Adjusting Dev Time in 1/3 Stops?

[De_Corday]

So I've taken to exposing TriX at 320. Don't know if its superstition or science, but I like the way it looks.

Problem is I was an idiot with my exposure comp dial last time I loaded my F3, and I'm exposing this roll at 250 (ISO set at 320, exp comp set at +1/3).

Should I:
A) Completely forget about it and develop at EI400
B) Pull Develop for 200
C) cut 30 sec or so off my development time to effectively develop at EI320 and therefore keep the exposure I was aiming for with the initial 320 exposure?

 

[Roger Hicks]

(A) by a very long chalk.

Otherwise you are looking for more precision than exists in the system.

What do you think cutting development will do?

Cheers,

R

 

[De_Corday]

Thank you, Roger.

In answer to your question, I'm honestly not sure. Compared to most folk here, I'm still pretty much brand new to development.

I figured a third stop is a very small margin, but my sense was that a reduction in dev time, if done right, would effectively develop at 320, and therefore keep the 1/3-stop-underexposure that I have been consistently achieving by shooting at 320 and developing at 400.

I suppose I just don't have enough of an intuitive sense yet for how small of a deviation 1/3 stop truly is. What's the rule? Push a stop by increasing development time 50%? By that I would assume that pulling a third of a stop is decreasing by 17%, which is, if my math is right, just over two minutes off a Tri-X-in-Rodinal time of 13 minutes (per Massive Dev)...

Am I overthinking this?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thank you, Roger.

In answer to your question, I'm honestly not sure. Compared to most folk here, I'm still pretty much brand new to development.

I figured a third stop is a very small margin, but my sense was that a reduction in dev time, if done right, would effectively develop at 320, and therefore keep the 1/3-stop-underexposure that I have been consistently achieving by shooting at 320 and developing at 400.

I suppose I just don't have enough of an intuitive sense yet for how small of a deviation 1/3 stop truly is. What's the rule? Push a stop by increasing development time 50%? By that I would assume that pulling a third of a stop is decreasing by 17%, which is, if my math is right, just over two minutes off a Tri-X-in-Rodinal time of 13 minutes (per Massive Dev)...

Am I overthinking this?

Yes.

Also, if you're shooting at 320 and developing for 400, you're OVER-exposing

As a general rule, most people prefer the tonality they get with a tiny bit of over-exposure. A third of a stop is not only tiny: it's also within experimental error with most metering techniques.

Actually, "experimental error" is too generous, because it implies there's a "correct" exposure, and there isn't. There is ONLY a pleasing exposure, with a trade-off of grain, sharpness, film speed and tonality. This is why some people expose and develop 35mm more scantily than 120, for smaller grain and better sharpness, at the expense of film speed and tonality. The following is from Gurus and Why to Avoid Them, on my site:

1 Never trust anyone whose vocabulary does not include the phrase, "I could be wrong."

2 Never trust anyone who tries to tell you that their way is the only way. This is nonsense. If it were, everyone would do things the same way. The fact that they don't is something of a clue.

3 The purpose of photography is to enjoy yourself and make good pictures. It is not to purify the soul through suffering. Too many believe that if something is more difficult or expensive or obscure, it must necessarily be better, which is patent nonsense. A lot of photography is easy as well as enjoyable, and you can make superb pictures without ever venturing into the obscure.

4 Trust your own judgement. If five people tell you five different things, begin by considering the likelihood of which view is best. Then try it. Try the second likeliest, too, if you like.

5 Do not confuse great pictures with deep technical understanding. Many excellent photographers use an extremely limited range of techniques, and don't really understand how or why they work. That's fine -- until they start trying to explain to others how things work, when they may peddle flat nonsense, emphasizing the trivial and ignoring the important, thereby misleading their hapless pupils.

6 Do not confuse deep technical understanding with great pictures. Many of the greatest technical experts are indifferent photographers. This does not mean that technical understanding is inimical to good photography; it merely means that it is no guarantee of good photography. The only time that technical expertise gets in the way of photography is when you spend so much time reading and 'testing' that you never take any real photographs for their own sake.

7 Remember that times change. For example, when variable-contrast (VC) papers first appeared, they were awful. Now, except when you need the highest possible contrast (Grade 5 graded paper), or want a particular surface that is not available in VC, they are equal or superior to graded papers for the vast majority of applications.

8 If a guru's strategies work, it is because they are based on sound scientific work. Many guru-worshippers get this backwards, imagining (for example) that the Zone System (free module) is the basis of sensitometry, rather than a summary and sub-set of it. Read 'hard' books like Haist's Modern Photographic Processing and you can learn the real science behind the popularization -- and reflect that as well as being the author of perhaps the most highly respected work on the subject, Grant Haist is also a much-published photographer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JPSuisse]

De Corday:

I spent a lot of time reading Roger's site (and also donated) when I started to develop. I highly advise both...

Regarding your question, you will undoubtedly get people who will accuse you of asking overly complicated questions, and blah, blah, blah, when you ask questions like that.

I think it's good to ask questions like this in the beginning while keeping in mind that in spite of any technical understanding you might be getting, the skill you have at exposure, etc. might not show any correlation with the understanding in the beginning. This is anyway what I fought with for quite a while.

Good luck and good pictures!!

John

 

[Steve M.]

No worries, I always shoot Tri-X at 250. Just develop it regularly. In fact, on one roll I once shot it at 400, 200 and 100, and developed it normally in D76. They all looked great! ISO 100 had the tones compressed a little, but I rather liked it actually. Depends on what you're shooting. I had no grain issues at all.

The true speed of Tri-X is 200 to 250 anyway.

 

[Bill Clark]

Otherwise you are looking for more precision than exists in the system.

Agree.

Many variables so as I use the term, lots of "slush" built into the B&W photography system. I will mention a few here, the contents of the water that's used, minerals, ph, to the measuring of stuff such as mixing the stock/working developers, temperature and the method/accuracy for measuring.

Ingredients need to be fairly accurate when exposing transparency film and developing, especially the developer. Even color neg film developer needs to be accurate through the developing process. That's another story!

Then, in your case, it's the exposure setting, accuracy of metering & shutter to mention a few.

Some of this can be adjusted in the darkroom.

Just try to be consistent with what you do and the stuff you use. Know that this camera, the speeds may be inaccurate but use the same camera or adjust when using something different.

Back in the 1950's when I was poor I didn't have the money for a light meter and got pretty good, learn from my mistakes, to get proper exposure. I was really delighted when I bought my first 35mm camera sometime in the 1960s, a Minolta SRT-101 that had TTL metering! Wow!

 

[Steve M.]

My filing system seems to have eluded me at this moment, but the first shot here was shot at ISO 50 (all shots were w/ a yellow filter, so figure on one stop for that), the next at 200, the last at 100. Or, 100, 400, then 200. Sorry I don't have the matches at this moment for all 3, but you get the picture. There were no adjustments made in scanning whatsoever. Scanner was an old Epson 2450. Tri-x, developed for 7 minutes at 68 degrees, and shot in a Nikkormat FT2 w/ a non A.I. H 50 2 lens. I made a point to carefully expose everything exactly the same that day in exactly the same light. What I got from it is that you can customize your look w/ Tri-X by simply choosing the exposure w/o changing the developing time.

I recommend everyone do this to see what they like. Then, to really fine tune it, get a 36 exposure roll and shoot 10 shots at different ISOs. Take the film out in a change bag and cut it, then load it onto a reel and close it up in your developing tank. Re spool the film into the camera and take 10 more shots of the same thing that you shot of the first 10. Back into the change bag, cut the film, and put that into a black film canister. Re spool the film in the camera and do it one more time (you will probably only get 28-30 shots, as the others will disappear by advancing the film at the start of each section). Now, assuming that you wrote down which frame was shot at what ISO as you went along, develop each 1/3rd of the film differently. Develop one as "normal" and the other 2 as you wish. After it's done you will know exactly how your optimum way of doing this is, w/ your water and your agitation scheme. The more I look at the stuff that was shot at ISO 50 w/ a yellow filter (real ISO of 100), the more I like it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The true speed of Tri-X is 200 to 250 anyway.

No it isn't. The true ISO speed in (say) D-76 is 400. This is not the same as the speed that works for you, with your metering technique, developer, development regime, printer/scanner. ISO is reproducible. "Steve Speed" and "Roger Speed" aren't. "Roger Speed" is EI 320 with through-lens metering and development in DD-X (true ISO 500+) or EI 500 (=ISO) with spot metering of the darkest area in which I want texture and detail, using the "Shadow" index on any true (1 degree) spot meter I've tried.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agree.

Many variables so as I use the term, lots of "slush" built into the B&W photography system. I will mention a few here, the contents of the water that's used, minerals, ph, to the measuring of stuff such as mixing the stock/working developers, temperature and the method/accuracy for measuring.

Ingredients need to be fairly accurate when exposing transparency film and developing, especially the developer. Even color neg film developer needs to be accurate through the developing process. That's another story!

Then, in your case, it's the exposure setting, accuracy of metering & shutter to mention a few.

Some of this can be adjusted in the darkroom.

Just try to be consistent with what you do and the stuff you use. Know that this camera, the speeds may be inaccurate but use the same camera or adjust when using something different.

Back in the 1950's when I was poor I didn't have the money for a light meter and got pretty good, learn from my mistakes, to get proper exposure. I was really delighted when I bought my first 35mm camera sometime in the 1960s, a Minolta SRT-101 that had TTL metering! Wow!

Dear Bill,

Never bring the real world into the world of theory. Especially internet theory. It very seldom works. Everyone knows better than you (or me).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi friend Roger!

Oops!

Forgot about that.

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

[Ansel]

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Therefore you can process your roll normally, even if shot at 250 if you feel the highlights are normal (i.e. flat lighting, no shadows. The motorbike above is in flat lighting).

If not you can reduce dev. time by 20 or 30% for soft and hard shadows respectively.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Therefore you can process your roll normally, even if shot at 250 if you feel the highlights are normal (i.e. flat lighting, no shadows. The motorbike above is in flat lighting).

If not you can reduce dev. time by 20 or 30% for soft and hard shadows respectively.

Or 10 or 20% (that's as far as I would go). But it really ain't as critical as some people would have you believe.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ansel]

p.s. You should probably do your own speed test sometime but I normally expose at 200 and develop at either 9mins or 10 mins depending on the light.

 

[Roger Hicks]

p.s. You should probably do your own speed test sometime but I normally expose at 200 and develop at either 9mins or 10 mins depending on the light.

Exactly. And ALWAYS bear in mind that you may be seeing what you want to see. I know I do -- and I'm deliberately trying to be cynical. Sometimes I even use a densitometer. With the terminally gullible (such as those who fall for gurus), it's going to be worse.

Anything less than about 2/3 stop to 1 stop of overexposure is unlikely to have any significant adverse effects on balance (nicer tonality, lower sharpness... it's all a compromise). The same is true of beneficial effects.

Cheers,

R.