Why did IT take longer?

Bullring

A
Bullring

  • 1
  • 0
  • 22
Corrib river, Galway

A
Corrib river, Galway

  • 4
  • 0
  • 80
Double S

A
Double S

  • 7
  • 2
  • 111

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,508
Messages
2,792,551
Members
99,927
Latest member
Howie1922
Recent bookmarks
0

ZorkiKat

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Manila PHILI
Format
Multi Format
D-76 developing times, I mean. Scanning through old 1940s literature, developing times were really long, something like 3 to 4 times longer than current recommendations. D76 for instance was 28(!) minutes at 20C. The formula given for D76 was the same as it is known today. The films quoted in the 1940s materials were the same as those found in the 1950s books. Emulsion changes perhaps?

Jay
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
984
Location
Athens
Format
Medium Format
Everything was slower back then. The cars, the airplanes, the movies... have you read "Future shock" by Alvin Tofler ?
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,337
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Emulsion changes are certainly part of it. Just within films I've used in the past year or so, I see close to 2:1 variation in development time for the same nominal film speed -- Forte 400 requires close to twice the time as TMY with the same developer, temperature, and agitation regimen.

One contributing factor, within "emulsion changes", is grain -- modern films are generally much faster for their grain sizer (or have finer grain for their speed, same thing) compared to those from 50-60 years ago; even the "old school" films we get now, like Forte and Efke, were the "new, thin-emulsion" technology of the 1950s, and genuinely modern films like T-Max and current formula Tri-X are two generations newer than that. And the smaller the halide grain, the less development it requires, because it takes a certain amount of time for the halide solvent (sodium sulfite, in D-76 and most other conventional fine grain developers) to remove enough of the halide grain surface to develop internal latent image specks and produce full film speed.

So, bottom line, the finer the film grain, the less time it needs in developer -- and some modern ISO 400 films are comparable to the (old scale, multiply 2x to compare with modern ratings) ASA 25 films of the 1940s in terms of grain.
 
OP
OP
ZorkiKat

ZorkiKat

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Manila PHILI
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
Emulsion changes are certainly part of it. ....
One contributing factor, within "emulsion changes", is grain -- modern films are generally much faster for their grain sizer (or have finer grain for their speed, same thing) compared to those from 50-60 years ago; even the "old school" .....

That makes sense. The Chinese emulsions (Era and its cousins excluding Luckypan) I used did develop longer. For instance, their ISO 100 offerings needed about twice what their modern counterparts required in terms of developing times, with all else (temperature, dilution, and the developer itself) being equal. Even the Chinese generic ISO 100 I use now develops for a much longer time. Resolution-wise, it might as well be a 1950s style ISO 100 but with somewhat finer grain. Mushy, but not really gritty.

Jay
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom