• 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

Two bath developers

Philippe Grunchec said:
Thanks, Sandy, this was also my impression!
BTW, your Pyrocat (I use it now in glycol) is really great stuff! Which filter would you recommand for inspection? My N°3 DArk Green Kodak is really VERY dark!
Click to expand...

Philippe,

I never got the hang of develop by inspection so can not offer personal advice as to the best filter. Some people have told me that it is easier to do DBI with Pyrocat using a dark red filter.

Glad you like Pyrocat. If you try it with two-bath development let me know how your negatives come out.

Sandy
 
About to commit film to Divided Pyrocat

Can I ask for some clarity folks. I am about to commit some rolls of HP5 rated @ 250 to try the two bath route. I normally rate my HP5 @250 in standard 1-1-100 20c for 10:30mins. My this and other threads I need to do the following

Presoak

3-5mins - optional I know

Bath A

1:20 4mins - constant agitation for first min then 10 secs every min

Bath B

1:20 4 mins - constant agitation for first min then 10 secs every min


water stop bath then TP3 fix

Much appreciated, Carl
 


Before committing *some* rolls to an unknown procedure I would suggest you commit one test roll using a 1:15 dilution for both Solution A and B, 5 minute pre-soak at 75F, 5 minutes in Solution A at 75F and 5 minutes in Solution B at 75 minutes. Make sure you agitate vigorously at the beginning of development and ten seconds every minute during development.

Evaluate your results and make adjustments as necessary. Negatives too strong, change dilution to 1:20, to weak change to 1:10.

Sandy King
 
Philippe Grunchec said:
Which filter would you recommand for inspection? My N°3 DArk Green Kodak is really VERY dark!
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the dark green filter is the only filter that is recommended for development by inspection. Yes, it is VERY dark, and were it not for that, would not be very "safe" at all. I've tried using one a few times, and not once have I found it to be useful. A couple of times, it ruined my film. No more. Timing and temperature control get me what I need.
 
Thanks for all the input. I have been trying several suggestions since this thread started and have improved the results. DF Cardwell's suggestion for Xtol 1:3 is a good one - I've been using it that way for a number of years as a semi-stand and gotten good results. I was trying for something that came close to the same results without having film in developer for a half hour. That and calming really extreme highlights - flames from a burning house or vehicle, for instance - along with normal contrast shots on the same roll. BTW, all films are 400, mostly TXP or Arista's clone.
Again, thanks for all the help. Additional suggestions will be appreciated.
 
mostly TXP

Gosh, there's the problem !

TXP is DESIGNED to give that big highlight separation, and strong highlight density !
TX or TMY2 will shoulder off, but TXP never will (but it will get down to normal !)
 
Philippe Grunchec said:
...Which filter would you recommand for inspection? My N°3 DArk Green Kodak is really VERY dark!
Click to expand...

You can use Pinacryptol yellow to reduce the sensitivity of the emulsion. I used it with great success some years back, and can't remember just how but might be able to find my notes; I've moved several times since then, so it may not be very easy to find. There are also references to it in various older sources. I'd still use the dark green filter but you don't have to have it as far away and you can look at the film more than just once as they normally recommend.

Here's a source:

http://www.photoformulary.com/Deskt...tabindex=2&categoryid=26&selection=0&langId=0
 
Well the divided Pyrocat HD worked really well following Sandy's advice. On Sunday I need to make some images of our 1 week old niece and have ran out of HP5+ and only have a fresh load of Delta 400 which I have never used before. Not sure if I will get time to run and process a roll before then but plan to rate @250 and use the same times and dilution as HP5 as a starting unless this is not going to be in the ballpark!?
 
interesting thread,....but

---almost everyone actually using(various)2 bath developers are not shooting at box speed.
----many others seem to be speaking of theory,or of results from many years ago.

Just sayin----;>)
 
Donmck said:
interesting thread,....but

---almost everyone actually using(various)2 bath developers are not shooting at box speed.
----many others seem to be speaking of theory,or of results from many years ago.

Just sayin----;>)
Click to expand...

Please don't include me in those groups. I have used and experimented with several two-bath developers, and I shoot at box speed with all of them. And my comments are based on testing and practical work, most of it done over the past two years. I do use theory to direct my testing toward the best outcome.


Sandy King
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not trying to put anybody in any group------just saying that there doesn;t seem to be many people having good results at box speed....at least not recently.

the emofin looks interesting,but I don't think that's available in these parts.I"ll
have to see if I can google up a published formula and see what that looks like.

-Don
 
Donmck said:
I'm not trying to put anybody in any group------just saying that there doesn;t seem to be many people having good results at box speed....at least not recently.

-Don
Click to expand...

How are folks metering the scene and then determining box speed? No one has addressed that in this long thread.

Sandy King
 
sanking said:
How are folks metering the scene and then determining box speed? No one has addressed that in this long thread.

Sandy King
Click to expand...

I would've thought that this is pretty much only viable with sheet film unless one is going to use the full roll of film or have different backs/bodies relating to N- normal or N+ processing?

My understanding is that if I want box speed I would just leave the film in Bath B for a little longer? I know that Barry Thornton advocated changing the amount of Sodium Metaborate.
 
speed is one of the variables that can be sacrificed for gains in tonality/grain and acutance. depends on what you value...
 
Isn't the potential loss of speed also dependent on what 2-bath developer you choose to use?

Stoekler and it's variants, maybe some loss.
Diafine and DD76, probably no loss.

Anyone?
 
We are using Two Bath development to hold information in the negative which would be lost in normal development. If we lose shadow information, we are quick to blame 'thin emulsion' films and suchlike, but what the problem might be is underdevelopment, caused by our contemporary idealization of a 'proper negative'.

The simple solution is to ignore Zone I. Develop for Zone II and Zone V.

We (conventionally) base our film speed: Zone II = .1 ~ .15 + Base Fog, or some similar notion, which is a very good way to work with normal processing. It can, however, lead to a lower Exposure Index with Two Bath development (or Minimal Agitation). But if we increase the gamma of the negatives, we can usually get a higher Exposure Index AND induce desirable compression through the higher values.

Consider Zone V as the fulcrum of the negative, balancing Exposure & Development. If we increase the development, we know that we can't increase the Zone I density, but we CAN increase Zone V.

What we want from a Two Bath developer (or Minimal Agitation) is to expand the shadows, compress the highlights, and have normal midtones.

Develop for Zone II instead of Zone I. Balance A & B for Zone V. Allow the film and developer combination to give you the highlights it gives you. The negative may well have a higher Dmax, but it will also have the desired curve shape (or tone curve). Take up the slack, if necessary, by printing with a softer developer than Dektol (or printing on a softer paper).

.
 

The way I figure this is that if your meter is calibrated and your metering technique is sound you would be able to determine from shadow density on the negative if the film is delivering box speed or not. My own metering technique, when using an exposure meter, is to base exposure on an incident meter reading in the shadows. When I do this I get very good shadow detail with all of the two-bath developers I have tried.

Sandy King
 

Sandy - Are you spot metering from a shadow value or incident reading!
 
Why is it so important to obtain 'box speed'? I use Stoeckler's as my standard for PanF+ and am happy to accept the loss of speed given that I invariably use a tripod. I've very little success with faster films in 2-bath. (I've tried HP5+ and APX400 in Stoeckler's and didn't like the result)

Rob
 
CarlRadford said:
Sandy - Are you spot metering from a shadow value or incident reading!
Click to expand...

I usually take a straight incident reading with the meter held in the shadow areas where I expect to have texture and detail, pointed toward the camera. You would get about the same result taking a reflective reading of a gray card placed in the shadows.

Since a single incident reading taken in the shadows will tend to give slightly more exposure than necessary so you may want to increase the effective film speed by one-half to one stop to compensate. I usually increase by one-half stop and just take the extra exposure as a bonus.

Sandy King
 
There is obviously a limit to how long you can leave the film in the B bath and expect more density in the shadows, since both exhaustion and diffusion will limit the action of the developer after it leaves the A bath.

Tetenal recommends the same time for A and B with their Emofin developer, and it varies from 2.5 minutes to 10 minutes depending on the film and speed. The A bath of Emofin will develop film all by itself, so it is reasonable that the time in A will influence the contrast. Having the same time in A and B may be just to keep things simple, but I do not know. The first bath of the Stoeckler developer and its variants will also develop film, unless you do something to inhibit it. For the Stoeckler developer, I think you could change the development time the same way Tetenal recommends for Emofin. For example, HP5+ is 5.5 minutes for an EI of 400, 8 minutes for EI 800.
I have found that the times for Emofin are reasonable starting points for a Stoeckler developer, btw.

 
I think the misconception is ---with the old films and formulas,you are loading up the emulsion in the 'A" bath and then doing the development in the "B" bath.
With modern film,you are developing the film "to a point" in the "A" bath so that the small carryover of developer in the thinner emulsion is sufficient to finish the development in the shadows while exhausting in the highs.I agree with olehjalmar ---- " so it is reasonable that the time in A will influence the contrast."

I googled a little on emofin and it seems half the people who have tried it ,love it ----the other half hate it.It seems to me that emofin is a specialized (robust) push developer,but I"m not really sure---I don't think I'd want to use it for ortho 25 or cms 20.

-Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register