Thou shalt compensate!

[sanmich]

Please share your experience with compensating developing technique.

For several years now, I use Tri-X with Emofin, with good results and a few annoying quirks.
One thing I like about this combo is it's flexibility. Both regular and high contrast scenes end up to be usable. Grain is fine.
But I was starting to wonder if I could get similar results with another film, and maybe with another, less finicky/expensive/staining/difficult to buy than the otherwise great Emofin.

So, is rodinal stand the answer?
Does water developement works for one of you?
classic vs tabular films in this regard?
Any other suggestion??

 

[--s]

that gets you at least as many answers as there are developers on the market multiplied with the number of films on the market, i.e., unusable compensation method!

mine would be: throw the little *******s into xtol 1+1!


(didn´t know bus-tard is a four letter word)

 

[mwoenv]

I like Tri-X in D76 or XTOL stock (1:1 yields too much grain for me), following Kodak's data sheets for the film and chemicals. Constant, proper temperature control is the key to excellent results.

 

[charjohncarter]

I use Ansel Adams' method for compensation: [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']TriX (250) HC-110 (4ml/500), 28 minutes, 30 sec initial agitation, 3 inversions per (every) 5 minutes, 68 degrees F. I was having problems with stand development using Rodinal, inconsistent development and streaking. I don't have that with this method. Living in California there are lots of days where the tonal range is quite high so this method comes in handy.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I haven't tried this per se, but I have used my own version of it using HC-110 and Tmax 100, it is John Sexton's method for 'High Contrast Situations with Kodak T-Max Film.' It is on the internet someplace but I can't find it right now. I have a copy which I will email to you if you want. He claims 15 stop range. I believe it as my method is very close to that. [/FONT]

 

[Ljós]

Ah, Emofin, that brings back memories... the thinking photographer's Diafine 🙂

 

[sanmich]

Ah, Emofin, that brings back memories... the thinking photographer's Diafine 🙂

On the very contrary, my friend
With Emofin, even an ape like me have a hard time to mess a shot 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

A very great deal of 'compensation' lies in the eye of the beholder. When it actually happens, a compression of the mid-tones is logically inevitable. This may or may not work depending on the subject. I gave up on compensating (two-bath) developers decades ago.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

that gets you at least as many answers as there are developers on the market multiplied with the number of films on the market, i.e., unusable compensation method!. . . (didn´t know bus-tard is a four letter word)

Correctly spelled Bar Steward. The rest I agree with.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sanmich]

I use Ansel Adams' method for compensation: [FONT='Times New Roman','serif']TriX (250) HC-110 (4ml/500), 28 minutes, 30 sec initial agitation, 3 inversions per (every) 5 minutes, 68 degrees F. I was having problems with stand development using Rodinal, inconsistent development and streaking. I don't have that with this method. Living in California there are lots of days where the tonal range is quite high so this method comes in handy.[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I haven't tried this per se, but I have used my own version of it using HC-110 and Tmax 100, it is John Sexton's method for 'High Contrast Situations with Kodak T-Max Film.' It is on the internet someplace but I can't find it right now. I have a copy which I will email to you if you want. He claims 15 stop range. I believe it as my method is very close to that. [/FONT]

A very great deal of 'compensation' lies in the eye of the beholder. When it actually happens, a compression of the mid-tones is logically inevitable. This may or may not work depending on the subject. I gave up on compensating (two-bath) developers decades ago.

Cheers,

R.

Well, I'm not really sure, but that's the thing with Emofin:
It behaves quite ok as a general purpose developer but has a "secret weapon" that saves my skin when contrast is too high.
I'm really not a "lab geek" and I didn't do extensive testing, but it just seems to work. (kind of a magic bullet).

 

[--s]

for some years i used emofin. then i tried xtol and stayed with xtol, which gives me similar results and is simple to use. 95% of my prints are straight, no dodging, no burning. 2 bath is unnecessary double effort, and one way is also much more convenient than counting to ten with each 2 x 1 litres.
as for the grain, you don´t take tri-x for fine grain. take t-max 400 new instead, that gives a quite different appearance, almost medium format like with 35mm film.

 

[John Bragg]

Padstow Mayday celebrations. Tri-X @ ei200 developed gently in HC-110 H. Very long scale subject as one side of the square was in deep shadow and the other in direct sun. All the participants are dressed largely in white to make things harder ! This combination works for me.

 

[kaiyen]

it's been a while since I've posted here...compensating doesn't require 2 bath. I tried 2 bath once and it was just too annoying.

I am a reformed try every developer and film combo, silver bullet seeker. I do a lot of stand development now but more because I rarely can get away from my 15 month old son and leave him to my wife to do traditional inversion timings, etc. Faster for me to load a ton of film into big tanks, dilute something and let it go.

I haven't found a silver bullet that I would recommend without qualification, personally. Especially once you say it has to be readily available and not staining (pyrocat probably the closest I got to always using in a compensating manner). Some have talked about XTOL especially with the T and E grain films but then you are in fact choosing one of those film types. You choose another type, you choose anothe developer perhaps...

 

[lawrence]

Discussions like this remind me of what Ralph Steiner said in his book A Point Of View: 'I have over many years tested both scientifically and practically the effect of almost every developer's effect on tonal separation. I can now say with confidence: except for one ridiculous and harmful developer, pyrocatechin, all developers do just about the same thing for the tones that will end up in the print. And other than pyrocatechin, there is no such thing as a compensating developer (except in the advertising copy). Nor is there any compensating or other benefit in two-bath, high-dilution, water-bath, or other fancy method. Perhaps in the early days of of thick emulsions, surface developers and depth-developers had effect, but today these merely distract from the act of photographing.' Enjoy!

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd suggest Perceptol/Microdol-X for controlling contrast. Unlike (apparently) Ralph Steiner I've seen it tame extreme contrast scenes with an appropriate pull in exposure.

 

[charjohncarter]

Discussions like this remind me of what Ralph Steiner said in his book A Point Of View: 'I have over many years tested both scientifically and practically the effect of almost every developer's effect on tonal separation. I can now say with confidence: except for one ridiculous and harmful developer, pyrocatechin, all developers do just about the same thing for the tones that will end up in the print. And other than pyrocatechin, there is no such thing as a compensating developer (except in the advertising copy). Nor is there any compensating or other benefit in two-bath, high-dilution, water-bath, or other fancy method. Perhaps in the early days of of thick emulsions, surface developers and depth-developers had effect, but today these merely distract from the act of photographing.' Enjoy!

I pretty much agree with this, although like you I have never bothered with testing, so maybe I'm off. I do think there is such a thing as compensation but for general scenes it is contra-productive. You have to have deep shadows on June 21st at the beach to really see it. This is one that I did with my method, but who knows maybe it would have worked with HC-110b and regular agitation. I've posted this before:

This was not June 21st, but July 4th at high noon.

By the way, nice to see Kaiyen back!

 

[HHPhoto]

Please share your experience with compensating developing technique.

Just simple:
If I want compensating, then I use a developer-film combination which gives a straight line up to zone VII - VIII in the characteristic curve, and in the highlight zones VIII - X give a bit flatter curve.

Delta 100, Pan F+, Silvermax in Neofin Blau and HRX-3 New work in this way for example.
Ultrafin liquid in 1+20 and 1+30 dilution and RHS developer are further good candidates for flattening the characteristic curve in the highlights.

Cheers, Jan

 

[John Bragg]

I think we all have lost sight of how flexible the developing process is. Much like cookery, you can give 10 chefs the same ingredients and have 10 different meals as a result. I prefer to expose for the shadows, develop for the mid tones, and agitate just enough for the highlights I want in HC-110 H. Not compensation per se, but using all the ingredients at their optimum. It is far easier to scan or print a properly exposed and gently developed negative than to tame a harsh one. Contrast can be added as required, but is not easy to work in reverse.

 

[Kkiuru]

HC-110 is awesome developer. Very compensating if you want to. 1:100 stand development or dilution H with little agitation.

 

[Kkiuru]

I use HC-110 mostly in dilution E, 1:47.. Starting point times are dil B times +50%

If compensation needed, i skip agitation at last few minutes, let it stand, add a couple of minutes in the end. Normally i agitate 10 secs every min, slowly.