Paper development times

Hi,

 

Yesterday, I started printing my black and white images as a hobby. I did this as a teenager 25 years ago, but haven't done analog photography for many years.

 

Most images came out nice, but some had harsh highlights that needed burning. I was able to fix some of the highlights pretty well, but only if the area to be burned was large and was able to cover the rest of the image with simple tools. When I was done with the session, and was packing my stuff, I realized in hindsight that I had not followed the recommended development times for the paper (ilford multigrade). Instead, I was watching the image develop and when I thought the images kind of stopped changing, I proceeded to stop/fix.

 

So my question is, is it a good practice to let the paper develop as long as recommended by the documentation (regardless of whether I see anything changing under the soft red light) in the hopes that some of the highlights will develop more detail?

 

Thank you,

Peter

I always allow full development of prints because that's the only way to insure consistency. I can't tell what the recommended times are though, I've pretty much worked out my own. The risk of pulling them when you THINK that development is complete is that your shadows my not have completed their development sometimes leaving them weak.

Same here, recommended time using a timer. That's not to say I've never pulled a print early, but you shouldn't make a habit of it.

Full development time yields prints that are rich and not muddled. For a week or two, try developing the paper face down timed by a clock.

That's good advice from Alan.

However, there could be other factors at play.

 

What filtration do you have set for the multigrade paper? Too hard a grade (too much magenta filtration) will tend to leave the highlights blank.

 

Are your negatives overdeveloped? Again, that'll give dense highlights that are hard to print or lacking in detail.

Yes it is developed until the image (mostly) stops changing, but, as above, do it by time.

 

I still have the same Projection Print Scale from teenage years, or before.

 

I usually use smaller than the whole scale, but big enough to get a good

sample of the image.

 

I also use an enlarging light meter, so mostly don't have to retest with

the projection print scale each time.

 

In those cases where you can see in the tray that it is developing

faster than expected, you can pull early, which will be better than

waiting until it is all black.

I use Ilford MG developer with Ilford RC and FB, so YMMV if you use others. My temps are right about 68 F and I develop for 1 minute for RC and 2 minutes for FB. Always. All adjustments are made with filters and exposure time, as rodeo joe suggests. It's easier to see the differences if the development is kept consistent.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I received a lot of useful info. Yesterday I made more prints, this time paying attention to time. The prints turned out to be the same because it turns out I was pretty close to the recommended times when I was working "by eye". Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree to and have accepted your advice.

So in my paper/developer/exposure combination it goes like this: after first 5-10 secs patches start to appear and at about 40s the development seems to stop. The recommended dev time is 1 min, and I am pretty sure I developed each print that long.

Again thanks for the feedback.

Projection Print

Scale, Projection Light Meter, I need to look into those.

 

Yes it is developed until the image (mostly) stops changing, but, as above, do it by time.

 

I still have the same Projection Print Scale from teenage years, or before.

 

I usually use smaller than the whole scale, but big enough to get a good

sample of the image.

 

I also use an enlarging light meter, so mostly don't have to retest with

the projection print scale each time.

 

In those cases where you can see in the tray that it is developing

faster than expected, you can pull early, which will be better than

waiting until it is all black.

You need to standardize the development time. Pick whatever time you want - 1 minute, 2 minutes, or 3 minutes and always develop the print for the same amount of time. You do that to eliminate a variable in the printing process. I like longer development times as they allow the highlights to more fully develop. Generally, I use two minutes for resin paper and three minutes for fiber paper. From your description, it sounds like you did not use a low enough grade of paper. You needed a longer tonal scale to print the highlights along with the shadows. However, you may - as is often the case - have a negative that has a longer scale than can be printed without dodging and burning to bring out shadow detail and highlight detail.

 

There are ways to accommodate longer tonal scale negatives by using a lower contrast paper developer, split development, and contrast dodging (if you're using a multi-contrast paper). The classic split development method is to start the print in Selectol-Soft until the highlights are fully developed, rinsing the print in water, and then transfer the print to Dektol to bring the shadows to full development.

 

The easiest way to figure out exposure requirements for both shadows and highlights is to make an exposure test print where you block off the paper in strips and then sequentially expose the paper in 5 second intervals. If you can include a highlight and shadow area in each exposure strip, you will easily find out the amount of exposure that's needed for the shadows, mid tones, and highlights. You can also evaluate whether you need to change paper grades by seeing the tonal quality of each area from the corresponding exposure. Never be afraid to continue making prints until you get the image you want. If you use thirty sheets of paper to get the print you want - that's okay because you'll be learning something with every print. The more you print, the more experience you get and the better your printing skills become.

 

Don't stop printing an image until you get exactly what you want.

This one:

 

https://www.adorama.com/dkpps.html

 

shows a picture of the projection print scale. Kodak makes them,

and I believe others, also.

 

You expose for 60 seconds, and the density gives the equivalent

exposure to that wedge, as indicated. Usually, I don't put a full

size (4x5in) sheet under it, but maybe 2x3 or so. You can also

scale to 30s.

Develop your prints for the minimum time to produce the paper's maximum black. Any less development will yield a print with weak blacks. Any more development will depress the gray scale.

 

To find the paper's maximum black, expose a few small test strips to room light for a few seconds. Then develop one strip for 1.0 minute, another strip for 1.5 minutes, and another for 2.0 minutes. Unless your print developer is weak, no paper should need more than 2.0 minutes of development to produce its maximum black, but you can do a 2.5-minute test if you want to be sure. Usually, 1.5 minutes is enough for fiber-based paper, and some resin-coated papers will fully develop in 1.0 minute. But I recommend 1.5 minutes even for those papers to guarantee consistency. A few seconds' error is more significant with a short developing time.

 

When you've found the minimum development time that yields the paper's maximum black, standardize on that time for all your prints. Developing longer won't give you deeper blacks. But it will reduce your shadow and midtone detail by depressing the whole gray scale. Dark gray tones will be pushed into black, and middle gray tones will be pushed into dark grays, etc. Unless you're depressing the scale for creative purposes (e.g., "low key"), you are robbing yourself of shadow detail and long-scale prints.

 

Always use an acid stop bath instead of plain water to arrest development immediately and ensure consistency from print to print. For years I used Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (acetic acid), but it's very smelly, so I switched to citric acid mixed from powder. It's odorless and equally effective. Thirty seconds is enough and will also lengthen the endurance of your fixer.

I also use an enlarging light meter, so mostly don't have to retest with

the projection print scale each time.

 

Out of curiosity, what meter do you use?

 

I have an older Ilford branded meter with an "eye" that you lay on the board and then twiddle a knob on it until the green LED lights up. I've used it a couple of different ways-including averaging the times for a light and dark area, or looking for something mid toned(or that I want to be) and by and large I seem to end up with prints that are wildly off. I still end up falling back to my old faithful projection scale, which of course wastes some paper but still gets me pretty darn close if not dead-on with the first try.

The light meter I use, I built from a Popular Electronics article, I think when I was in high school.

It has a knob that you turn until the LED lights up. Or, when already set to the right exposure,

turn the aperture ring until the LED goes off.

 

I more recently got one from a Goodwill store, which might be like the Ilford one, with a green light,

but I haven't used that one, yet.

One more note: If your prints look too muddy (weak blacks), don't try to correct them by extending print development beyond the minimum time required to produce the paper's maximum black. The problem is your print exposure, not your print development. You need a longer exposure time (or a wider lens aperture) in the enlarger. Use exposure, not development, to control the depth of blacks in your prints. Ordinarily, the development time should be constant.

 

If you can't reach the paper's maximum black without your whole picture looking too dark, it means your film was underexposed and/or underdeveloped. You can try to make a better print by using a harder (higher contrast) paper grade or multicontrast filter, but future films should get more exposure and/or development.

For overexposed prints, that are about to turn completely black, I usually remove them from the developer early.

 

Most likely I will reprint anyway, though I might notice focus or framing errors that I otherwise missed.

 

But extending development of underexposed prints doesn't usually help much.