Shadow Detail and Development Times?

[2wenty]

Hey guys I have a question about black and white development.

Im fairly experienced but only with recipes that have already been confirmed as working well (massive dev group).

Im starting to venture out into film, developers and iso settings that there are no times for.

Im not sure exactly what to look for when testing this. So far what Im come up with is if its over developed it will get ultra contrasty and if its under it'll be muddy and look very underexposed. By your guys experience is this true?

Im also curious how much temp changes the development time. If there is some sort of standard, ie. 1 degree hotter takes 30 seconds off the standard development time.

Im sure the best way is to keep experimenting but if I can short cut a little and not burn through 10 rolls of film that would be great. Thanks

 

[jim_jm]

As you have probably realized, there are plenty of variables that can affect your results with B/W film. In general, correctly exposed film that is overdeveloped will result in a denser negative with blocked-up highlights. Underdeveloped film will have low highlight density and low contrast. For best results in most situations, you want to be somewhere in the middle.

Some photographers tend to overexpose B/W film by 1/2 to 1 stop, as a general rule. I do this as I find it helps to capture shadow detail without compromising the highlights. B/W film is much more forgiving of overexposure than underexposure, and I can often pull a lot of highlight detail from a negative during the printing stage.

For temp changes during development, refer to the manufacturer's technical data sheet for the film. Every film (and developer) is different, there is no common standard, and don't take the Massive Dev Chart's word as a bible. Kodak and Ilford are very good about publishing this information. Here's one for TriX: http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Good Luck!

 

[michaelwj]

For a starting point for temp variations, the Ilford chart can be used.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006210208211880.pdf

Also, don't take anything as gospel, but rather as a starting point. You know what you're after, you will be able to work out how to get there systematically and will learn a lot on the way.

I've enjoyed the colour images you've posted, I look forward to your B&W shots!

 

[Dwig]

Hey guys I have a question about black and white development.

Im fairly experienced but only with recipes that have already been confirmed as working well (massive dev group).

Im starting to venture out into film, developers and iso settings that there are no times for.

Im not sure exactly what to look for when testing this. So far what Im come up with is if its over developed it will get ultra contrasty and if its under it'll be muddy and look very underexposed. By your guys experience is this true?

The first is true the second is false. Under developed will not look underexposed to the practiced eye. It will, instead, look very low contrast. Judge exposure by the shadows only.

Im also curious how much temp changes the development time. If there is some sort of standard, ie. 1 degree hotter takes 30 seconds off the standard development time.

DO NOT think in terms of any linear changes. Instead, think in terms of percentage changes. Time vs Temp changes follow more of a geometric progression. \

Im sure the best way is to keep experimenting but if I can short cut a little and not burn through 10 rolls of film that would be great. Thanks

Trial and Terror rules...as does the ancient adage "shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights".

Keep in mind that, in general terms, shadow detail is controlled almost solely by exposure. Development has very little to do with it. Highlight detail, on the other hand, is primarily controlled by development.

A good starting point is to print, contact or enlarged, so that the "clear" film outside of the image area just barely prints as a maximum black. If the image lacks shadow detail it is under exposed. If the highlights are too light it is overdeveloped and if they are dark and muddy it is underdeveloped.

Once you get this far you can begin to fine turn exposure and development. Some film/developer combinations perform better with some additional exposure to move the shadow detail a little further from the base density, but some don't.

 

[2wenty]

Jim. Thanks. I like to push a lot because of shooting indoors and need about a 125th. The roll I'm trying to figure out is 100 iso. I shot at 800. I got it kinda close. Was thinking about shooting at 640 iso or maybe a touch higher. Thanks for that info. I was kinda worried about blowing the highlights.

Michael. Thanks! Much appreciated. Been doing pretty good with the typical recipes or tweaking them a little, but I'm looking for more, something different.


One more question about agitation. From what I've read stand developing seems to pull more shadow detail. From what I know to be "standard", people agitate at the top of every min for 10 seconds or 3-4 inversions. What would the difference be if I did it every other min or less inversions? Also Ive been hand developing everything but I also have a Jobo. I just dont want to risk it with the Jobo because everything I know is all hand developed.

 

[znapper]

Hey guys I have a question about black and white development.

Im not sure exactly what to look for when testing this. So far what Im come up with is if its over developed it will get ultra contrasty and if its under it'll be muddy and look very underexposed. By your guys experience is this true?

In general and when you over/under-develop a lot, tjeezz...underdevelopment of correctly exposed negatives gives you relatively thin negatives with no highlights and no shadow-detail....sort of low contrast, if you have the exposure right that is, but you also have these effects, which can be a bit hard to decipher at times:

Underexposed - overdeveloped (super contrasty aka pushing)
Overexposed - overdeveloped (bulletproof negatives, blocked highlights, low relative contrast)
Underexposed - underdeveloped (thin negatives, low contrast)
Overexposed - underdeveloped (low contrast, normalish negatives, aka pulling)

A lot depends on what you were able to capture during exposure I guess.

Im also curious how much temp changes the development time. If there is some sort of standard, ie. 1 degree hotter takes 30 seconds off the standard development time.

No, because just about every film, have different times in various developers. (IE. reaction differs). Percentage calculation may work, as with pushing/pulling.

Im sure the best way is to keep experimenting but if I can short cut a little and not burn through 10 rolls of film that would be great. Thanks

It's not that hard to get ok negatives, shoot at box-speed and use MDC and go from there ^^
In pushing, people tend to use stand and semi-stand developing, with little or no agitation, so that highlights don't run too high. In my experience, pushing usually doesn't work when you need to due to too little light, as an effect when you have the light, it can be cool.

Agitation increase contrast.

And this is a pretty good book, since it also cover the basics of analog and film https://www.amazon.com/Photography-...8&qid=1478727632&sr=1-29&keywords=photography =)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hey guys I have a question about black and white development.

Im fairly experienced but only with recipes that have already been confirmed as working well (massive dev group).

Im starting to venture out into film, developers and iso settings that there are no times for.

Im not sure exactly what to look for when testing this. So far what Im come up with is if its over developed it will get ultra contrasty and if its under it'll be muddy and look very underexposed. By your guys experience is this true?

Im also curious how much temp changes the development time. If there is some sort of standard, ie. 1 degree hotter takes 30 seconds off the standard development time.

Im sure the best way is to keep experimenting but if I can short cut a little and not burn through 10 rolls of film that would be great. Thanks

Temperature Compensation:
Developer temperature and its effect on developing time is different for every developer. Because some developers are greatly affected by a change in temperature and some are less affected, there is no standard formula for adjusting your developing time for changes in temperature. If the developer's manufacturer does not give you times for different temperatures, Ilford publishes a chart of time-temp changes that are a good starting point, though they're not prefect for every developer, being an average that works for many.

Shadow Detail:
Developing time changes affect the density of light tones more than they affect dark tones. Increasing developing time beyond the normal time, in order to increase contrast, will increase shadow density, but only slightly. With most films, no more than 1/3 stop in real film speed is gained by a time increase.

Reduced developing times affect shadow detail more than increased times do. Reducing developing time 20-30% to reduce contrast is a common practice when shooting in contrasty light (eg. bright sun with deep shadows). This causes enough loss of shadow density on the neg that with most films and developers you should increase exposure by about one stop to avoid losing shadow detail.

My Recommendations:
I wonder why you're trying obscure film and developer combinations. There really is no magic bullet in photography. I do all of my work with standard Ilford and Kodak films and common developers like D-76, Rodinal, and Tmax Developer. The only specialized developer I use is PMK, and it is very popular and is extensively documented online.

I would stick to Kodak or Ilford films, or maybe Foma, and a standard developer while you're learning. D-76 is a good developer that works well with just about every film out there, its easy to find, inexpensive, and easy to use. If you want a liquid developer instead of a powder, then I like Tmax Developer (Ilford DDX is similar).

I have a chart of my tested developing times for different films and developers that you might find useful.

 

[znapper]

In case he is a low-volume guy, both Rodinal and HC-100 "last forever" and is widely used and easy to mix.

....juuuust sayin ^^

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Take a look at the ZoneSimple section of my website. It's another way of approacing all your concerns. www.charlielemay.net

 

[2wenty]

Thanks guys. Awesome responses. You answered everything I needed.

Im just looking for something different than the standard. Something different than just anyone can look up online and achieve.

So far I have / used, Rodinal, D76, Ilfsol 3, DDX and just picked up xtol yesterday.

As good as xtol is. Its a bitch to use. The batches are way to big. I probably shoot 2-4 bw rolls of film a week and the batch is still too big.

So far I really like DDX. I think Im just going to stick to that only.

Ive used Rodinal a lot and like it but its on the more grainy / contrasty side.

Ive only used Ilfosol 3 once but from what Ive seen it looks like a middle of the road developer. Nothing special.

And D76 is good but I prefer liquid and not powered.

 

[brbo]

As good as xtol is. Its a bitch to use. The batches are way to big. I probably shoot 2-4 bw rolls of film a week and the batch is still too big.

Way too big?! Xtol will easily last a year after mixed and stored in glass of Coke bottles with no air. That's like 5 times longer than you need it to last with the amount of film you shoot.

Xtol bags are too big for me (I probably shoot your weekly amount of bw film in a year) and I still use it. It so cheap I don't mind tossing it after 2 years.

I think I saw it mentioned a couple of times that Fomadon Excel W27 is very similar to Kodak Xtol and it comes packaged in quantity that makes 1L of stock solution.

 

[2wenty]

Way too big?! Xtol will easily last a year after mixed and stored in glass of Coke bottles with no air. That's like 5 times longer than you need it to last with the amount of film you shoot.

Xtol bags are too big for me (I probably shoot your weekly amount of bw film in a year) and I still use it. It so cheap I don't mind tossing it after 2 years.

I think I saw it mentioned a couple of times that Fomadon Excel W27 is very similar to Kodak Xtol and it comes packaged in quantity that makes 1L of stock solution.

Trying to figure out ways to store it without air isn't worth my time. I don't want to mess around with marbles and whatever else. Also I was using it 1+3 mix. So it lasts pretty long. 125ml for 2 rolls = roughly 40 rolls at 2 a week = around 5-6months.

DDX is already ready to go and I like the way it comes out so Im just going to stick with it. I usually like variety, shooting all different types of films and using different developers to suit each film, but Im just gonna stick to 1-2 films and 1 developer for awhile.