Develop by Inspection

[HansDerHase]

While reading "The Decisive Moment" online I came across what Richard L. Simon wrote under "A technical Report to Photographers". He wrote about M. Gassmans Pictorial Service that "finishes HCBs work". He states that the films are "developed by time-temperature control and inspection" to a certain gamma. Huh? Inspection while developing? How's that? Can someone explain? 😕

BTW: He also mentions the lengendary "Harvey 777" as their standard developer. Has any amateur here ever tried this at home? 😎

 

[markinlondon]

Hans,

Orthocromatic materials were able to be developed this way under safelight due to their lack of red sensitivity. Panchromatic materials can be developed by inspection under an indirect very dark green safelight. This is normally advised against by film manufacturers. I suppose the short answer is that it's really no longer an option.

I've just found this on Harvey 777 "panthermic" developer. http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

Mark

 

[kaiyen]

I know several, several folks that still develop by inspection on APUG. I think it's not recommended because the tolerance for fogging is pretty slim if you aren't careful.

Basically, you develop in trays and periodically check the density of your desired highlight against a safelight. This safelight is often left off except for when you want to check the density. You are basically guaranteed the correct amount of development for each sheet this way. I have never heard of anyone doing DBI with anything other than large format.

allan

 

[ddutchison]

... I have never heard of anyone doing DBI with anything other than large format.

Now, this reminded me of something I read about a photographer who was famous for developing 35mm film by inspection (famous because it is insanely difficult to pull off). Oddly enough, I actually managed to find the source.

The following is from a article by W. Eugene Smith. Besides mentioning the photographer (Bernie Hoffman from Life Magazine), Smith also includes the only description I've ever read of how to go about the process, should anyone be tempted to try it. He goes on to mention that a couple of rolls of film from the Minamata storey were developed by inspection.

In the early days it was easy to develop by inspection. You had these blind films you could hold up to a bright safety light and just look through. Now you turn on the dim green safety light a couple of minutes beforehand so your eyes get used to the light. Then, at eight minutes or so, you take the film out of the developer, hold it a foot and a half or so from the light, and turn it until the light reflects off the surface of the film for just a few seconds. It's a question of being able to evaluate the blacks and grays...

But I'm not as good at it as Bernie Hoffman. He used to have a pair of scissors, and as he was going through a roll of negatives, he would start clipping it up and developing this section more, and that section less.

From W. Eugene Smith's article in Darkroom, Lustrum Press, 1977, pg. 146

 

[Finder]

I am not sure that developing by inspection would be any more effective as any other method. It is usually done with sheet film rather than roll film (see above). Since the effects of development is consistant and known, the zone system or even Kodak data sheets can get better results than trying to estimate density in very dim light. It does however give you some control if you blow the exposure - shoot ISO X flm at ISO Y. So in some situations, you maybe able to save a shot.

 

[eric]

While reading "The Decisive Moment" online I came across what Richard L. Simon wrote under "A technical Report to Photographers". He wrote about M. Gassmans Pictorial Service that "finishes HCBs work". He states that the films are "developed by time-temperature control and inspection" to a certain gamma. Huh? Inspection while developing? How's that? Can someone explain? 😕

BTW: He also mentions the lengendary "Harvey 777" as their standard developer. Has any amateur here ever tried this at home? 😎

I used to be a B&W film developer in a B&W art lab in NYC. PM me for my AIM address and I can talk to you more about it.

Its a green safelight (I think its called XO). Much like paper and red safelight, you can, briefly, use the green safelight and "inspect" the density of the negs. Very handy when someone like Annie Liebowitz drops film off and says "umm, develop by inspection cause I messed up the ASA on the camera". Basically, 100% of film was souped via inspection anyway.

On a side note, 2 Apertures issues ago, I opened it up, and in the back, was an article on the lab owner's wife. She started a magazine called "Blind Spot" which seems to still be in publication. She recently passed away and I was kinda shocked. Pretty young.

 

[Finder]

I am not sure that developing by inspection would be any more effective as any other method. It is usually done with sheet film rather than roll film (see above). Since the effects of development is consistant and known, the zone system or even Kodak data sheets can get better results than trying to estimate density in very dim light. It does however give you some control if you blow the exposure - shoot ISO X flm at ISO Y. So in some situations, you maybe able to save a shot.

 

[kaiyen]

But the zone system's N, N-1, N+1 etc. system still isn't as granular (heheh) as DBI. My FP4+ in Rodinal 1+50 N time is 9:00. My N-1 is 8:30. My N-2 (which I rarely, rarely ever want to do) is 7:30. What if the perfect time for a kinda N-1 is 8:45? Those 15 seconds can be significant for some shots.

Getting the right methods for not only inspecting density but also interpreting density in the right parts of the negative is difficult, but perhaps no more difficult than learning how to tray develop in the first place (something I tried for the first time 2 days ago).

allan

 

[x-ray]

I've processed 35mm by inspection. I used Kodak Desinsitizer prior to developement and used the dark green safelight. The process is very tricky and requires judging density through the back as well as by looking at the emulsion. The only reason that I would do this is shooting in extreme low light conditions with slower film and not being able to accurately meter the exposure. Good examples in my gallery are KKK 6 and carnival stripper #1 and 2. The KKK shot was exposed on Tri-X and inspection processed. The light for the shot was from the burning cross and was too low to register on my MR meter. The carnival strippers were exposed under the ilumination of one or two incandescent light bulbs hanging from the tent top. The illumination did not register on my MR meter. You just make your best guess and process hoping for the best.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045