Developing and agitating less = less contrasty + soft?

[jusxusfanatic]

Developing and agitating less = less contrasty + soft?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Less contrast, yes. Sharpness is a bit more complicated. Broadly, less exposure = more sharpness, but eventually the contrast falls so low that the results are awful.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Shorter developing times reduce contrast, and so does less agitation. I don't like changing agitation to adjust contrast, though. Its easier to stick to a standardized agitation technique and control contrast through developing time changes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shorter developing times reduce contrast, and so does less agitation. I don't like changing agitation to adjust contrast, though. Its easier to stick to a standardized agitation technique and control contrast through developing time changes.

Seconded.

Cheers,

R.

 

[presspass]

You can also change both contrast and sharpness by changing the developer's dilution. A 1:3 dilution used with the recommended or determined time will be sharper than 1:1 or straight. It may also tame the contrast somewhat. That's true of D-76, D-23, or Xtol.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Thanks for the info guys 🙂 Gonna try developing for a shorter time and agitate less

 

[Calzone]

Be aware that perceived sharpness is also tied to contrast, where higher contrast prints from the same image capture will appear sharper.

My question is are your images really soft?

Also less development time or less development promotes sharpness. For sharpness I favor more concentrated/highly active developers that require less time than diluted developers that require more time.

Cal

 

[mcfingon]

I'm with Calzone, at least with XTOL. I believe it gives its best sharpness with no dilution and my time for Delta 100 in stock solution is 5.5 minutes, well under the recommended. I also detect more acutance with agitation at 1 minute intervals than at 30 seconds. That should get some responses!

 

[Dwig]

Be aware that perceived sharpness is also tied to contrast, where higher contrast prints from the same image capture will appear sharper.
...

Exactly.

"Sharpness" doesn't existing in the real world. It only exists in the mind of the viewer. It is the result of the massive "computer" processing that is the human visual system.

Sharpness has quite a number of factors. The primary influences are resolution and contrast along edges (not necessarily the overall deepest black to whitest white contrast). Reducing contrast in processing will generally reduce the perceived sharpness.

Similarly, many older lenses are often perceived as less sharp when in actuality they are merely lower contrast. Processing the film, or digital camera file, to achieve higher contrast will frequently reveal that the lens is quite sharp.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Oh, I want softer images!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, I want softer images!

But "soft" is complex too. Both it and "sharp" are complex mixtures of resolution, contrast, and even subject matter, never mind tonality.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Will see then, any other idea on getting softer images?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Will see then, any other idea on getting softer images?

What sort of "soft" do you want? How are you defining "soft"? What are you photographing?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Well not sharp images, I shoot street

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well not sharp images, I shoot street

What do you see as the drawback to sharp images? And "soft" = "not sharp" is effectively a tautology: you need to define one or the other, or both.

In street photography, camera shake normally takes the edge off resolution anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

If you're reducing agitation, make sure to agitate regularly but less duration to avoid bromide drag.

Phil Forrest

 

[presspass]

I wasn't clear about dilution and sharpness. I apologize. A more dilute developer with less frequent agitation promotes adjacency effects - see Anschell, et. al. or APUG - that makes a print appear sharper. It's very much a micro contrast thing between dark and light tones, a much more restricted use of higher contrast prints appearing to be sharper.

 

[Calzone]

I wasn't clear about dilution and sharpness. I apologize. A more dilute developer with less frequent agitation promotes adjacency effects - see Anschell, et. al. or APUG - that makes a print appear sharper. It's very much a micro contrast thing between dark and light tones, a much more restricted use of higher contrast prints appearing to be sharper.

PP,

Understood and a good point.

Cal

 

[john_s]

If you're thinking of reducing development to reduce contrast you might want to do it in conjunction with more exposure. Try it and see if you like the effect. I do it to avoid dark eye sockets in people pics.

 

[charjohncarter]

Rodinal for me with TriX produces sharper images (with more grain in 35mm). I'm like you and want more tones and a little softer image. I get this with HC-110h.

This is where I get lunch some days, so I don't feel contrasty here and I like the softness of their bread (35mm).

TMax100 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

By the way, I use slightly less development, less agitation, and half the box speed, that is if you care.