Why dilute developer?

warden · Feb 23, 2010

Hi all,

My apologies for what must certainly be a well worn topic but I've had no luck finding the information I'm after using the search function.

I'm a novice at developing and have done about 8 rolls of film so far, with results that I'm pretty happy with. I'm trying lots of different films and having a ball.

I'm using the massive dev chart that is so often mentioned here, and I love that site. I notice there are several dilution options for developers, but I don't know why I would use them. I understand that I may need to push Tri-X a few stops in order to be able to use it in low light, and also that greater contrast is a result of that.

Once I have pushed my Tri-X though, I have three xtol dilutions to choose from on the massive dev chart, and I don't know why I would choose one over the other, except to save some money with a greater dilution.

Assuming three identical exposures, if I developed them separately using all three dilution options would I be able to tell which image was developed from each dilution?

Thanks in advance, and if there is already a thread that I missed I would appreciate a link to it.

Thanks,

Jeff

Just for fun here's one of the test images, Fuji Neopan 1600 (shot at 800) developed in DD-X.

Dead Link Removed

2F/2F · Feb 23, 2010

Keeping other things constant, you can change developer dilution to change contrast.

You can also dilute developer to increase the developing time.

You can also do it to lessen the silver solvent's effect on your pix (i.e. to get sharper grain).

Using diluted developer combined with altered agitation techniques (letting your film stand unagitated for longer-than-normal periods), you can also significantly change the curve of your film (in effect making the low tones "faster" and making the high tones "slower" simultaneously, kind of like tilting a seesaw down a bit on one side, and thus bringing the other side up, while leaving the middle where it always is). This can be very useful as a damper on high contrast lighting situations.

Bruce Watson · Feb 23, 2010

jawarden said:
Assuming three identical exposures, if I developed them separately using all three dilution options would I be able to tell which image was developed from each dilution?

In my experience I'd have to say probably not.

I ran tests on XTOL stock vs. XTOL 1:3 with 5x4 Tri-X, continuous agitation (rotary processing). I couldn't really see any difference until I got out into 15x enlargement territory. At my normal levels of enlargement (4-6x or so) it's impossible for me to see any difference in the final print.

What I did see at 15x was that the 1:3 dilution is just a bit sharper, and just a bit more grainy. This is largely because one dilutes everything, including the solvent components, so one gets somewhat less solvent action as a result.

To me therefore the main benefit of increasing dilution is to increase development time. This assumes a "normal" agitation. Someone else can explain the effects of dilution in stand and/or semi-stand development; I don't have experience there.

Krzys · Feb 23, 2010

Experiment with diluting Rodinal and you will definitely see the difference between rolls.

warden · Feb 23, 2010

2F/2F;950934 (in effect making the low tones "faster" and making the high tones "slower" simultaneously said:
Thanks for the comments - you've given me a lot to think about.

I just shoot 35mm, so I'm not making development decisions on a per-image basis, but it sounds like this approach could still be useful. If I'm understanding what you said correctly, I can preserve what little contrast I have on a gloomy day by developing with little dilution and normal agitation, and I can also lessen the excessive contrast of a noontime sunny day roll by diluting more, agitating less.

So much to learn here.

Thanks,

Jeff

fschifano · Feb 23, 2010

jawarden said:
Thanks for the comments - you've given me a lot to think about.

I just shoot 35mm, so I'm not making development decisions on a per-image basis, but it sounds like this approach could still be useful. If I'm understanding what you said correctly, I can preserve what little contrast I have on a gloomy day by developing with little dilution and normal agitation, and I can also lessen the excessive contrast of a noontime sunny day roll by diluting more, agitating less.

So much to learn here.

Thanks,

Jeff

Yes, that's about it. There's a little more to it though. The more dilute developer will exhaust in the highlights faster because there's relatively more silver to reduce in those areas. The reduced agitation doesn't replace the exhausted developer with fresh as often, so development in the denser areas of the film slows down. In the shadows, which render less dense on the negative, less silver needs to be reduced and the developer doesn't exhaust as quickly. The increased dilution doesn't really change the shadow densities too much, very little in fact, since these areas completely develop early on in the development cycle. The main advantage lies in controlling highlight densities, and preventing them from becoming too dense and difficult to print.

Chuck_P · Feb 23, 2010

What 2F/2F said about why one chooses to dilute is basically it.

But.......you have to work with a film/developer combination for a good while to really know how changes you make affect the end result, espescially as a novice. IMO, don't overcomplicate your life with a bunch of different films and developers with changes in dilution and agitation. I would use one or two films, a 400 speed and a medium speed, like 125 but with one developer, and keep my development processes in terms of temperature, agitation, and dilution extremely constant at this point. Experiment with changes in exposure and development time as a starting point to learning. Just my 2 cents worth of thought.

jawarden said:
If I'm understanding what you said correctly, I can preserve what little contrast I have on a gloomy day by developing with little dilution and normal agitation

Click to expand...

Agitate normally, alter the exposure and development to the roll. On a gloomy low contrast day, a day where shadows are not very pronounced, increase negative contrast by reducing exposure to the shadows by up to one to two stops (experiment) and then increase development by some percentage, try 25% (experiment). Reduced exposure darkens the shadows to a degree and increased development makes the upper middle tones and highlights develop with more density for improved separation in tonal values in the final print. Any time development is increased, grain is also more prominent, this is more noticable in small format, especially with enlargements beyond 8x10. You also have a chance to tinker with the final print contrast during the printing stage.

and I can also lessen the excessive contrast of a noontime sunny day roll by diluting more, agitating less.

Click to expand...

Agitate normally, alter the exposure and development to the roll. On a high contrast day where the shadows are very pronounced, decrease negative contrast by increasing exposure to the shadows by up to one to two stops (experiment) and decreasing the development time by some percentage, again, experiment. Don't go lower in time than what is recommended by the manufacturer under the recommended developer dilution. Increased exposure on high contrast days strengthens the shadow densities on the negative but also can put too much exposure in the highlights----but, that is why you then reduce the development time, to control the highlight densities on the negative and try to keep them from becoming blocked. Again, you have a chance to tinker with the final print contrast during the printing stage.

So much to learn here.

Click to expand...

Yes, so take in small steps, learn to analyze what affect small changes can make, take notes. The time will come to move on to more drastic exposure and processing controls. But while you're learning, I wouldn't, IMO.

Good luck...this is but one of many opinions you are always going to find on APUG.

warden · Feb 23, 2010

CPorter said:
IMO, don't overcomplicate your life with a bunch of different films and developers with changes in dilution and agitation. I would use one or two films, a 400 speed and a medium speed, like 125 but with one developer, and keep my development processes in terms of temperature, agitation, and dilution extremely constant at this point.

Thanks for the advice, and that's my plan, after some initial fooling around of course. I plan on settling on one developer and just a couple films. Right now I'm using DD-X until my little bottle is gone and then I'll try xtol. I don't know how much it matters if the brand of developer matches the film, but so far I have liked the Kodak films best so I'm leaning that way for the developer too.

Either way, by the end of March I hope to have settled on film and developer and just finish the year with my choice, learning as much as I can without changing fims or chemicals.

Sirius Glass · Feb 23, 2010

I use XTOL in stock solution and added 70ml new developer after every roll to replenish. I have had very good results with many films - good contrast, good density, ... Keep it simple and enjoy yourself.

Steve

andephotographic · Jan 2, 2011

First post so please excuse me if I'm dragging up an old thread or anything but I found this thread (and indeed forum) while trying to research the effects that different things have on my negs.
I have a copy of Ansel Adams' The Negative on it's way to me but it might be a while.
Basically I want to know if anyone can point me in the direction of, or quickly rhyme off what effect the following will have on my negs - in as basic terms as possible:

Dilution of developer
Agitation
Development time

I'm currently shooting Kodak Tri-X pushed to iso 800 in both 35mm and 120 format and developing it in Rodinal(R09 OneShot) - a combination I have decided upon after reading about Rodinal's ability to produce fine grain when stand developed and Tri-X's ability to be pushed and also it's price/availability.

I have shot a test roll (120) chopped it up and have devved it as follows,
1. 1+100 developer dilution for 1 hour, inverted once at start, and swirled like a brandy glass after 30min
2. 1+100 dilution for 1 hour, invert agitated every 5 minutes for the 1st 20 then every minute of the last 5
3. 1+100 dilution for 2 hours, inverted once at start, swirled after 1hour
4. 1+50 dilution for 1 hour inverted once at start and swirled after 30min

Number 1 seemed under developed, no definite blacks hence my trying the others which have all produced very similar looking negs, I haven't printed from them yet but hope to get darkroom access by the end of the week to see how they print up. I would presume that the extra agitation I gave number 2 will have increased the contrast and possibly the grain but I don't know if my untrained eye will be able to notice the difference in grain etc between 2, 3 and 4.
If negs 2-4 all produce satisfactory prints which are too similar to tell apart with the naked eye, is there any reason to go with one method over the other two?

msa · Jan 2, 2011

- It increases dev time, which at higher temperatures, can get you into a range it's easier to control your process.

- It can result in somewhat different results in the negative; up to you if this is desirable or not.

- Diluting developer into one shot configurations increases consistency since you're always discarding the developer after one use, rather than trying to track exhaustion, or deal with replenishment.

bblhed · Jan 2, 2011

andephotographic said:
Number 1 seemed under developed, no definite blacks hence my trying the others which have all produced very similar looking negs, I haven't printed from them yet but hope to get darkroom access by the end of the week to see how they print up. I would presume that the extra agitation I gave number 2 will have increased the contrast and possibly the grain but I don't know if my untrained eye will be able to notice the difference in grain etc between 2, 3 and 4.
If negs 2-4 all produce satisfactory prints which are too similar to tell apart with the naked eye, is there any reason to go with one method over the other two?

First off, Welcome to APUG.

Next your question, yes there is a reason to select one method over others and that is because it works for you and is easily done over and over. I see that you are calling out some longish times there, if you believe that you can get back to your process then they should be fine. I have a feeling that you will see differences in your prints when you enlarge them, it might not even be something that you see, but just something you know is different. If that happens use the process that produces the results you like. If you still see no differences after printing at a size you like and you like the results then use the process you like, or fits you workflow best. In the end your prints have to make you happy, unless you are selling them, then they have to make your customer happy as well.

andephotographic · Jan 2, 2011

bblhed said:
First off, Welcome to APUG.

Next your question, yes there is a reason to select one method over others and that is because it works for you and is easily done over and over. I see that you are calling out some longish times there, if you believe that you can get back to your process then they should be fine. I have a feeling that you will see differences in your prints when you enlarge them, it might not even be something that you see, but just something you know is different. If that happens use the process that produces the results you like. If you still see no differences after printing at a size you like and you like the results then use the process you like, or fits you workflow best. In the end your prints have to make you happy, unless you are selling them, then they have to make your customer happy as well.

Thanks for the welcome and the reply bblhed.
I'm pretty inexperienced with the whole analogue thing but trying to get better.
I reckon that I need to do a few prints and do some reading once I get The Negative.
I'd like to be in the position where even if I can't see a difference in the neg or the print I know that for instance (and I'll probably have this wrong), a longer dev time will allow the light parts of my neg to develop as much as possible so there will be detail in the shadows of my prints and that less agitation will mean less grain and from that I can tell that 1+100 dilution for 2 hours is better for me than 1+50 for 1 hour or 1+100 for an hour with agitation.

markbarendt · Jan 2, 2011

jawarden said:
Assuming three identical exposures, if I developed them separately using all three dilution options would I be able to tell which image was developed from each dilution?

Probably yes, with a microscope and perfect lab conditions.

There are enough variables to give you all kinds of changes and a headache.

The other thing you need to do is print it to see if the difference is significant.

Why dilute developer?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency