Under development

cliveh · Jul 22, 2014

Over many years working with students and others, I have noticed that under exposure/development is far more prevalent than the reverse and I would suggest under development is more prevalent than under exposure. This conclusion is also based on internet posts about this on APUG and other sites. For example on APUG is there not more advice given on increasing contrast in prints than reducing it? Following on from this, I think some manufacturers development time/temperature charts, particularly for other manufacturers films are a mere guess and often incorrect.

Bill Burk · Jul 22, 2014

I noticed many seem to want to create thin negatives, and am hoping to sway those who can be swayed... towards giving more exposure and development...

Meanwhile, from the 1942 The Camera Pocket Photo Guide, this explains the problem...

Common Faults, Negative Lacking Density:
Aperture too small, shutter too fast, inadequate lens equipment, cold developer, under-development.

Funny, doesn't say anything about not enough light... though I think that plays some part.

snapguy · Jul 22, 2014

b&w

Black and white film generally takes overexposure better than underexposure. In the olde days we had single grade paper that was #4, #6 and #6 for those who underexposed/underdeveloped. I went to a couple of Leitz-sponsored Leica Flying Short Courses (the instructors flew from city to city to give the classes) and they recommended a neg be shot so you had to print it on #4 grade paper. NOT #4 filter on multi-grade paper. Real #4 single-grade paper. Mighty thin, in my opinion. They said that was best for minimum grain.

Bill Burk · Jul 22, 2014

snapguy said:
I went to a couple of Leitz-sponsored Leica Flying Short Courses (the instructors flew from city to city to give the classes) and they recommended a neg be shot so you had to print it on #4 grade paper... They said that was best for minimum grain.

That's a logical plan to get excellent, fine-grain enlargements from 35mm negatives.

But that describes an excellent negative, and the negatives I like to avoid are the badly underexposed/underdeveloped ones... a couple stops underexposed and a few minutes underdeveloped...

removed account4 · Jul 22, 2014

i dont think they are guesswork or incorrect clive but they are done in a science lab
and they always say the times are a starting point ..
no one agitates the same way, no ones cameras are exposing the same either ...
the only constant is the film and chemistry ( if they are fresh and handled correctly ) ..
everything else varies ...

ic-racer · Jul 22, 2014

Higher grade paper emphasizes grain.

MattKing · Jul 23, 2014

In my experience, new photographers tend to under-expose, and then when they are unhappy with the results, they try to make up for it by over-developing

Keith Tapscott. · Jul 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
That's a logical plan to get excellent, fine-grain enlargements from 35mm negatives.

But that describes an excellent negative, and the negatives I like to avoid are the badly underexposed/underdeveloped ones... a couple stops underexposed and a few minutes underdeveloped...

When I used to use a Jobo CPA2 for film processing, the suggestion from Ilford was that the development times may need reducing by up to 15% from the small-tank inversion times. I always found that the recommended inversion agitation times were the times that gave me the optimum contrast. I never used pre-soaks either.

The developer I used in the Jobo was D-76 diluted 1+1. (one-shot)

As for exposure, it doesn't hurt to bracket by exposing one at and one over the recommended meter reading as an insurance shot.

pdeeh · Jul 23, 2014

Bill Burk said:
the negatives I like to avoid are the badly underexposed/underdeveloped ones... a couple stops underexposed and a few minutes underdeveloped...

you wouldn't like a lot of my negatives then Bill

Sirius Glass · Jul 23, 2014

I have only used box speed for decades and I have yet to have a problem with it. The wide latitude of the color and black & white negative films provide a full range of shadow detail and over development and under exposure or under development and over exposure are not worth any time of effort thinking about.

Sirius Glass · Jul 23, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
This is a little different than what I've observed. Generally I'd say underexposure and overdevelopment are the common "errors". And they usually have nothing to do with Kodak's or Ilford's recommendations/instructions, but rather processing mistakes. I have also found inexperienced photographers/printers tend to like higher contrast. There are a variety of reasons for this, I think.

The most common error is not knowing how to use a light meter. For example aiming the meter to include too much sky.

The next common error is not have properly calibrated meters, lenses and cameras.

cliveh · Jul 23, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
This is a little different than what I've observed. Generally I'd say underexposure and overdevelopment are the common "errors". And they usually have nothing to do with Kodak's or Ilford's recommendations/instructions, but rather processing mistakes. I have also found inexperienced photographers/printers tend to like higher contrast. There are a variety of reasons for this, I think.

Contrast preference is very often subject dependant and so I assume you mean on like for like subjects.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 23, 2014

Young folks are often impatient. Your students are probably cutting the time short and/or not agitating properly.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 23, 2014

I don't know, I generally tend to over-expose or overdevelop. Can't say why that is. But I hate blown highlights so I usually try to go for some underexposure when I shoot.

Bill Burk · Jul 23, 2014

Keith Tapscott. said:
When I used to use a Jobo CPA2 for film processing, the suggestion from Ilford was that the development times may need reducing by up to 15% from the small-tank inversion times.

What I call underdevelopment relates to a target contrast index (0.62 contrast index for ASA, 0.50 contrast index also reasonable). Much below your target I would say is headed for trouble. Not targeting contrast index? Then, as the saying goes, start with manufacturer's recommendation.

I have a similar view regarding exposure, and I prefer sufficient exposure.

Under development

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency