thebelbo
Member
Hi,
As I've described in another thread I'm currently changing my exposure and development times to overexpose by +1 stop and decrease development time by -20% to -30% to manage better shadow detail and highlights - link to this discussion here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174171
I'm using a Condenser enlarger (Leitz Focomat) and reading the technical data sheet for HC-110 today I came across a guidance from Kodak to reduce -30% development time for condenser enlargers.
My question is whether that would be too much as cumulative we're talking about a reduction vs the recommended development time of -50% to -60%, is that a meaningful starting development time? Moreover I'm wondering if I should be assuming that ALL recommended times are designed assuming diffuser enlarger in which case I will need to be reducing by -30% development times for all film+developer combinations (times quoted on the Massive development chart, etc).
Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
As I've described in another thread I'm currently changing my exposure and development times to overexpose by +1 stop and decrease development time by -20% to -30% to manage better shadow detail and highlights - link to this discussion here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174171
I'm using a Condenser enlarger (Leitz Focomat) and reading the technical data sheet for HC-110 today I came across a guidance from Kodak to reduce -30% development time for condenser enlargers.
My question is whether that would be too much as cumulative we're talking about a reduction vs the recommended development time of -50% to -60%, is that a meaningful starting development time? Moreover I'm wondering if I should be assuming that ALL recommended times are designed assuming diffuser enlarger in which case I will need to be reducing by -30% development times for all film+developer combinations (times quoted on the Massive development chart, etc).
Thank you in advance for your thoughts!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Depends on which Focomat you use, IIc, Ic or v35, they are all very different.
To improve the management of shadow detail and highlights in b+w photography it is much better to experiment with split grade printing than to change the developing times of the film. The change of developing times will not change much: to develop shorter produces thin negatives that are hard to print and to develop longer produces dense negatives that are also hard to print. Just make fine looking negatives and get yourself a set of gradation filters (Ilford) and high quality multigrade paper (Ilford) and start printing right away.
Erik.
To improve the management of shadow detail and highlights in b+w photography it is much better to experiment with split grade printing than to change the developing times of the film. The change of developing times will not change much: to develop shorter produces thin negatives that are hard to print and to develop longer produces dense negatives that are also hard to print. Just make fine looking negatives and get yourself a set of gradation filters (Ilford) and high quality multigrade paper (Ilford) and start printing right away.
Erik.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Start by a 20% reduction in your developing times & increasing your exposure by one stop. As Chris C has mentioned...the Massive Development Chart is not very accurate. As i may have mentioned in another post....how are you metering? in camera? spot? ....in which case where are you placing your shadows? or incident metering.
Also what is the nature of the scenes you are photographing? Strong light. ...or overcast.... all will affect your negative. I wouldn't worry about prints until you've got a bit of a handle on your negatives. BTW there are good books on the subject. The internet is full of stuff ...a lot of if can be taken with a large grain of salt. Books like "The Negative" by Adams, "Way Beyond Monochrome," by Woodhouse & Lambrecht, "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum are just a few that come to mind....that can give you a lot of additional useful information.
retinax
Well-known
I think of the reduction of developing time for exposing an extra stop as sort of optional, it depends on how much contrast you like and your scene had, how you meter (might only now expose somewhat correctly rather than over), the characteristic curve and how you like to print. So don't reduce too much at once. Your issue in the other thread was just shadow detail, not too much contrast, right? Then you might not have to reduce at all.
Disagree with this from the above reply: "I wouldn't worry about prints until you've got a bit of a handle on your negatives". How would the OP get a better handle on the negatives than through feedback when printing?
Disagree with this from the above reply: "I wouldn't worry about prints until you've got a bit of a handle on your negatives". How would the OP get a better handle on the negatives than through feedback when printing?
thebelbo
Member
Hi, I’m using the camera meter (center weighted), generally I’m shooting a lot of high contrast scenes or at least those are the problematic ones. I’m using an average exposure value so a lot of times shadow detail escape hence why I’m starting to overexpose. On darkroom work I’ve done a fair amount of reading and also have done a full course so I actually have a decent knowledge.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
By examining the negatives.... e.g. are they dense? Can you read a newspaper through them? If you're a practiced printer then of course you can do it by printing. But if you're just beginning developing and printing...how can you know what to adjust? It's rather a broad scope....
thebelbo
Member
Thanks for your answer: that’s good advice. That’s where I’m leaning towards, starting with a maybe -40% reduction on development time see where that leads and then go from there. I do get blocked highlights as well so I generally get high contrast negatives. Having read this guidance from Kodak today I start to realize that my condenser enlarger combined with underexposure might actually play a big part on this.
Just to clarify: I’m not starting now with darkroom, I have been doing developing and printing for some time but basically staying within the boundaries of recommended times-procedures.
retinax
Well-known
While judging shadows in a negative is easy, judging highlights density/contrast is hard without other known good negatives to compare to. The newspaper test is dubious. Under what lighting? How good is your eyesight? How large and bright are the highlights in this negative? To me, judging a negative in printing is rather logical and was so as soon as I understood just the basic controls. And they aren't rocket science, every other 12 year old used to be able to print after all.
retinax
Well-known
Then go ahead! 40% still seems like quite a lot, but maybe you do need that much reduction.
What grade were you printing at? Have you tried burning in some highlights? This can be the better option because you get to keep greater local and shadow contrast (shadow contrast only if you have exposed enough to have these shadows in the negative of course),
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Retinax...... Different strokes for different folks... & yes 12 year olds could make a perfunctory print.... but Rome wasn't built in a day either ;-)
In the end, take photos, process film, make prints..... make adjustments = learn as you go.... just as we all did
In the end, take photos, process film, make prints..... make adjustments = learn as you go.... just as we all did
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
What retinax said..... 40% seems a lot...
aizan
Veteran
Is your filtration very low when you print? Kodak's recommendation would be good to follow if it is. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it.
thebelbo
Member
I wouldn't call them dense. Generally a bit too contrasty & lacking shadow detail.
thebelbo
Member
Does anyone have experience with Condenser enlargers and can comment on the kind of film development times they're using to get the best printing results? thanks again
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
I learned eons ago not to do those adjustments.
They were OK for single grade paper but with MG paper is superfluous
You may want to revisit your neagtive years later and you'll kick yourself for those adjustments
It is better to control contrast by using developer at the right temperature and lower the agitation regime to every 2 minutes to avoid blooming the highlights and extending the tonal range
They were OK for single grade paper but with MG paper is superfluous
You may want to revisit your neagtive years later and you'll kick yourself for those adjustments
It is better to control contrast by using developer at the right temperature and lower the agitation regime to every 2 minutes to avoid blooming the highlights and extending the tonal range
thebelbo
Member
Thanks, so you're suggesting not to modify time at all for a condenser enlarger, correct? With the alternative agitation method that you're suggesting you're agitating every 2', is that for 10" and are you modifying development time at all? thanks.
rlouzan
Well-known
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Time get adjusted yes, and that depends on your experience I like to give it a ~10% more
In my notes for Ilford FP4+ I have
Rodinal 1+50 for 14 minutes (+1 min)
DDX 1+4 for 10 minutes
D76 1+1 12 min (+1 min)
As you can see I prefer to dilute developers to be on the ~10 min range more than in the ~6min in order to be in a more repteable range of times for me.
As always, this is my personal preference and YMMV
In my notes for Ilford FP4+ I have
Rodinal 1+50 for 14 minutes (+1 min)
DDX 1+4 for 10 minutes
D76 1+1 12 min (+1 min)
As you can see I prefer to dilute developers to be on the ~10 min range more than in the ~6min in order to be in a more repteable range of times for me.
As always, this is my personal preference and YMMV
jgrainger
Established
While not an expert, and far less experienced than some of the posters here.. I shoot HP5 at 320 and have reduced development time by 20%, along with changing to gentler agitation (D76). This was prompted by a combination of casual lens tests which had too much contrast and excessive grain for fine detail - local scans weren't picking up detail, and to make negatives easier to print on my old De Vere 32 (traditional condensor setup).
I'm not really into the high contrast B&W look, but can get sufficient contrast for my needs, along with getting a bit more detail, the finer grain/agitation was a plus too.
I'm not really into the high contrast B&W look, but can get sufficient contrast for my needs, along with getting a bit more detail, the finer grain/agitation was a plus too.
KenR
Well-known
With Tmax400, my most often used film, I use HC110 dilution H (1:63) for 11 minutes at 68 degrees. This is twice the recommended time for dilution B. Generally prints are made with 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 filters.
The only film that I have not been able to tame is FP4 which despite reduced times with HC110 and even divided D-23, I get blown out highlights and have to print with a 0 or a 1/2 filter and then burn the highlights in with a 00. (not my favorite film despite the fine work that others have produced with it).
The only film that I have not been able to tame is FP4 which despite reduced times with HC110 and even divided D-23, I get blown out highlights and have to print with a 0 or a 1/2 filter and then burn the highlights in with a 00. (not my favorite film despite the fine work that others have produced with it).