- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,039
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Most of us are aware that development-time of negatives should be adjusted based on temperature. And Ilford has a table of such times which are based on the assumption that time must be decreased by 8.8% per degree-C of temperature-rise.
The correction is 8.8% per degree for Ilford's *film*.
You may want to google for 'proportional development'. It's a way to determine the overall paper development time by timing the first appearance of light mid-tones and using that time as an indicator for what the tota development time should be.
Does anyone know what correction should be used for *paper*?
As some have pointed out, development of paper does *not* have a completion. Rather, after the most-exposed areas reach Dmax, the lighter areas continue to darken. In my recent experiment, this darkening was obvious both visually and in my densitometer measurements when I developed for 1.5 minutes compared with 1 minute. Therefore, to get consistent midtones and highlights, development must be consistent. And that means being careful about temperature. Hence my desire to know how to correct for temperature of paper developer.
Mark Overton
Ralph, this is the first time I've read about using the emergence-time of light tones in factorial development. In your excellent book, Way Beyond Monochrome 2e, you describe factorial development as being based on "medium to dark mid-tones" (page 341). Can you tell us more about your experience with using light tones?You may want to google for 'proportional development'. It's a way to determine the overall paper development time by timing the first appearance of light mid-tones and using that time as an indicator for what the total development time should be.
Perhaps we have different definitions of contrast. I have tried it too and all I end up with is a darker print.I'm another Zone VI compensation timer guy. And other than checking the probe for scum build up once in awhile, and for any corrosion on the connections, it's been sufficiently reliable for several decades now. Too bad something that simple isn't made any more. But what everyone seems to be missing is that significant off temperatures might affect certain ingredients in developers differently than others. And that fact as well as others might easily amount to hue shift in the print, as well as how it's affecting by toning. That's a whole other layer to the problem than just nominal density change in the print. I happen to be pretty nitpicky about final image tone.
And markbau - I must still be a "beginner" after all these years, because I routinely tweak actual contrast via more or less development time, and without ending up with more overall darkness. Done it thousands of times with both graded and VC papers. But it is important to use high quality papers with enough silver in them to accommodate that.
I suspect that both you and Bill Burk are correct. When increasing development time, everything gets darker, which means the H-D curve is stretched upward. Said another way, the H-D curve becomes steeper near the toe, and shallower near the shoulder. Thus, contrast of highlights increases and shadow-contrast decreases. An interesting test would be to print the same negative twice: (1) paper exposed and developed normally, and (2) paper underexposed and overdeveloped. I'll guess that in (2), snow and clouds will look better and shadows will be muddy.Perhaps we have different definitions of contrast. I have tried it too and all I end up with is a darker print.
I agree with this. But I don't agree that you can't see the emergence of dark tones unless your 'safelights' are unsafe. I tested mine on installation and had to turn them up to face the (white) ceiling, but now they are fine for the 5 min it takes to process a print, and I can still watch the progress of development. What I do find difficult is to judge precisely when a dark tone has 'appeared'. In their leaflet for Multigrade Classic FB, ILFORD say:Factorial development is only of any use when you are printing many prints from the same neg and want to keep the print densities consistent as the developer deteriorates.
I have a bit of a phobia for safelight fog. Over the years I've visited quite a few darkrooms and have been surprised at how bright they were. Upon testing the safelights were often shown to be unsafe. I once visited a celebrated printer and he tested by putting a coin on an unexposed sheet of paper! (I kid you not) I test for 8 minutes, (after exposing a sheet to get approx zone VIII. I do a 2 minute development for everything so including exposure the paper is not exposed to the safelight for any more than about 3-4 minutes. My easel area is so dark I cannot see the focuser or burning/dodging tools, I find them by feel.I agree with this. But I don't agree that you can't see the emergence of dark tones unless your 'safelights' are unsafe. I tested mine on installation and had to turn them up to face the (white) ceiling, but now they are fine for the 5 min it takes to process a print, and I can still watch the progress of development. What I do find difficult is to judge precisely when a dark tone has 'appeared'. In their leaflet for Multigrade Classic FB, ILFORD say:
<< On correctly exposed prints with MULTIGRADE developer 1+9, the image will begin to appear at approx 20 seconds.>>
I do at least agree with this, but by the time I have made certain and glanced at the clock it is more like 23 or 25 sec, and I may have got distracted by the nice look of the print! A 5 sec error in noting 'appearance' would mean a 25 sec error in total development time.
ILFORD also say:
<<Development can be extended up to 6 minutes without any noticeable change in contrast or fog.>>
In all humility, my experience is at variance with this. I find that development beyond about 2½ min at 20 deg C darkens mid- and light-tones perceptibly.
Personally, I think the only answer to this without driving yourself mad is to use fresh developer (for critical sensitometric work, that might mean fresh developer for each print), at exactly the recommended temperature, and to use exactly the same development time for every print, agitating constantly. Then at least you have standardised everything you can within reason and any remaining variation is an inescapable part of practical printing. I check the temperature of my developer just before I expose the paper and correct if too cool (by balancing the developer tray on top of the room heater!). The ILFORD leaflet on Multigrade Developer advises against high temperatures, for which the developer was not designed.
sorry, I meant factorial not proportional development. I have used both, light and medium midtones, as a baseline;and both work unless the developer is too exhausted.Ralph, this is the first time I've read about using the emergence-time of light tones in factorial development. In your excellent book, Way Beyond Monochrome 2e, you describe factorial development as being based on "medium to dark mid-tones" (page 341). Can you tell us more about your experience with using light tones?
Mark Overton
I wonder how well you can maintain the same print with time corrections based on the percentage per degree C mentioned and replenishing developer as per the Ilford recommendation? Pretty well I'd have thought. If 11% is more than is required and assuming that the real answer may be less then it wouldn't be that difficult to experiment by using 10,9 percent to find the exact percentage, assuming of course that a movement from say 11 to 9% would be enough to make a difference that matters.
pentaxuser
Yes the maths are in that sense irrefutable and yet I wonder how much the print changes given that beyond the recommended development time given by llford things actually change when Ilford mentions 6 mins. One day I am going to develop say 4 prints from one neg keeping everything the same except dev at say 12 sec intervals, writing on the back the times then shuffle them and place them into a box. Look at each several days later and see if I can place each in the correct orderIf you can measure the temperature only to 0.5 degree accuracy, your development could still be 4.5% to 5.5% out due to that error alone. .
I'm sure you are right about that. That's why I try to standardise what I can control, and accept that there will always be variability in the process outside my control. The OP's sensitometric requirement is more critical on the face of it, though I wonder about trying to do such things with greater control than is possible for the average darkroom user.Yes the maths are in that sense irrefutable and yet I wonder how much the print changes given that beyond the recommended development time given by llford things actually change when Ilford mentions 6 mins. One day I am going to develop say 4 prints from one neg keeping everything the same except dev at say 12 sec intervals, writing on the back the times then shuffle them and place them into a box. Look at each several days later and see if I can place each in the correct order
It may only be me and my poor judgement but I have doubts, having "overdeveloped" prints in the past by quite a number of seconds, whether I will be able to place them easily and accurately in order
pentaxuser
This is my first post so if there is a better way to find an appropriate thread for this question, please inform me.
I am considering using a modified ID-62 "universal" developer for both film and paper. The only difference in my formula is a slight increase of benzotriazole and elimination of bromide. What is a good starting development time and dilution for film (4x5 HP5 in a small hard rubber tank), and also for paper (Ilford Classic)?
This is my first post so if there is a better way to find an appropriate thread for this question, please inform me.
I am considering using a modified ID-62 "universal" developer for both film and paper. The only difference in my formula is a slight increase of benzotriazole and elimination of bromide. What is a good starting development time and dilution for film (4x5 HP5 in a small hard rubber tank), and also for paper (Ilford Classic)?
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?