Fine grain liquid developer?

[Roger Hicks]

In my opinion..using a spot meter is not as important as finding your own personal EI / dev times and testing your chosen materials to get what you want..you cant get detail if is not recorded on film.
Thanks

The only way to be absolutely sure of getting adequate exposure in the shadows is to meter the shadows directly. You can do this with most meters: the main reason to use a spot meter is that you don't have to get as close.

If you use the main index on the exposure meter, a direct shadow reading implies giving 2-3 stops less exposure than the index indicates, though a well designed meter should have other indices as well: you'd use the shadow reading index (I.R.E. 1, U on a Weston, etc). There's quite a fair introduction to over- and under- indices on exposure meters in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html.

If you take general readings without taking any account of the actual shadow readings, the only possibility is to overexpose and hope, which is pretty much what you're describing. Yes, you can fudge the reading on the basis of experience, but it's a fudge, not a reading.

Regardless of all this, and shorn of Zone jargon, 'expose for the shadows' means 'give enough exposure to get detail in those dark areas where you want detail', so it can't mean giving LESS exposure, and 'develop for the highlights' means 'if the highlights aren't that much brghter than the shadows (low subject brightness range), give more development, and if they're a lot brighter than the shadows (long subject brightness range), give less development'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger; Does diluting a developer like d76 (1:1) have any effect on grain size?

Yes. It makes it slightly bigger, because of the reduced solvent effect. I've never noticed much of a difference myself, though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[paulfish4570]

if i may offer advice from a newbie: i am getting beautiful tones and "small" grain on arista premium 400/tri-x 400 with tmax 1+9, 10.5 minutes at 68F. as much as i liked what i got with d-76 1+1, the tmax holds more detail in highlights on shots that also contain shadowed areas ...

 

[bobby_novatron]

God -- I love discussions like this! I'm such a nerd! 🙂

FWIW I'm a regular user of Ilfotec DD-X, D-76, and Tmax ... only because I'm a relative beginner and have only been doing my own developing for about a year.

I have had good success with these products, mostly because I find DD-X and Tmax are well-suited for their respective modern emulsions (Delta and Tmax) ... and they're easy to use.

Lots of good suggestions and comments in this thread. I'm learning a lot.

 

[mob81]

if i may offer advice from a newbie: i am getting beautiful tones and "small" grain on arista premium 400/tri-x 400 with tmax 1+9, 10.5 minutes at 68F. as much as i liked what i got with d-76 1+1, the tmax holds more detail in highlights on shots that also contain shadowed areas ...

I've used tmax developer on most of my developed film and I found it amazing when pushing films especially tmax 400 to 1600 and my bottle is about to finish and I'll use HC-110 when my tmax DEV finishes and I'll use also D76 1+1 until I find a easy to use real fine grain developer. Tmax is good but I'll use it mainly for pushing films.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

which developer would you guys suggest for Rollei 25 iso?

I have ilfosol, t-max, rodinal and id-11 developers

 

[Fotohuis]

A real Ultra Fine Grain liquid developer is CG-512 from Uddo Raffay, a Metol type fine grain developer on 24C.
It's also sold by Rollei under Rollei Low Speed developer, which is the same stuff.
You will loose one F stop in exposure of your film but even in 35mm a very fine grain. The disadvantages of ALL Ultra Fine Grain developers is the sharpness and acutance which will be always less.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[icamp]

The only way to be absolutely sure of getting adequate exposure in the shadows is to meter the shadows directly. You can do this with most meters: the main reason to use a spot meter is that you don't have to get as close.

If you use the main index on the exposure meter, a direct shadow reading implies giving 2-3 stops less exposure than the index indicates, though a well designed meter should have other indices as well: you'd use the shadow reading index (I.R.E. 1, U on a Weston, etc). There's quite a fair introduction to over- and under- indices on exposure meters in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html.

If you take general readings without taking any account of the actual shadow readings, the only possibility is to overexpose and hope, which is pretty much what you're describing. Yes, you can fudge the reading on the basis of experience, but it's a fudge, not a reading.

Regardless of all this, and shorn of Zone jargon, 'expose for the shadows' means 'give enough exposure to get detail in those dark areas where you want detail', so it can't mean giving LESS exposure, and 'develop for the highlights' means 'if the highlights aren't that much brghter than the shadows (low subject brightness range), give more development, and if they're a lot brighter than the shadows (long subject brightness range), give less development'.

Cheers,

R.

1) Did i not say the same in my previous posts ? My main reason for choosing a spot meter would be that it has a narrow angle of view..you can be more selective with the area you want to take a reading .I may be wrong..are not all meters calibrated to read around 18% grey ? so what difference does it make if its in the camera or hand held,as long as you know how to use it .

2) ("a direct shadow reading implies giving 2-3 stops less exposure than the index indicates"). Reading this i ask myself..use a faster shutter speed and/or a smaller aperture to give less exposure. Is this not what i have been trying to say in my first post ?

3) Not sure i understand the "FUDGE". I believe i was trying to describe the complete opposite ! The zone system for me takes away the "give more exposure and hope"theory that you use ..but if that is what works for you ok... to me it is...fudge.🙂

4) Ok,i google zone system,came up with this ,
"Adjust the recommended exposure so that the area is placed on Zone III rather than Zone V. To do this, use an exposure two stops less than the meter’s recommendation".
I google "expose for shadows ,develope for highlights", some interesting reading on apug.org , for those that have the energy and interest to read more 🙂

Thanks

 

[sbelyaev]

Rodinal special (from freestyle) is an excellent fine grain liquid developer. It could be used in dilution 1+15 or 1+30 without film speed loss.

 

[Ronald M]

The best way to get fine grain on 35 mm is to over expose 1 stop and cut development time 20%.

Delta 100 is the finest grain Ilford film and responds well to pull as described above.

Use a yellow filter to lower ISO.

Shoot Pan F at 25 and use ID11 full strength cutting recommended time 20%.

Get this all zeroed in BEFORE you go. Don`t come back and ask how do I fix this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

1) Did i not say the same in my previous posts ? My main reason for choosing a spot meter would be that it has a narrow angle of view..you can be more selective with the area you want to take a reading .I may be wrong..are not all meters calibrated to read around 18% grey ? so what difference does it make if its in the camera or hand held,as long as you know how to use it .

2) ("a direct shadow reading implies giving 2-3 stops less exposure than the index indicates"). Reading this i ask myself..use a faster shutter speed and/or a smaller aperture to give less exposure. Is this not what i have been trying to say in my first post ?

3) Not sure i understand the "FUDGE". I believe i was trying to describe the complete opposite ! The zone system for me takes away the "give more exposure and hope"theory that you use ..but if that is what works for you ok... to me it is...fudge.🙂

4) Ok,i google zone system,came up with this ,
"Adjust the recommended exposure so that the area is placed on Zone III rather than Zone V. To do this, use an exposure two stops less than the meter’s recommendation".
I google "expose for shadows ,develope for highlights", some interesting reading on apug.org , for those that have the energy and interest to read more 🙂

Thanks

Well, actually, yes. First of all, the mid-point on an ISO calibrated meter should correspond to around 13%, though that's a trivial correction. Second, many good meters have more than one index: typically, shadow, mid-tone and highlight. Some have still further indices for subjects with a short brightness range and for those with a long brightness range. I take it from your response that you did not bother to check the link about 'over' and 'under' indices.

Why would I Google the Zone System? The Zone System is a subset of sensitometry, over-simplified in some ways, over-complicated in others, and laden with jargon. I much prefer books that explain the underlying sensitometry. But if the Zone System works for you, fine. As you say, pretty much any metering system can be made to work if you understand what you're doing. Even for those who don't, latitude can cover a multitude of errors, especially if they try to err on the side of overexposure (as most Zone System users do), so as you say, why worry?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The best way to get fine grain on 35 mm is to over expose 1 stop and cut development time 20%.

Dear Ronald,

Disputable. It's true that underdevelopment gives you finer grain, but overexposure also gives you coarser grain. Also, the lower-contrast negative you get from underdevelopment will require harder paper, emphasizing the grain more.

Personally, I'd back normal exposure at the correct ISO for the fine grain developer in use (in Perceptol, maybe 32 for Pan F or 250 for HP5) followed by normal development. The only reason I'd not mentioned Perceptol before is that the OP asked about liquid developers, and I'd forgotten about Rollei Low Speed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

Dear Ronald,

Disputable. It's true that underdevelopment gives you finer grain, but overexposure also gives you coarser grain. Also, the lower-contrast negative you get from underdevelopment will require harder paper, emphasizing the grain more.

Personally, I'd back normal exposure at the correct ISO for the fine grain developer in use (in Perceptol, maybe 32 for Pan F or 250 for HP5) followed by normal development. The only reason I'd not mentioned Perceptol before is that the OP asked about liquid developers, and I'd forgotten about Rollei Low Speed.

Cheers,

R.

13% or 18% aren't the mid point of anything if you want to get technical about sensitometry. Well 18% is pretty damn close to the mid point of a 5 stop range but certainly not close to zone V on a 0 thru 10 zone system which, if you actually think about it, is only around 3 1/2%. The only thing you can say for sure about 13% or 18% is that they are always a fixed number of stops away from 100%, roughly 2 1/2 stops which places your exposure on zone 7 1/2 if using the zone system with zones 0 thru 10 or roughly on zone 6 if using ISO contrast index. Thats why you have to calibrate your film speed and devlopment to get it to land on zone V when using zone 0 thru 10. 😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

13% or 18% aren't the mid point of anything if you want to get technical about sensitometry. Well 18% is pretty damn close to the mid point of a 5 stop range but certainly not close to zone V on a 0 thru 10 zone system which, if you actually think about it, is only around 3 1/2%. The only thing you can say for sure about 13% or 18% is that they are always a fixed number of stops away from 100%, roughly 2 1/2 stops which places your exposure on zone 7 1/2 if using the zone system with zones 0 thru 10 or roughly on zone 6 if using ISO contrast index. Thats why you have to calibrate your film speed and devlopment to get it to land on zone V when using zone 0 thru 10. 😛

Did I say they were?

Ah: I see: "the mid-point on an ISO calibrated meter." Sorry: sloppy phrasing on my part: "middle or main index" would have been more accurate. The point is that the average reflectance of an outdoor scene around Rochester NY is 12-14%. The 18% Munsell mid-tone is nothing whatsoever to do with metering.

As for the rest, as I said earlier, the Zone System is a subset of sensitometry, over-simplified in some ways and over-complicated in others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not sure i understand the "FUDGE".

A further thought: if you do not meter the shadows directly, how do you KNOW that they are receiving adequate exposure? And if you do not know, how can you cmpensate except on the basis of a 'fudge'?

Cheers,

R.

 

[ChrisN]

The range of conflicting advice in this thread is amazing! If this lot doesn't confuse the OP, nothing will.

My suggestion to Mohammed - buy one book (my suggestion is Horenstein - "Black and White Photography - A Basic Manual") and follow its advice for one year with one film and one developer.

 

[mob81]

The range of conflicting advice in this thread is amazing! If this lot doesn't confuse the OP, nothing will.

My suggestion to Mohammed - buy one book (my suggestion is Horenstein - "Black and White Photography - A Basic Manual") and follow its advice for one year with one film and one developer.

It's confusing but very informative and I appreciate the effort and time put in every post.

My main concern was the developer. I just heard many times that phrases "expose for shadow/highlight and develop for shadow/highlight" and I just want to know what were those not how to do it...because I'm not yet there or close to it! I just started home developing B&W films.

Thanks all again for the information and recommendation.

 

[Ronald M]

I use one stop pulls all the time and I assure you the grain smoothing is very noticeable. Maybe the overexposure, which in fact does cause more grain, is over compensated for the decreased development time. I have not way to tell.

Grain sniff some pulled Tri x sometime. 6 exposures on 12" of film, use D76, will make a believer out of you.

 

[tlitody]

You can forget all about expose for shadows and develop for highlights stuff and do it the easy way.
Here's how:
Just go out and shoot some film at manufacturers box speed and have it developed or develop yourself using standard developer, dilution, temp and time.
Then look at the scans or prints. If the shadows are too dark or blocked up then you need more exposure. You do this by reducing film speed next time by a 1/3 stop and repeat test and if still to dark then reduce film speed another 1/3rd stop next time.
If the shadows were too light then increase film speed by a 1/3 stop next time and retest.
At the same time check the highlights from a scan or print. If they are blown out then reduce development by 15% next time and repeat test. If the highlights are muddy (lacking contrast or too dull) then increase development by 15% next time.

After two or three iterations you will more or less have your personal film speed and standard development time nailed. This will work for you most of the time. Just be very consistent about your metering technique and development technique making sure temps and times are always the same. Only change one thing in the process at a time unless you are confident you know what the combined effect will be.
Its really that easy to get a good film speed and development time. Two or three rolls of film should do it.
Its only when you start photographing in difficult lighting that things get tricky but you'll soon get a feel for that and make adjustments on the fly to your metering and or development to compensate.
You can use average/matrix metering of your main subject for these tests. Or you can use an incident meter at the main subject location. But whichever you use then the tests are only good for that metering method.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can forget all about expose for shadows and develop for highlights stuff and do it the easy way.
Here's how:
Just go out and shoot some film at manufacturers box speed and have it developed or develop yourself using standard developer, dilution, temp and time.
Then look at the scans or prints. If the shadows are too dark or blocked up then you need more exposure. You do this by reducing film speed next time by a 1/3 stop and repeat test and if still to dark then reduce film speed another 1/3rd stop next time.
If the shadows were too light then increase film speed by a 1/3 stop next time and retest.
At the same time check the highlights from a scan or print. If they are blown out then reduce development by 15% next time and repeat test. If the highlights are muddy (lacking contrast or too dull) then increase development by 15% next time.

After two or three iterations you will more or less have your personal film speed and standard development time nailed. This will work for you most of the time. Just be very consistent about your metering technique and development technique making sure temps and times are always the same. Only change one thing in the process at a time unless you are confident you know what the combined effect will be.
Its really that easy to get a good film speed and development time. Two or three rolls of film should do it.
Its only when you start photographing in difficult lighting that things get tricky but you'll soon get a feel for that and make adjustments on the fly to your metering and or development to compensate.
You can use average/matrix metering of your main subject for these tests. Or you can use an incident meter at the main subject location. But whichever you use then the tests are only good for that metering method.

...and that subject. Otherwise I agree completely.

Cheers,

R.