Film developing by inspection: yes or no?

tho60

tho60

Well-known
Local time
10:02 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
309
View My Gallery
Do you develop sheet film or plates by inspection? (Red or dark green safelight, depending on film type.)

Do you use the same developer for large and small format?
 
I do not, have never felt I needed to. The one or two times I tried I was not successful. FWIW you need to view the emulsion side if you attempt this.

My question is why do you want to? The only reason for me would be when I had sheets that I felt I may have missed exposure significantly, had extreme plus or minus development requirements. Development by inspection takes significant requires a lot of practice and experience. IMO the benefits aren't worth it.

The key to film exposure and development is precision and repeatability. This takes careful, controlled testing before making important exposures.

Others may have opposite opinions and better tips, which is fine.
 
Not in an age of consistent chemistry and film, advanced metering and bracketing, and digital thermometers and timers. Few films since the 1950s are capable of supporting this anyway.

Dante
 
In my experience, the learning curve is too steep to make that useful unless you standardize on one film, size and process - what you see is nowhere even near what the negatives will look like, it is all a matter of abstract interpretation. That is, I got pretty good at doing it for poster size raster lith film in the two years I was babysitting the photo lab of the printing workshop at art school (one film, one size, one raster, one silkscreen process, and the advantage of inspections in high intensity orange light), but I never felt like limiting my own processes to a similar degree.

Today you might also run into issues getting hold of the de-sensitizer required to do it with any modern speed pan film - that stuff was already hard to get thirty years ago...
 
Trius said:
My question is why do you want to?
Click to expand...

Each sheet/plate is unique. So, developing by inspection you can get the best density, regardless the exposure. For example: I shot mostly Fomapan films in 120 and 135 format- even if I follow the instructions and use lightmeter, sometimes the negatives are not excellent. Developing by time a random factor comes into play.
 
tho60 said:
Each sheet/plate is unique. So, developing by inspection you can get the best density, regardless the exposure. For example: I shot mostly Fomapan films in 120 and 135 format- even if I follow the instructions and use lightmeter, sometimes the negatives are not excellent. Developing by time a random factor comes into play.
Click to expand...

Roll film is very different than sheet film. As others have stated, shooting modern, high speed films are not good candidates for development by inspection. I'm not saying don't try it, just that the chances of making it worthwhile are not great.

For important shots I make more than one exposure. With proper metering and having tested personal film speed and development times, results are largely repeatable.

YMMV
 
In addition, developing by inspection might have a special feeling. Seeing how the latent picture becomes visible is a part of magic.
 
tho60 said:
Do you develop sheet film or plates by inspection? (Red or dark green safelight, depending on film type.)

Do you use the same developer for large and small format?
Click to expand...

I do on occasion. You really need to know what you're doind before tackling something important.

Ortho film can be processed under a red safelight but panchromatic has to be under green. The problem with panchromatic is it will fog even under a green light. I used to desensitize my film first but don't think desensitizer is available any longer.

Now I use an infrared monocular. There's no visible light and it works quite well. It's like working in daylight.

When you do inspection you look at the back/ base side of the film not the emulsion. I always look at my shadows through the base to make a judgment.

Practice, practice, practice.
 
Dante_Stella said:
Not in an age of consistent chemistry and film, advanced metering and bracketing, and digital thermometers and timers. Few films since the 1950s are capable of supporting this anyway.

Dante
Click to expand...


Did you ever hear of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Works every time. There have been quite a few circumstances in my commercial work where this has proven to be bdnificial. When the contrast range exceeds the range of the film or you're deeling with the predominate information in the negative at one end or the other of the sensatometric curve. Black on black, white on white or extremes in contrast of black and white together.

By the way most films that I'm familiar with will work well for inspection development.
 
I do xray film by inspection. If you want to be tied to the clock, nothing about developing by inspection forbids the presence of a clock, so I don't understand why some people are treating this like a religious issue. It's just an additional way of knowing what's going on, so why throw that away?
 
FWIW I don't regard this as a religious issue. If someone wants to try it, I am all for them succeeding, and I hope I can learn from their experience. It might come in handy. The OP didn't give any additional information as to type of film, purpose, etc. - now we know a bit more.

And BTW I will be developing by inspection with Washi film. From what little I have learned so far, development by inspection is the only way to process this emulsion successfully.
 
Developing film, or paper for that matter, by inspection will require experience.

I have developed ortho film, mostly exposed by pinhole, but some 8x10 from my studio camera, -- there are a few variables-- you will make mistakes. Density is not too difficult to see, but contrast? Besides, if you screw up the exposure, nothing will save you-- and I do not think rubbing warm water on areas to speed development, and tricks from print processing would be practical.

Judging the development by eye takes skill.

I found the ortho film I had was not noticeably fogged by normal safelights, if that helps you --

Regards, John
 
Fotohuis said:
It is still available at the regular chemical supplier (Sigma Aldrich), but expensive: 1gram about Eur. 70,00 ($75).
Click to expand...

Desensitizing and inspecting under a green safelight is a tough way to go vs a cheap IR night scope. If the desensitizer is $75 it even more expensive than a cheap night scope. I bought a kids toy night scope for under $50 at the toy store and it's as bright as daylight and totally safe. From experience it's much easier than desensitizing and using a green bulb.

Look in the toy store but make sure the IR doesn't emit a red light. The one I bought had two settings, one for long distance with a red light and one that emitted no visible light.
 
I bought the first generation Eyeclops at the toy store for under $50 ( currently on the Internet for $749!!!) and it appears it's only being sold now by a bandit tgat thinks it "rare" and valuable. It looks like there's a second generation for under $50 though. I've not seen the second generation but I'd guess it's basically the same. You might check it out.
 
My opening post has caused a fervent debate, but nobody answered my second question: Do you use the same developer for large and small format?

Ancient photo books recommended different types of developer, since with large format you do not need fine grain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Newbie B+W Development Questions
Replies
13
Views
798
Bolo Kukus
B
T
A (possibly) unusual question about out-of-date film...
Replies
8
Views
720
Freakscene
Freakscene
I
Questions on using powder developers and replenishers
Replies
15
Views
1K
Freakscene
Freakscene
B
Working with outdated Delta 400
2
Replies
30
Views
852
Freakscene
Freakscene
O
processing and chemicals
Replies
15
Views
1K
Andrew Sowerby
Andrew Sowerby
Back
Top Bottom