
As said, any developer may be specified and the developer type will have an effect on yield, e.g. speed, grain etc although it may be less confusing if the manufacturers would agree on an ISO testing standard formula, something which I doubt will ever happen.
:confused:
Dear Keith,Ilford`s technical data sheets usually mention the use of ID-11 for the ISO of their films, based on practical evaluation and not foot speed as is the ISO standard. I`m not sure which developer(s) are used for speed evaluation by other manufacturers, but I have a book called "Photographic Sensitometry" by Hollis N Todd & Richard D Zakia. On page 47, there is mention of the use of a developer for the American Standard PH 2.5-1960 of which the formula is:
Air-Free distilled water = 500ml
Metol developing agent = 1.0 g
Sodium Sulphite ( anhydrous ) = 25.0 g
Hydroquinone = 2.0 g
Sodium Carbonate ( anhydrous ) = 3.0 g
Potassium Bromide = 0.38 g
More air-free distilled water to make 1 litre.
As said, any developer may be specified and the developer type will have an effect on yield, e.g. speed, grain etc although it may be less confusing if the manufacturers would agree on an ISO testing standard formula, something which I doubt will ever happen.
:confused:
Dear Jed,Right, any developer may be specified, but a certain developer has to be specified. For Ilford it can be ID 11, For Kodak D-76 for specific films. But, if another developer is more appropriate, another one can ce chosen. But it has to be chosen by the manufacturer. If a customer wants to use another developer for one or another reason he can do so.
Jed
Now that you`ve explained that bit about the ANSI developer yielding less than good results with otherwise very good films, it does make sense to provide data for processing the film in a well suited developer for that particular emulsion.Dear Keith,
The ANSI formula appears (unsurprisingly) in many places. The reason it was dropped is that it flattered some emulsions, while making other look less good than they were. This, to me, makes more sense than trying to force everyone to jump through a single restrictive hoop imposed by a single developer formula. The manufacturers agreed -- rightly, in my view -- to standardize a great deal, but not on the 'wrong' developer for a particular film. What is the advantage of specifying anything other than density, contrast and (perhaps) agitation?
D76/ID11 is the de facto standard, but this does not affect my basic observation: true ISO speed (fixed density and contrast) can and does vary, by well over one stop, according to choice of developer.
If I understand Ilford aright, they use EIs instead of ISO because that's what people want and (athough they are far too polite to say so) because lamentably few people understand what ISO speed means anyway.
Cheers,
R.
Now, careful here: if you process your film for its true speed in particular developer (say ISO 400), but get unprintable results it means your exposure was wrong. In your first case, if you set shutter speed and aperture combination according to amount of light available and film speed of ISO 400 you can expect good results. And in the second case, if you set shutter speed and aperture combination according to amount of light available and film speed of ISO 800 you can expect equally good results (modulo the difference in granularity and tonality). The difference is of course that in 2nd case you need twice less light available.
To re-iterate, using a speed enchancing developer is not the same as pushing. Pushing does not give you a faster film speed, it only makes mid-tones on negative dense enough to be printed or scanned.
OK, now I am again at start...
Thank you for patience with me varjag, but I still don't get it. Can you, or anybody, tell example, real life photo situation where increasing speed with developer need (or wanted) to be done, why and how. What are situation in which photographer choose he/she need to develop film in speed increasing developer and not in "regular" developer...
OK, now I am again at start...
Thank you for patience with me varjag, but I still don't get it. Can you, or anybody, tell example, real life photo situation where increasing speed with developer need (or wanted) to be done, why and how. What are situation in which photographer choose he/she need to develop film in speed increasing developer and not in "regular" developer...
You're making it harder than it needs to be. You use a speed increasing developer when you need more speed.
Why would you need more film speed? Because you don't have enough light otherwise to take the photograph that you want. That means general low light photography or perhaps a situation where you want more DOF (smaller aperture) or a faster shutter speed than the lighting conditions allow.
For instance, I often shoot handheld with my 4x5" Linhof Technika. My fastest lens is a 135/3.5 Planar, and that's not always the right lens for the job, so I shoot a film like Tri-X and develop in Acufine to get an EI of 640.
Shooting medium format indoors with available light, I usually want as fast a shutter speed as I can get with lenses that are no faster than f:2.8. For this purpose I shoot Tri-X 400 and rate it at EI 800 by developing in Acufine.
Could I acheive this speed with D-76? After all they list those "push" times on the instruction sheet. Not really. Extending development time with D-76 will push up the highlights and give me something printable, and some people might even like that "pushed" look, but I'd rather have a normal contrast neg with a full range of tones, so I use a speed increasing developer.
THANK YOU David and Roger!!!!!!!!
I thougt that in first place, but I was told what you David just described IS "pushing", and after that I was lost. Now it's clear. Finally...
Thanks again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?