Two-bath is the way to go

[Koolzakukumba]

I was just reading the thread below about Diafine and would urge any traditional darkroom workers to give two-bath development a try. I gave up my darkroom work a couple of years ago for the digital darkroom but a two-bath brew was giving me the best negatives I'd ever had.

I mixed it up from the powdered chemicals and used it with T-Max (100 and 400) and the resulting prints were beautiful. Exposure was for the shadows and the two-bath took care of the highlights. The negatives printed very well on grade 2 paper. Pseudo zone system for roll film!

Another advantage is that the negatives are also very easy to scan as the shadows have plenty of detail and the highlights are never too dense.

Although now a digital fan, I'm going to get a Bessa L with 25mm and 15mm lenses and will again be mixing some of my home brew for use with T-Max film.

Bruce

 

[Seele]

Bruce,

Two-bath development was pretty much invented to handle the new-fangled practice called 35mm photography, with the need to process 36 negatives in one hit without the possibility of tailoring development for each frame as in the good old days when glass plates were used. Heinrich Stoeckler's two-bath recipe was recommended by Leica and can still be a viable option. As two-bath development automatically under-develops highlights to prevent block-up, and enhances development in the shadows to build up extra density and contrast, true speed gain is more of a side-effect than a reason for adopting this processing method.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

"Heinrich Stoeckler's two-bath recipe was recommended by Leica and can still be a viable option."

I've used the Stoëckler formula but found it to produce negatives which were a little soft in contrast, albeit very fine-grained. The emulsions on modern films are too thin to soak up a lot of the formula so you tend to get a less aggressive development. With older films, the thicker emulsions absorbed more of the chemicals which meant that development carried on for longer. I could have mucked about with the development time for Bath A to see if a little longer in the soup might have beefed up the negs but I didn't.

I went with Barry Thornton's formula instead and found this to be the perfect compromise between the Stoëckler formula and the likes of the D23-based two-bath which can be a bit contrasty. The other good thing with Barry's formula is that Bath B takes ages to exhaust.

Having tried lots of different developers over the years, two-bath, in my opinion, is head and shoulders about the rest. In my landscape work, it was still necessary to burn in skies (but for a much shorter time when shooting into the light) and some other bright areas to balance the print or for aesthetic effect but, for the likes of street photography, two-bath produces negs that print more or less straight. The fact that there is a modest speed increase is a very worthwhile bonus if you're shooting in lowish light or want to use a smaller aperture for extra depth of field.

I also liked XP1 (as it was then!) for its lovely creamy tones but, when I get the Bessa, I'm definitely sticking to T-Max and two-bath, an unbeatable combination!

Bruce

 

[the_other_dirk]

Bruce and Seele,

great suggestions, I'll have to give it a try. I've used compensating development with Tmax 100. However, I gather from a quick search on the 'net that two bath does not give the same effects as compensating development.

In your experience, does two-bath compare favorably to compensating development?

 

[Roman]

Bruce,

I love Barry Thornton's Metol 2-bath dev., too (you can see a few examples in my gallery). Had to experiment around a bit with it, though - had to increase sodium metaborate in bath B to get more contrasty negs for my extra-soft color head enlarger. Also, at first I had some problems with stripes from bromide drag - had to experiment with agitation in bath B a bit - with most 2-baths, you should not agitate in bath B, but with this formula this gave me stripes on the edges in dense areas - works better with 1 inversion about every 60 to 90 sec. in bath B.
BTW, I did extensive testing with Neopan 400 in Rodinal, PyrocatHD, and the Thornton two bath - first establishing true film speed, and developing for equal gamma (a friend did the densitometer stuff) - and I found that Thornton's dev. combines the positive aspects of both the others - the high acutance and apparent sharpness of Rodinal, and the fine resolution and full film speed (a true EI of 400) and good highlight control of Pyrocat HD.

Roman

 

[Koolzakukumba]

"Thornton's dev. combines the positive aspects of both the others - the high acutance and apparent sharpness of Rodinal, and the fine resolution and full film speed (a true EI of 400) and good highlight control of Pyrocat HD."

A killer combo!

BTW, I can't comment on two-bath v compensating developer as I've never tried the latter. Everything else being equal, however, I'd imagine that ease of use would tip the balance in favour of two-bath. Anyone able to compare and contrast the two?

Bruce

 

[phototone]

There are published formulas to make a split D-76 type of developer. A two bath approach, just like Diafine. I wonder if this wouldn't achieve the same end result?

 

[Roman]

I'm not sure whether you'd get the same high acutance as with the Thornton dev. - D76 contains hydroquinone, and for highest acutance usually pure Metol developers (and with not too much of that active ingredient) are recommended; a split D76 will have the positive aspects concerning contrast control, though, I'd guess...

Roman

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, I gave up 2-bath some 20+ years ago because I saw no real advantages. A couple of years back I tried it again and decided I was right when I quit in the 80s.

This is not to say that 2-bath won't work for you, just that it ain't a magic bullet for everyone. But then, I don't like Rodinal either. For everyone who claims stunning tonality, etc., there is someone else who is just a cheapskate. I see lousy grain and low speed *with the films I use* (very seldom under ISO 100). I'd far rather have Ilford DDX and Paterson FX39. Again, YMMV.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[RayPA]

I'm not sure whether you'd get the same high acutance as with the Thornton dev. - D76 contains hydroquinone, and for highest acutance usually pure Metol developers (and with not too much of that active ingredient) are recommended; a split D76 will have the positive aspects concerning contrast control, though, I'd guess...

Roman

I use a two-bath D76, called Vestal's Divided D76. I actually use a variation of that, in which the hydroquinone is removed, so it's really a divided D76H. I have some examples in my gallery. I'll try to attach some here, if anyone is interested.

 

[Roman]

Sure, I'd be interested.
BTW, the theory behind using thin Metol developers for high acutance is that the Metol exhausts itself faster at the dense side of a black/white border, and will draw some Metol molecules from the thin side, which gets less development, consequentially - and that leads to exaggerated b/w borders - edge effects = high apparent sharpness).

Roman

 

[RayPA]

Attached are a couple of images shot on NP400 and developed in a divided D76 solution. Most of the last 10 or so shots in my gallery are from negatives processed in the same developer.
These two aren't fantastic images, but they are good examples of NP400 shot in two completely different light condiitions. They are only slightly cropped, and spotted, with minimal, if any, brightness and contrast adjustments.
The evening shot was made with a Nokton 50/1.5, and the "high noon" image was made with a Rokkor 40/2.