Why do I need to develop longer?

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

osella said:
The manufacturer recommended times are just a starting point, there’s nothing wrong with developing longer if that gets you the negatives you want.

How was the the light(contrasty, flat) when you took the pictures? I deal with a lot of overcast days so usually end up developing for longer than the recommended time to get more contrast.

It’s mostly just personal preference however, provided I have sufficient shadow detail I can pretty much get the contrast I want when printing.

The light was mostly flat however in some shots there was a big difference between the darkest part and the highlights and yet they don't show up.

MattKing said:
So you are relying on the settings in the firmware for the built-in image processor in your camera, which is making many, many choices for you that you have no control over, other than through the menus on the camera.
I understand that you prefer the "out of the box" results you obtain from denser negatives, but that doesn't mean that the denser negatives are better than less dense negatives - either for darkroom printing or digitizing.

I'm shooting RAW so yes it still gets processed a little but minimal.

About "that doesn't mean that the denser negatives are better than less dense negatives", then why does development time matter so much if you can just fix it in post? I think a denser negative scans better and looks better than a thin negative which is digitally made more contrasty.

Adrian Bacon said:
Are you following the recommended agitation? Doing something different? https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf. shows 30 second intervals for small tank manual agitation.

Are you sure your temperature is accurate? When it says 68 degrees, that's what it means, not 66 degrees, or almost 67 degrees, or 69 degrees. Have you done a test pour with an already developed roll of film and verified what the actual temperature in the tank is 1 minute after pouring in the liquid in? You'd be amazed at how much it changes, especially if the ambient air temperature isn't 68 degrees. Black and white isn't as finicky about temperature as color is, but it still matters enough that you want to be as close to the specified temperature as you reasonably can be. Also, make sure your thermometer is also accurate. You'd be amazed at how many aren't.

outside of that, yes, make sure you have fresh developer.

I do 1 minute intervals instead of 30 seconds. Does it matter that much?
So if I need to develop 5 minutes =
5 seconds agitation, 25 seconds nothing, 5 seconds agitation, 25 seconds nothing and repeat until 5 minutes?
Also, how long should the initial agitiation be after pouring in?

I have a new thermometer from Kaiser, so yes, I checked if the temp was 20C constant.

Adrian Bacon said:
You have to adjust the contrast of the scans to taste. A simple scan and invert in PS will generally result in very flat negatives. Also, if using a camera, you're shooting raw right?

Yes I am shooting RAW. Yes a simple invert gives a flat negative indeed but if I scan denser negatives with my digital camera and do a simple invert, it's mostly just right in contrast.

Bill Burk said:
How do you time 5 minutes? 1 minute error is a 20% error. If you choose a dilution that brings to 10 minute developing time, then a one minute error is only 10%

I prefer at least 8 minutes.

I use an RH Design Processmaster II timer for my timing. I was thinking of switching to dilution H.

Dali · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
Ahhh great!

Two questions:

Which tests did you do?

Do you know WHY your develop times and ISO speed are different than the manufacturers recommendations? Any guess why it's different with you compared to other people?

Thanks!

Basically and assuming that you metered as you should (great importance...):

1) If shadows are emply (pure black) = ISO too high
2) If highlights are burnt (pure white) = ISO too low
3) If negatives are dull and prints are without contrast with normal paper = Too little developement time
4) If negatives are with very little mi-tones and prints are way too contrasty with normal paper = Too much development time.

Several parameters to consider if you want results to be predictable:

A) Stick to a method on inverting the developement tank (frequency, pattern,etc...)
B) Keep an eye on bath temperature and heer again, stick with a temperature you can easily master.

Expose your first roll and develop it as usual. From there, ajust ISO and/or developement of the next roll to change density (1-2) and/or contrast (3-4). After 3 or 4 rolls, you should get negatives more suitable to your taste.

This method is not going to give you 100% perfect negatives but at least it should increase their quality and allow you more flexibility under the enlarger.

Regarding you point #2: I guess that water quality (for developement) and personal taste / printing habits have a great influence. Your equipement too: Maybe your vamera meter is slightly off, maybe the lens is not that contrasty (in this case, increase the ISO and the developement time. This is what I do with my Lubitel to get decent negs). You are not always shooting in a controlled environment!

canuhead · Jun 11, 2020

those look *marginally* thin but I'd have no problem making prints with those negs. Have printed worse. the proof is in the pudding, so try making a few prints and judge those.

baachitraka · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
Just some test shots to check the camera for light leaks etc..

If I put my black point on the negative border, pictures are very dark.

The first on is a big contrast scene, shadows inside and highlights outside but even this one is very flat

The one of the steering wheel is one of the better shots, all the rest look super flat.

The last on is a bit underexposed, lost detail in the shadow there

The other car pictures are really dull and lifeless but shadow detail looks fine

Quite confident that my exposure should be fine, except for a few mistakes I made. Had this problem 3 years ago as well when I used an external incident meter, which was accurate.
The negatives that are denser are way better to scan/print for me. Much less work needed to get them "right".

I now used the in camera meter, which is still accurate if I compare it to my digital camera.

These will print very good.

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

Dali said:
Basically and assuming that you metered as you should (great importance...):

1) If shadows are emply (pure black) = ISO too high
2) If highlights are burnt (pure white) = ISO too high
3) If negatives are dull and prints are without contrast with normal paper = Too little developement time
4) If negatives are with very little mi-tones and prints are way too contrasty with normal paper = Too much development time.

Several parameters to consider if you want results to be predictable:

A) Stick to a method on inverting the developement tank (frequency, pattern,etc...)
B) Keep an eye on bath temperature and heer again, stick with a temperature you can easily master.

Expose your first roll and develop it as usual. From there, ajust ISO and/or developement of the next roll to change density (1-2) and/or contrast (3-4). After 3 or 4 rolls, you should get negatives more suitable to your taste.

This method is not going to give you 100% perfect negatives but at least it should increase their quality and allow you more flexibility under the enlarger.

Regarding you point #2: I guess that water quality (for developement) and personal taste / printing habits have a great influence. Your equipement too: Maybe your vamera meter is slightly off, maybe the lens is not that contrasty (in this case, increase the ISO and the developement time. This is what I do with my Lubitel to get decent negs). You are not always shooting in a controlled environment!

For your 2) highlights burnt, don't you mean ISO too low? (overexposed)?
"Maybe your camera meter is slightly off, maybe the lens is not that contrasty (in this case, increase the ISO and the developement time"
You mean pushing the film? I'd want to try to push the film to 800 but I think I should find the "normal" development times first for around ISO 400.

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

canuhead said:
those look *marginally* thin but I'd have no problem making prints with those negs. Have printed worse. the proof is in the pudding, so try making a few prints and judge those.

baachitraka said:
These will print very good.

I'd definitely had worse negatives but to my eye there is not enough contrast upfront. Have to add too much afterwards.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
Context / Long story short: Always had very thin negatives, quit film photography 3 years ago.. but I'm back.
Changed film stock to HP5+ instead of Tri-X. Still using my 5 y/o HC-110 bottle which looks very brown.

Problem:
Developed a new test roll to see if my camera was still working and the negatives look very thin (ugh).
I took the recommended time of Ilford HP5+ and HC-110 on dilution B at 20C which is 5 minutes.

I compared to older b/w negatives which were developed by a lab and they look a lot denser and they print/scan a lot better as well.

Exposure seems okay, sometimes a little under.
I use distilled water to mix my developer, and check temp for 20C!

Solution: Increase development time.

Question: How is it possible that my development time has to be increased so much to achieve the same density as opposed to the data sheets telling it should be only 5 minutes of development time? What could be so different to my equipment / process that influences development time so much compared to other people?

Could the HC-110 be exhausted due to age? Even though I read the syrup lasts for a very long time. Bottle is 1/3rd full. Any other guesses?

Your meter is under exposing the film.

Dali · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
For your 2) highlights burnt, don't you mean ISO too low? (overexposed)?

"Maybe your camera meter is slightly off, maybe the lens is not that contrasty (in this case, increase the ISO and the developement time"
You mean pushing the film? I'd want to try to push the film to 800 but I think I should find the "normal" development times first for around ISO 400.

You are right! Highlight burnt = ISO too low (= too much exposure). I changed my message to fix the wording.
If you give the film a longer than normal development to compensate for the low contrast of the lens, there is a high chance you need to expose accordingly, hence my recommendation to set a higher ISO. Taking my Lubi as an example, I set the meter 2/3 stop higher and develop 20% more. Shadows are not empty and negative contrast is OK.

Pentode · Jun 11, 2020

Lots of good food for thought in this thread but I’m a little confused as to why some posters are still touting exposure as the problem. The OP has clearly stated - several times - that the shadow detail is there and the numbers in the rebates are only light grey. This means that the OP is correct in his belief that this is a developing issue.

There are also people insisting that the negatives are fine. The OP stated that he prefers denser negatives and asked how to achieve that. I understand that everyone’s just trying to help but it seems to me that it’s only further muddying the waters.... it’s all good information and it’s all useful but it’s not really answering the question.

OP: The short answer is that it’s very common for people to end up settling on a developing time that is different than the published time. It seems to be more common for the time to be longer (I’m not sure why) and it can often be different by a fair amount. I find that some of my times are different by more than 20%.

Published times are just starting points to get you in the ballpark. Manufacturers don’t have any control over your local water source or your thermometer or your darkroom practices so they publish an ‘average’ time that is most likely to get you a printable negative under nearly any conditions and then you need to taylor it to your taste from there. Don’t worry too much about it. It’s normal. Some people like thin negatives, some people like dense negatives and the poor manufacturers are trying to accommodate everybody. They get as close as they can and the rest is up to us.

Agitation won’t affect density (much) but it can have a big impact on contrast. I think it was Adrian Bacon who suggested earlier that you switch to agitation every 30 seconds and I agree with him. For faster films I find I get better contrast with an initial 20-45 seconds (usually closer to 20) of continuous agitation and then 4 turns every 30 seconds. That’s the Kodak-recommended agitation scheme.

Lastly, you should consider whether or not you include your pour-in and/or pour-out times in your timing. It doesn’t matter if you do or not. What does matter is that you do it the same way every time.

Hope this helps, and be sure to have fun.

Donald Qualls · Jun 11, 2020

Pentode said:
The short answer is that it’s very common for people to end up settling on a developing time that is different than the published time. It seems to be more common for the time to be longer (I’m not sure why) and it can often be different by a fair amount.

It's my understanding that film manufacturers' times are aimed at the thinnest printable negative with good shadow detail -- this gives the least grain. If the negative prints well at grade 2 to 3, and retains shadow detail enough to support the claimed film speed (and occasionally if it doesn't) in whatever developing the system the manufacturer tests in, that's where they land.

This isn't new -- this goal was behind the ASA speed definition change of 1959-1960 that effectively doubled the box speed of most films with no emulsion or process changes. Least exposure to give required shadow detail, least development to give printable contrast, give "highest quality" images by the definition the manufacturers use -- which, at the time of the ASA speed change, was based on what amounted to focus group testing of actual prints with photographic lay people, members of the "great unfixed" if you will.

It shouldn't, then, be a huge surprise that a lot of actual photographers prefer either denser or higher contrast negatives for various reasons. Manufacturers don't test extreme dilution, stand development, or "left field" developing chemistry either -- but some photographers like the results from leaving their Rodinal 1:100 undisturbe for an hour or more (or inverting, once, every thirty minutes during that time to limit bromide drag), others swear by various brands of beer with vitamin C and washing soda added.

Test your film, your chemistry, and your process, and do what gives the results you like.

Pentode · Jun 11, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
It's my understanding that film manufacturers' times are aimed at the thinnest printable negative with good shadow detail.

Thank you, Donald. I learned something today.

Saganich · Jun 11, 2020

I'll second, or third, the exposure and negs look fine regarding Don's and others comment about minimal development (which isn't a bad thing for printing or scanning necessarily). It is easy to become dissatisfied too early in the process and often it's a good idea to not worry too much until the end, when it's hung on the wall, but it is a long process to get there. If your aiming for more contrast in development I would, with fresh developer, run a roll at 5 minutes as before and run another at 7 minutes. Compare. Process should go like this for small tank for max contrast: Initial agitation full 60 seconds then agitate for 10 seconds after each full 60 seconds of rest. Pace of agitation should be adagio; a relaxed twist and inversion. There may be joy in burning a brick of film just to figure out something possibly important. Regards.

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

Dali said:
You are right! Highlight burnt = ISO too low (= too much exposure). I changed my message to fix the wording.
If you give the film a longer than normal development to compensate for the low contrast of the lens, there is a high chance you need to expose accordingly, hence my recommendation to set a higher ISO. Taking my Lubi as an example, I set the meter 2/3 stop higher and develop 20% more. Shadows are not empty and negative contrast is OK.

The 2nd item doesn't make sense to me, if you set the meter 2/3rd higher, it means you set your shutter speed higher for example = less light = less shadow detail no?

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

Pentode said:
Lots of good food for thought in this thread but I’m a little confused as to why some posters are still touting exposure as the problem. The OP has clearly stated - several times - that the shadow detail is there and the numbers in the rebates are only light grey. This means that the OP is correct in his belief that this is a developing issue.

There are also people insisting that the negatives are fine. The OP stated that he prefers denser negatives and asked how to achieve that. I understand that everyone’s just trying to help but it seems to me that it’s only further muddying the waters.... it’s all good information and it’s all useful but it’s not really answering the question.

OP: The short answer is that it’s very common for people to end up settling on a developing time that is different than the published time. It seems to be more common for the time to be longer (I’m not sure why) and it can often be different by a fair amount. I find that some of my times are different by more than 20%.

Published times are just starting points to get you in the ballpark. Manufacturers don’t have any control over your local water source or your thermometer or your darkroom practices so they publish an ‘average’ time that is most likely to get you a printable negative under nearly any conditions and then you need to taylor it to your taste from there. Don’t worry too much about it. It’s normal. Some people like thin negatives, some people like dense negatives and the poor manufacturers are trying to accommodate everybody. They get as close as they can and the rest is up to us.

Agitation won’t affect density (much) but it can have a big impact on contrast. I think it was Adrian Bacon who suggested earlier that you switch to agitation every 30 seconds and I agree with him. For faster films I find I get better contrast with an initial 20-45 seconds (usually closer to 20) of continuous agitation and then 4 turns every 30 seconds. That’s the Kodak-recommended agitation scheme.

Lastly, you should consider whether or not you include your pour-in and/or pour-out times in your timing. It doesn’t matter if you do or not. What does matter is that you do it the same way every time.

Hope this helps, and be sure to have fun.

Haha thank you for this! Exactly, this place is both heaven and a curse. I get so much information and good advice it's hard to know what to look for first. But being a bit more experienced now made it easier what to look for.
Thank you for explaining why development times are so different for everyone.

However I got a question about density, contrast and agitation.
I thought the more denser the negative, the more tonal separation => contrast.
However you say agitation doesn't affect density but it does affect contrast. How does that work?

I will try the new agitation and do some small tests with bracketed shots and different development times, keeping the rest as consistent as possible.

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
It's my understanding that film manufacturers' times are aimed at the thinnest printable negative with good shadow detail -- this gives the least grain. If the negative prints well at grade 2 to 3, and retains shadow detail enough to support the claimed film speed (and occasionally if it doesn't) in whatever developing the system the manufacturer tests in, that's where they land.

This isn't new -- this goal was behind the ASA speed definition change of 1959-1960 that effectively doubled the box speed of most films with no emulsion or process changes. Least exposure to give required shadow detail, least development to give printable contrast, give "highest quality" images by the definition the manufacturers use -- which, at the time of the ASA speed change, was based on what amounted to focus group testing of actual prints with photographic lay people, members of the "great unfixed" if you will.

It shouldn't, then, be a huge surprise that a lot of actual photographers prefer either denser or higher contrast negatives for various reasons. Manufacturers don't test extreme dilution, stand development, or "left field" developing chemistry either -- but some photographers like the results from leaving their Rodinal 1:100 undisturbe for an hour or more (or inverting, once, every thirty minutes during that time to limit bromide drag), others swear by various brands of beer with vitamin C and washing soda added.

Test your film, your chemistry, and your process, and do what gives the results you like.

I did not know that, thank you!

Makes me wonder, if you have a more dense negative and thus more tonal separation won't it be better image quality as well? Because else all the information is "compressed" in this thin negative, but if you develop longer, get more tonal separation you might have more detail, no? Or doesn't it work that way?

Donald Qualls · Jun 11, 2020

"Density" is a multipurpose word. More agitation or longer development will increase density in the entire negative, as every exposed area will develop more silver (up to a point, of course) -- but because the more exposed areas develop more silver than the less exposed, to any given level of development, increasing development will increase contrast. The negatives will look denser, because of the darker highlight regions -- and they'll have bigger difference between highlights and shadows.

Exposing more will make the entire negative denser. Assuming you don't go over the shoulder of the curve (and extreme example of this is in Ansel Adams's Black Sun), you'll increase the density of the shadows (that were already above the toe) and the highlights by about the same amount, so you'll add density without changing contrast.

Increasing contrast by developing more is what we do when we "push" a development -- this does little for the shadows, which (because we reduced exposure) will likely come up pretty blank, but it darkens the midtones and highlights, so on casual view, the final print can look lighter and more "normal" than it would have done if you exposed at the camera's "wide open" and lowest practical shutter but were still underexposing -- but this is increasing density by increasing contrast.

Donald Qualls · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
I did not know that, thank you!

Makes me wonder, if you have a more dense negative and thus more tonal separation won't it be better image quality as well? Because else all the information is "compressed" in this thin negative, but if you develop longer, get more tonal separation you might have more detail, no? Or doesn't it work that way?

At least in the 1959-1960 ASA change, they went by the opinions of ordinary folks, who'd make a 12 exposure roll of 620 last for two Christmases.

However, you need to remember that enlarging paper has, at most, about 5 stops between total black and complete white. When you choose your exposure and printing contrast at the enlarger, you're choosing which five stops you want to actually see. There are some tricks that will (usually) get you a sixth (preflashing, split filter burning). The negative, on some stocks, can hold NINE stops.

Printing from a lower contrast negative reduce the choices a bit, limiting that need to abandon details in the shadows to get them in the highlights or vice versa.

Remember, all this stuff was designed to be printed on silver halide paper...

pentaxuser · Jun 11, 2020

Pentode if you spout anymore blatant and useful commonsense I'll have to report you

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
Context / Long story short: Always had very thin negatives, quit film photography 3 years ago.. but I'm back.
Changed film stock to HP5+ instead of Tri-X. Still using my 5 y/o HC-110 bottle which looks very brown.

Problem:
Developed a new test roll to see if my camera was still working and the negatives look very thin (ugh).
I took the recommended time of Ilford HP5+ and HC-110 on dilution B at 20C which is 5 minutes.

I compared to older b/w negatives which were developed by a lab and they look a lot denser and they print/scan a lot better as well.

Exposure seems okay, sometimes a little under.
I use distilled water to mix my developer, and check temp for 20C!

Solution: Increase development time.

Question: How is it possible that my development time has to be increased so much to achieve the same density as opposed to the data sheets telling it should be only 5 minutes of development time? What could be so different to my equipment / process that influences development time so much compared to other people?

Could the HC-110 be exhausted due to age? Even though I read the syrup lasts for a very long time. Bottle is 1/3rd full. Any other guesses?

Since you had the problem three years ago and changing film does not solve the problem points to the light meter [in or out of the camera] is out of calibration. I had the same problem until I attended a week long class with Alan Ross. He said the problem was that my light meters needed calibration and he lent me his for a week. Immediately the problem went away. Contact George at Quality Light Metric in Hollywood. He is the go to guy for the movie industry.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
I do 1 minute intervals instead of 30 seconds. Does it matter that much?
So if I need to develop 5 minutes =
5 seconds agitation, 25 seconds nothing, 5 seconds agitation, 25 seconds nothing and repeat until 5 minutes?
Also, how long should the initial agitiation be after pouring in?

I have a new thermometer from Kaiser, so yes, I checked if the temp was 20C constant.

it does make a difference. Initial agitation is generally 15-30 seconds. I personally prefer 30 seconds as that’s about how long it takes to initially wet and get into the emulsion.

In terms of scanning, those negatives from a lab are probably developed to a higher contrast level.

Dali · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
The 2nd item doesn't make sense to me, if you set the meter 2/3rd higher, it means you set your shutter speed higher for example = less light = less shadow detail no?

Don't forget that at the same time, developer has more time to work on shadowed areas. Also, low contrast lenses (i.e. poor coating or no coating) are usually more gentle with shadows (but are less "resilient" to high values).

MattKing · Jun 11, 2020

Jessestr said:
I'm shooting RAW so yes it still gets processed a little but minimal.

About "that doesn't mean that the denser negatives are better than less dense negatives", then why does development time matter so much if you can just fix it in post? I think a denser negative scans better and looks better than a thin negative which is digitally made more contrasty.

There is a huge amount of processing that happens in the camera before anything RAW is available from it.
And of course, the inversion function in your software or camera firmware does a huge amount of processing as well.
As for your preference for denser negatives, what I'm trying to communicate to you is that it is entirely normal to achieve different densities in different circumstances and with different materials.
And within a significant range, each of those densities is equally capable of high quality results that will be to your liking.
The fact that one development approach gives you "scans" that appeal to you without modification doesn't mean that that development approach is better. It just means that that approach happens, as a matter of convenient good fortune, to work well with all the internal presets in your digitizing workflow.
The reason that ISO standards result in negatives with the lowest possible usable shadow densities is that if you develop to those standards, and have an automated lab make machine prints from them, statistically you will end up with the highest percentage of prints that a majority of people will prefer. ISO standards favour mid-tone and highlight rendition, and that is what the majority of people respond to.

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

MattKing said:
There is a huge amount of processing that happens in the camera before anything RAW is available from it.
And of course, the inversion function in your software or camera firmware does a huge amount of processing as well.
As for your preference for denser negatives, what I'm trying to communicate to you is that it is entirely normal to achieve different densities in different circumstances and with different materials.
And within a significant range, each of those densities is equally capable of high quality results that will be to your liking.
The fact that one development approach gives you "scans" that appeal to you without modification doesn't mean that that development approach is better. It just means that that approach happens, as a matter of convenient good fortune, to work well with all the internal presets in your digitizing workflow.
The reason that ISO standards result in negatives with the lowest possible usable shadow densities is that if you develop to those standards, and have an automated lab make machine prints from them, statistically you will end up with the highest percentage of prints that a majority of people will prefer. ISO standards favour mid-tone and highlight rendition, and that is what the majority of people respond to.

Thanks! I get it now !

Jessestr · Jun 11, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
it does make a difference. Initial agitation is generally 15-30 seconds. I personally prefer 30 seconds as that’s about how long it takes to initially wet and get into the emulsion.

In terms of scanning, those negatives from a lab are probably developed to a higher contrast level.

I just shot the same scene again with the new agitation and NEW fresh HC-110. Same light metering, same exposure etc, .. WHAT a difference in density!!

Left is the new HC-110 bottle + different agitation: 4 turns at 30 sec interval - 30 second initial
Right 5 y/o bottle with this agitation scheme: 4 turns every minute - 10 second initial

As an extra... my old HC-110 bottle compared to the new one

MattKing · Jun 11, 2020

Different film as well?

Why do I need to develop longer?

Jessestr

Dali

canuhead

baachitraka

Jessestr

Jessestr

RalphLambrecht

Dali

Pentode

Donald Qualls

Pentode

Saganich

Jessestr

Jessestr

Jessestr

Donald Qualls

Donald Qualls

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass

Adrian Bacon

Dali

MattKing

Moderator

Jessestr

Jessestr

Attachments

MattKing

Moderator

Why do I need to develop longer?

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency