Why not 2 baths developer only?

[retina_restoration]

Thank you for summarising the benefits of 2 baths developers, however, your last point "increased risk of non-uniformity with roll films" confused me. I thought, from my readings on the subject, that 2 baths developers are meant to be used with non-uniformly exposed negatives!

What he means is that the technique introduces some risk of getting unevenly developed negatives. IE: areas of greater or lesser or uneven development in the image area. However, if you follow standard directions for using these developed, there is very little risk of getting blotchy or uneven negatives.

 

[Vaughn]

Some higher volume photographers like a replenish-based system...is a two-bath system adaptable to replenishment. Idle question...

 

[Milpool]

Thank you for summarising the benefits of 2 baths developers, however, your last point "increased risk of non-uniformity with roll films" confused me. I thought, from my readings on the subject, that 2 baths developers are meant to be used with non-uniformly exposed negatives!

By uniformity I mean evenness of development. There is generally going to be more risk of uneven development with two bath development relative to a properly formulated single bath developer. It might take some experimentation to find the best / most consistent method.

Two bath development can also potentially produce higher fog (which contributes to graininess) since they are usually not formulated for the relatively high alkalinity of the second bath.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with retina restoration, when I used Diafine in the 70s and 80s I could shoot TriX at 2400, plusx at 400, shooting in the tropics with heavy canopy Trix at 2400 was helpful, other wise plux X at 400 replaced TriX. I had the old cans with the old chart checking the Diafine datasheet Trix is now at 1200, Tmax 400 is 400. I shoot Foma 400 at 400, not a push, good shadow details.

 

[dcy]

I'm not sure that the argument, "I don't want to complicate things and have another bottle to store, etc," is such a compelling argument against two-baths. How much of this really represents, "I like how I am doing things and don't want to change."

My thoughts exactly. The "complexity" argument never made sense to me. Like... seriously... Is it really *complicated* to do another bath? Also, is doing another bath really more complicated than having to look up different development times for each individual film?

I wonder how many people who make that argument also advocate for the CineStill monobath.

The needs of a beginner can be different than those of an expert user. The need to avoid failures and the disappointment they bring is more important for a beginner, and divided developers can be more forgiving. Beginners may be trying out different types of film for the first time, and divided developers can accommodate that.

This reminds me that I still have plenty of BTTB at home. I should use some of it. Maybe I'll use it on my next roll of film.

 

[bernard_L]

I hope this is not too OT.
What is the preferred method for changing from bath A to B?

• Pour A out, then B in.
• Or: lift spiral from tank (lights out, obviously) and lower into second tank with B solution

Related question: I would guess that one should not agitate too much in the B bath, or the developing agents in the emulsion will be dispersed into the B bath. OTOH, I suppose some agitation is necessary to achieve uniformity of development.

I prefer advice that is based on empirical observations rather than prejudice (see: "hypo sinks to the bottom of the wash tank")

 

[dcy]

By uniformity I mean evenness of development. There is generally going to be more risk of uneven development with two bath development relative to a properly formulated single bath developer. It might take some experimentation to find the best / most consistent method.

Why is that?

I'm not the OP, but I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to uneven development from one shot to the next, or uneven development within the same image?

 

[albireo]

The image characteristics are baked into the film and your development technique has a limited effect on the result.

Well yes and no. It'll depend on the individual workflow, ultimately.

In my own (hybrid) workflow, exposure and development variables have a comparatively large effect on the final result, with development variables approaching film choice in importance.

However, I rely on exposure and development to carry most of the weight of whether or not the result I had in mind when I pressed the shutter will materialise or not.

I would imagine that in a traditional darkroom printing setup the choice of paper, enlarger lighting etc will play a large, perhaps larger role than development variables.

Similarly in a hybrid setup based on heavy post-processing, it will probably matter very little what developer/dilution etc was used.

Some people see the negative as a relatively unimportant starting point, and like to 'make it happen' via heavy-handed post processing: dodging, burning, liberal use of curve layers, vignetting, sepia toning, digital grain reduction etc.

If that's the goal - and that's absolutely fine - then clearly whether one uses D76 or Beutler means very, very little.

 

[F4U]

Thank you for summarising the benefits of 2 baths developers, however, your last point "increased risk of non-uniformity with roll films" confused me. I thought, from my readings on the subject, that 2 baths developers are meant to be used with non-uniformly exposed negatives!

The whole deal with 2 bath for the purposes of use on unknown films or getting the most from shadow details, is simply taking advantage of the fact that higher densities exhaust develop quicker that the lower densities. The first bath is the "developer bath", and the second one, having little or no developer, but still being alkaline, the second bath provides an environment for the carry-over first bath to keep developing the lower densities until complete developer exhaustion, and the higher densities will have ceased developing earlier because they have already exhausted their developer. Because the second bath is done with little or no agitation, can create areas on the film where developer distribution is uneven, causing mottle in some cases. But I will always contend that if 2 bath developer provided any real advantage, Kodak would have marketed one. But they knew that the tonal range of print paper is so much less than film, any advantage is mostly nullified anyway. On unknown films is where there's the greatest advantage. If you have Panatomic X and develop it as Plus X in a 2 bath, or Tri-X developed as Plus-X 2 bath, the former will be overdeveloped and the latter will be underdeveloped. But the 2-bath can better come to the rescue and provide a better chance of having a printable negative. on all.

 

[Milpool]

Why is that?

I'm not the OP, but I'm a bit confused. Are you referring to uneven development from one shot to the next, or uneven development within the same image?

Within the same frame. Development is fast in the second bath given the (usually) high alkalinity of the second bath. Since there is a pretty uniform amount of developer per area (volume) in the emulsion when it hits the second bath, and develops to completion, one might assume good uniformity is guaranteed, but it seems to be more complicated than that in practice. The risk of non-uniformity could also have to do with the often short development times in the first bath.

I’m not saying it can’t be done well, just that depending on the formula it seems it can be more finicky. Of course unless your frame has areas of uniform exposure you might not notice. The busier the picture, the more unevenness you can get away with.

For bath B, all other things being equal, an immersion would be preferable to pouring if the pouring takes long and there’s lots of splashing. So for example, pouring in a Paterson tank is probably better than in say a Kindermann tank.

 

[bluechromis]

2 bath developers are NOT temperature independent. You can vary the temperature of the two baths somewhat, but if you work at 85F (or 60F) then you are most definitely going to change the results. Many two part (divided) developers use a Bath A that is a functional developer on its own. For example, Barry Thornton's version of Divided D-23 has a Bath A that is nearly identical to regular D-23 and it acts as a rather slow developer, without the use of Bath B. So if you are using a divided developer of this type and you deviate significantly from 68F, you're going to have an effect on the outcome.

I've found that 2 bath developers rarely deliver full emulsion speed. I prefer Thornton's version myself, but it always requires 1/2 to 1 full stop more exposure to get negatives I want. Karl Matthias's "2B-1" is better at enhancing film speed, sometimes giving an extra half stop of speed, depending on the film you choose.

Divided developers aren't more popular because they require making from scratch from chemicals that not everyone cares to acquire and keep in their darkroom (takes up space, tedious to weigh out and assemble). It also adds another step in the process, and many people barely have the patience for standard "develop/stop/fix" protocols, let alone adding another step.

I am surprised to hear that divided developers don't deliver full emulation speed. I thought they were known for increasing film speed. Steven Anchell says in FDC 2nd ed., p.42: "Depending on the choice of developing agents, there can be little or no loss in emulsion sensitivity [with divided developers]; often sensitivity is increased."

Diafine instructions say: 'Because Diafine has the property of limiting highlight development, increased exposures result in higher shadow densities without "highlight blocking", thus effectively extending the tonal range. Diafine can accommodate as much as a two stop increase over the recommended indexes, without serious loss of quality." The recommended film E.I.s from the Diafine instructions are higher than box speed. For Tri-X 400 it is E.I. 1600. Why would they recommend those E.I.s if film lost speed with Diafine?
https://www.freestylephoto.com/static/pdf/product_pdf/acufine/acufine.pdf

 

[bluechromis]

Because before most of us were born, Eastman Kodak Company spent more money than most countries' GDP on R&D to market the finest and most consistent quality products the world ever has known or ever will. All you needed was a bottle, some clean water, a thermometer, and follow the instructions as they wrote them. Tiny nuanced results from other products and experiments can't top that to any remarkable degree.

You were correct in referring to Kodak's chemistry R&D in the past tense. Their effort to create Xtol was laudable, but it was also the swansong for Kodak's BW chemistry innovation. Now neither Alaris nor Eastman has control over the making of "Kodak-branded" chemistry. Due to turmoil among Kodak chemistry manufacturers, the products have sometimes been anything but consistent or represent exemplary quality control. For a time, it wasn't even clear they would continue to be made at all. Nor do we know that we are out of the woods with this going forward. Steve Anchell says the motion picture industry refuses to use commercial chemistry for the very reason that they fear inconsistency as manufacturers change formulas, incur quality control issues etc. It may require more effort, but at least with home-mixed solutions, one has control of what is in them.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What I have read and heard till now that 2 bath b&w negative developers have many advantages over conventional single bath ones. Like, they are temparature and film independent, very good for highligh control, usually maintain and sometimes increase film speed, keep for long time etc.

My question is, if 2 bath developers are so good, then why do we use conventional single bath developers at all?

because they are simpler to use,reliable,good for almost all films and have track record of up to 100 years.

 

[bluechromis]

The whole deal with 2 bath for the purposes of use on unknown films or getting the most from shadow details, is simply taking advantage of the fact that higher densities exhaust develop quicker that the lower densities. The first bath is the "developer bath", and the second one, having little or no developer, but still being alkaline, the second bath provides an environment for the carry-over first bath to keep developing the lower densities until complete developer exhaustion, and the higher densities will have ceased developing earlier because they have already exhausted their developer. Because the second bath is done with little or no agitation, can create areas on the film where developer distribution is uneven, causing mottle in some cases. But I will always contend that if 2 bath developer provided any real advantage, Kodak would have marketed one. But they knew that the tonal range of print paper is so much less than film, any advantage is mostly nullified anyway. On unknown films is where there's the greatest advantage. If you have Panatomic X and develop it as Plus X in a 2 bath, or Tri-X developed as Plus-X 2 bath, the former will be overdeveloped and the latter will be underdeveloped. But the 2-bath can better come to the rescue and provide a better chance of having a printable negative. on all.

If the argument is that there can be no value in using anything other than Kodak or Ilford chemistry, I would question that. f one takes HC-110 at low dilutions, it could be argued that all Kodak developers are of the same general type: fine-grain solvent developers. Kodak, at one time, made a Rodinal-like product, but no longer do. There is not that much diversity. They have no pyro developers, no true high-definition developers, no two-bath, no developers for document films. Until recently, there have not been many commercial pyro developers, at least in the modern era. But proponents of pyro say they have benefits that cannot be achieved with conventional commercial developers.

To say that if any of those other kinds of developers were any good, Kodak would have made them may miss the point. What Kodak decided to produce and invest R&D into was based on the potential for mass-market sales, not solely for artistic merit. Nowadays, the main use of analog materials is for fine art photography. But fine art photographers were a minor consideration in Kodak's decisions about developers. Their developers were primarily designed to meet the needs of commercial and industrial customers. D-76 was initially developed for the motion picture industry.

Steve Anchell says that D-76 became the best-selling developer, not because it was the best in all respects, but because it was promoted by mighty Kodak, it became a standard. Because it was a standard, Kodak feared purturbing customers by changing it, even though it had known drawbacks. We know Kodak was aware of drawbacks because Grant Haist, a Kodak employee, formulated an improved version: D-76H. They wanted to fix it, but couldn't. There are other improved versions as well. Now the best versions of D-76 may be the home-mixed ones. The success of D-76 caused Kodak to get locked into its formula, rather than improving it. So the fact that it was a big-time commercial product with the full power of EK behind it actually impeded the resolution of its problems rather than helping with them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I experimented with divided D23 early on for sheet film. A limited number of thick emulsion films were still available, including Super XX. Modern thin-emulsion films would respond less well.

Analogous "water-bath" development had the highest risk of uneven development. One runs across that technique in AA's old handbook, The Negative. I don't see it working well at all with today's films; and even in his own most famous example, Moonrise, it produced splotches in the sky, apparent until he later intensified the neg and printed down the affected areas almost totally black.

 

[Milpool]

Grant Haist, not Ed.

You’ve been misled in the usual way people are misled by the cookbooks. Aside from being decent sources for some ancient formulas, they are pretty lousy. They are full of untested suppositions and hyperbole, and most importantly they disregard the evolution of emulsion technology (besides the silly t-grain bashing).

 

[pentaxuser]

"Within the same frame. Development is fast in the second bath given the (usually) high alkalinity of the second bath. Since there is a pretty uniform amount of developer per area (volume) in the emulsion when it hits the second bath, and develops to completion, one might assume good uniformity is guaranteed, but it seems to be more complicated than that in practice. The risk of non-uniformity could also have to do with the often short development times in the first bath"

Can anyone who uses or has used 2 bath developer say whether what may happen in theory has actually happened in practice and have they been able to verify this occurrence to have been due to the reasons given above.?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

One of the disadvantages of using a divided developer is that has be used stock, with many developers such as Rodinal, Microdol X, D76 you adjust the edge effect by increasing the ratio of water to developer. With Tmax 100 I like Rodinal 1:50 or D76 1:2 and at one time I used Microdol X with Trix 1:3,

 

[DREW WILEY]

bluechromis - I use a tweak of highly dilute HC-110 to achieve very low gamma unsharp masks with a nearly straight line. I haven't found any other developer capable of that. It's amazingly versatile in terms of dilution.

Paul - the one thing I dislike about TMX100 is its weak edge effect. So I develop it in Perceptol 1:3 which give the grain just the right amount of extra "tooth". Microdol 1:3 is said to accomplish the same thing, though I haven't tried it. Makes no difference if I use store-bought Perceptol or home-brew. But don't try it with TMY400 or Acros, or you get gross grain. It's a whole different animal at 1:3 than 1:1. Dilute D76 introduces too much sag into the curve of TMX.

In terms of 2-bath development, I just don't see any need for it anymore in my toolbox, especially since I mainly switched to pyro development a long time back. Of today's films, HP5 and Tri-X 320 might be classified as the last semi-thick emulsions, if one wants to experiment.

 

[F4U]

bluechromis - I use a tweak of highly dilute HC-110 to achieve very low gamma unsharp masks with a nearly straight line. I haven't found any other developer capable of that. It's amazingly versatile in terms of dilution.

Paul - the one thing I dislike about TMX100 is its weak edge effect. So I develop it in Perceptol 1:3 which give the grain just the right amount of extra "tooth". Microdol 1:3 is said to accomplish the same thing, though I haven't tried it. Makes no difference if I use store-bought Perceptol or home-brew. But don't try it with TMY400 or Acros, or you get gross grain. It's a whole different animal at 1:3 than 1:1. Dilute D76 introduces too much sag into the curve of TMX.

In terms of 2-bath development, I just don't see any need for it anymore in my toolbox, especially since I mainly switched to pyro development a long time back. Of today's films, HP5 and Tri-X 320 might be classified as the last semi-thick emulsions, if one wants to experiment.

I'd be interested in hearing your formula for "home brew" Perceptol. I once tried a formula based on the standard D-23 formula + kosher salt, and reducing the metol to 5g instead of 7.5g. It was supposedly a Microdol "home brew". In actuality, the grain was NOT Microdol grain. The secret ingredients to Microdol X have never been revealed as far as I know. but kosher salt ain't it. thank you.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'd be interested in hearing your formula for "home brew" Perceptol. I once tried a formula based on the standard D-23 formula + kosher salt, and reducing the metol to 5g instead of 7.5g. It was supposedly a Microdol "home brew". In actuality, the grain was NOT Microdol grain. The secret ingredients to Microdol X have never been revealed as far as I know. but kosher salt ain't it. thank you.

I believe Photo Engineer disclosed here the secret ingredient X in Microdot-X shortly before he passed and went to the big yellow R&D lab in the sky.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Sidd I think it makes more pragmatic sense to state what you want from your developer and then ask if any of the two bath developers can deliver them.

 

[Sidd]

By uniformity I mean evenness of development. There is generally going to be more risk of uneven development with two bath development relative to a properly formulated single bath developer. It might take some experimentation to find the best / most consistent method.

Two bath development can also potentially produce higher fog (which contributes to graininess) since they are usually not formulated for the relatively high alkalinity of the second bath.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Sidd]

The whole deal with 2 bath for the purposes of use on unknown films or getting the most from shadow details, is simply taking advantage of the fact that higher densities exhaust develop quicker that the lower densities. The first bath is the "developer bath", and the second one, having little or no developer, but still being alkaline, the second bath provides an environment for the carry-over first bath to keep developing the lower densities until complete developer exhaustion, and the higher densities will have ceased developing earlier because they have already exhausted their developer. Because the second bath is done with little or no agitation, can create areas on the film where developer distribution is uneven, causing mottle in some cases. But I will always contend that if 2 bath developer provided any real advantage, Kodak would have marketed one. But they knew that the tonal range of print paper is so much less than film, any advantage is mostly nullified anyway. On unknown films is where there's the greatest advantage. If you have Panatomic X and develop it as Plus X in a 2 bath, or Tri-X developed as Plus-X 2 bath, the former will be overdeveloped and the latter will be underdeveloped. But the 2-bath can better come to the rescue and provide a better chance of having a printable negative. on all.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, 2 bath development would seem to be impractical for anything like a high volume commercial line.
And many/most of the commercially packaged developers are oriented toward that sort of environment, even if that sort of environment has become rare.