From The photographic latent image, L. M. Slifkin 1972Each individual grain is either black or colorless; the fraction of grains that can be developed, however, depends on the statistics of the incidence and absorption of random photons of light and the randomness of the efficiencies of individual grain for forming a latent image speck.
Hi, I would not normally want to weigh in on a thread like this as I don't really have a good understanding. But since I already sorta started... keep in mind that I'm not trained as a chemist, so I have a lot of holes in my understanding of this and there is no solid authority behind it - so probably better seen as perhaps "possible" explanations.I read somewhere that developers distinguish between exposed and unexposed silver halide crystals by a particular threshold determined by the amount of reduced silver ions in the crystal lattice structure. They particularly observed a threshold of around 3 - 5 reduced silver ions to silver atoms in a single latent image site...
Hi, I would not normally want to weigh in on a thread like this as I don't really have a good understanding. But since I already sorta started... keep in mind that I'm not trained as a chemist, so I have a lot of holes in my understanding of this and there is no solid authority behind it - so probably better seen as perhaps "possible" explanations.
Regarding number of silver ions clumped in a crystal, there is a minimum number required to be "stable," meaning that this latent image won't be lost. (Now, it may not be "developable," only stable, meaning that a later "latensification" or random accident might render it developable.) The minimum number depends on how the crystal was sensitized (I think Tani gives some numbers comparing something like sulfur vs sulfur plus gold.) Again, don't trust my words, but rather only use them as possible ideas to research further.
I would GUESS that if there were a large crystal (AgX, silver halide) with multiple dislocations/kink sites these could get multiple silver ion "clumps" due to light exposure, and these might increase the statistical probability of development being initiated. Then once initiated the development tends to go until the entire crystal is fully converted. But... I would further guess that a certain proportion of the crystals are not fully reduced (to metallic silver) because thr process was interrupted or there possibly was not enough developing agent present at the crystal to complete (the developing agent, as I understand it, acts as an intermediary to pump electrons into the crystal, being supplied by other developer molecules). But in literature I think that the individual crystals are seen as either fully reduced or not.
So given as either developable vs not, crystals, I think your interests would be more along the line of what they call kinetics of development. There are certain classes of developers with so-called induction periods before significant development begins. My questionable understanding of this is that certain developing agents have a hard time approaching the individual crystal, perhaps being repelled by the charges of attracted bromide ions, or whatever (the so-called bromide ion shield, etc.). So there may be some measurable time period before enough developing agent can make its way through.
Now, some developers are known to have "high fog," loosely meaning that they are not as selective about which crystals they will develop. So this is another aspect to consider. In other cases the silver clumps may have formed beneath the surface of the grain and, as is, are not amenable to development; if sulfite ion is present in the developer this can help erode away the edges of the crystal and make development possible.
As a note earlier in this thread I did a search for kendall-pelz rules for developing agents, to see if anything useful showed up, and the first hit was within photrio, by Gerald Koch. I've not seen him post here for a long time but I believe he had an advanced degree, so you might look for his posts. Also posts by a guy named Ryuji (?) who did substantial research into the mechanisms of development. And of course the well-known PE (photo engineer) who is sadly no longer with us. Best of luck.
As regards the rate of reduction by a developer, Tani p205 Fig 7.2 notes that in the cases studied this was found to correlate well with the potential for the one electron oxidation of the developing agents.
However, on p219 he reports that some workers have found that "photographic sensitivity did not depend upon the kind of developers when each was used under its optimum conditions"
Yes, but so far [up to 1995] one thing has not been explained, dependence of effective film speed on developer,
eg, with a few dissenters, Xtol gives higher film speed than Rodinal.
So there are limits to what theory can explain and in all technical text and articles [I exclude those behind paywalls] the authors refrain from commenting on the dependence of effective film speed on developer.
This was largely left to careful practical observers like Crawley, widely quoted in The Film Developing Cookbook.
Well funded studies of photographic science pretty much died a few decades ago.
Kinda doubt if anyone now will ever throw enough money and time at these mysteries to substantially solve them.
But maybe that's the attraction to this medium; the mystery and uncharted territories....
We're not going to find a new prime number below 1000, and we're not going to find a new developer combo, which does visibly better than the three combos mentioned above. They are available to us in the form of XTol and E-6 FD for regular B&W film, and C-41 CD for chromogenic film, so we don't even have to mix our own chemistry to get that kind of performance.
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?