Development by Inspection

Perhaps this has been discussed in a previous thread, though I have not come across it. I would be interested to hear opinions on development by inspection -- both from its practitioners and detractors. What are the tricks? Does it work better with some film/developer combinations than with others (I assume it does). Just how accurately can one monitor densities, etc.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

Paul

Development by inspection is the only wat to go. See my article from

View Camera on our web site at www.michaelandpaula.com under

"Writings". this from someone (Bruce Turner) who e-mailed me:

 

<p>

 

I want to thank you again for that ABC formula. Just wonderful

negs!!! I look forward to developing these days. Before I was using

PMK--and the results were just too flat and not contrasty enough. I

talked to Patrick Jablonski about that, and he use to have the same

troubles. So, he doubles the amount of recommended A and B, keeping

the water amount the same. Works for him--but, alas, he does not

inspect. How can anyone not want to inspect!!????!

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith

FWIW, Galloping Caveats, IMHO yadda yadda yadda.

 

<p>

 

There are as many approaches to photography as there are roads to

Valhalla, Grasshopper. Personally, I think D.B.I. is the only way to

go, but then I have a more "cook-book" approach than some. A pinch

of this, a smidgen of that, and season to taste. My most expensive

lens cost me $400.00 and the most recently manufactured one cost me

$25.00.

 

<p>

 

Read here:

 

<p>

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Inspection/inspection.htm

 

<p>

 

and here:

 

<p>

 

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/devinsp.html

 

<p>

 

and that covers most of it. In short, if you don't like the idea of

standing (or sitting) in the dark with your hands (maybe gloved) in

chemistry, shuffling your film, counting the seconds as the metronome

clicks them off, then maybe you should invest in a JOBO or a Besseler

color drum. Seriously though, it is easy! If I can do it, anyone

can. Whether it's to your liking or not.....

 

<p>

 

All film/developer combos work well, but the staining developers have

the advantage of making the film less sensitive to light faster than

your standard D-76/Rodinal, etc. etc. developers. I would recommend

using a 15 watt bulb instead of the little 7.5 watt one I started out

with - that was too dim. Also, it'd be nice if I had a sink in my

darkroom, but I don't, so developer drips down my arms, onto my

shoes, the floor, etc. when I hold the film up to inspect.

 

<p>

 

You write: "Just how accurately can one monitor densities, etc."

 

<p>

 

This strikes me as the wrong attitude entirely. It's more like how

you cook your steak, or bake a cake. How can you tell when they are

done? Al Dente! Anywho, good luck. I can scan and e-mail you some

articles on the topic from some more arcane sources if you like

p.s. Aaron Siskind, Wynn Bullock, Andrea Modica, Douglas Busch and

Harry (not Dirty) Callahan, as well as the Westons, all D.B.I.'d

 

<p>

 

Anyone can name any others?

I would not go with inspection development. I have fine-tuned my

developing (not by inspection) with a bunch of tests and a

densitometer. Now, when I run a test and check the density with a

densitometer, I find my results remain consistent. It seems to me that

developing by inspection is the lazy-man's way to practice zone-system

developing. Do the testing!

Why? To appease your puritan work ethic? If D.B.I. works, and it

does, and it's easier, why make "a bunch of tests"? You have to re-

test your system continuoosly to make sure it stays in calibration,

no? With D.B.I. you can make adjustments "as you go" in the second

most important part of the entire process - the film development.

You are not held to one time and can compensate for any changes or

variations. Have you tried D.B.I. Mr Marderness?

sorry, I just don't buy the notion that dbi is very accurate. Your (no

one in particular) idea of accurate may be very different than mine. I

would have to see it to believe it. and don't show me with a film you

have used for years, show me by picking up a film you only know the

asa for and do it with that---only then would it be true dbi.

 

<p>

 

oh my god! testing once rather than sweat over every single developing

session to try to see densities by a dim green light? how silly--

better yet how about when I do multiple time development for normal/n+

/n-

 

<p>

 

since when did anybody get more accurate than a densitometer?

 

<p>

 

 

please don't throw names at me, it means nothing...

 

<p>

 

the end....thanks for coming to my show :)

ps

 

<p>

 

I also can "make adjustments as I go".

The beautiful, long-scale negatives and prints of Michael Smith,

Paula Chamlee, Edward and Brett Weston, Sean Yates, and others are

proof in themselves how effective the DBI technique is when applied

by a skilled practicioner. For myself, however, learning photography

in the Kodachrome days when exposure must be exact within 1/3 stop,

and years toiling in physics and chemisty laboratories, I am

satisfied with standardised time/temperature/agitation proceedures.

I time exposures with TTL metering, including a Horseman film plane

meter for my Technika, which even compensates exactly for filter

factors and the uncertain diaphragm setting of all five Dr. Stable

Polyplast convertible lens combinations. Like EW, if the meter

doesn't agree with my innards, I either ignore the meter, or make two

negatives. And yes, I do my fair share of dodging and burning.

Hi Paul, I think a good way to get some DBI experience is to shoot a

box of Ilford Ortho Plus. Being ortho, you can develop it under a red

light. Just put your developer in a tray, and watch the image develop.

After 25 you'll have a feel for the inspection method. Chose a

contrasty scene. Expose for the shadows. Note where you expect to see

the highlights come through. After development is over 1/2 through,

the highlights will start to come up, and you don't want to let them

get too dark. I mean, you will still have to do some testing, you have

to know approximately where your development process is at, the

inspection is a fine tuning thing. Caution, don't let your red light

shine directly on the film, even ortho can be fogged. I don't know if

DBI is the "best" way to go, but it can become a habit. And plenty of

people have gotten just fine results using it. Best, David

"Before you jump right in and develop valuable negatives by

inspection, you might want to run a test. ", this is from the above

mentioned article. judging from this and comments made here by other

posters there is just as much testing (if not more involved) than

with non-inspection.

 

<p>

 

again I am still waiting for someone to tell me what, if any, are the

advantages to this method?

I don't even recommend developing prints by inspection. That print

looks great under the safelight, but when you turn the white light on;

whoa! Disaster.<br>The light levels needed to develop negs by

inspection are just too low for the naked eye to be a reliable judge,

IMHO, and you'll ruin quite a few negs in the process of 'getting your

eye in'.<br>Most of those great photographers mentioned that used DBI

are now history, as is the slow orthochromatic film or plate that they

used. For each great neg developed by inspection, I bet there are

1,000 equally great ones developed reliably, in the dark, by time and

temp.<br>Just my twopenn'orth.

Okay here goes. The advantages of DBI. It eliminates temperature

variation of development. It allows simultaneous development of

differing exposure levels of negatives whether Zone system,

intuitive, (or accidental). One learned, it allows proper development

of differing emulsions and/or developers under non-standardized

conditions without having to test, test, test. It is fun to do. It

allows practitioners to feel that they have more control over the

photogrphic process. AA thought it was arcane. EW used it

successfully for 40 years in dozens of often make-shift darkrooms.

Basically it is one more tool for the accomplished photographer to

use; whether he does is more a matter of personal style than being

the only way to go. We should hear from Michael A. Smith on this.

I'll betcha "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" would have been easier

to print if Adams had developed it by inspection.

Well, as long as you get the results you want, its all a black art

anyway, even tossing things into a black box and watching it turn for

7'32". I develop by inspection - I got into it after developing some

8x10 lith film. For me, it is one final check to make sure the neg

looks ok before tossing it into the fix. I agree that it takes a bit

of time to develop an eye to estimate densities but it really is

surprising how quick your eye is to develop a sensitivity to the

densities. Its also genuinely surprising how easy DBI is. And I do

own a densitometer and I do run step wedges under it from time to

time. And yet DBI appeals... go figure! I do think its worth a try,

folks. Its saved at least a couple of negatives for me.

 

<p>

 

And this may not be something that appeals to everyone, but I do

think there is something to the idea of reducing instrumentation that

could come between you and the subject/process/whatever. I noticed

some time ago that I was so dependent on the exposure meter that I

was not being sensitive or attentive to what I was seeing. OK, I

haven't thrown away my spotmeter but I estimate exposure these days

before pulling out the meter and it is surprising how close I can

get. And, at least for me, it allows me to be more sensitive to the

subject.

 

<p>

 

FWIW, IMHO, YMMY, yadda yadda yadda..... DJ

Yes - DBI is probably the lazy man's answer to precise Zone system

testing and calibration, but then, I'm a lazy man. After less than 5

negs developed by inspection, I could see a marked improvement in my

prints, and I'm now a devotee of the method.

 

<p>

 

Part of the reason I use my LF camera in preference to my 35mm gear

is the control that I have wrested back from the electronic fiend who

resides within the small camera. DBI extends this control to the

development of my film. I've got the flexibility in the process that

I wish for, and I am not tied to densitomer readings but aesthetics

(this is partly my stubborness and mostly my stinginess - I don't

want to buy a densitometer!).

 

<p>

 

My advice (as always) is to TRY IT! If you don't like it, all you've

lost is the cost of a safelight filter and any negs that you may have

ruined (there won't be many - as I said, one or two sessions and

you'll be comfortable with it).

 

<p>

 

Graeme

I learned inspection development from Paula Chamlee, an excellent

teacher. I have since used it and taught others. I have a nice JOBO

setup with the expert drums that now goes unused as a result. I also

have a bunch of testing that goes undone and the time saving in the

darkroom is welcome.

I don't use a clock at all and a thermometer is used mainly to make

sure the chemistry in each tray is close. No more obsessing over half

degree differences and the damnable clock. Turn off the lights & put

in the film & relax... gently shuffling the sheets of film while

listening to the radio or tape player. Then, as it 'feels right', I

push a foot timer (a $1.00 darkroom timer bought at a swap meet) &

look at the negs under the green safelight. A few times through the

stack tells me for sure which are 'ripe for plucking' and which need

a bit more time. It has also helped me when I accidently overexposed

negs as I can watch them come up faster & put them into the stop when

they need it rather than finding out after opening the developing

tank. I get a usable neg this way even if not a really good one.

Yes, I own a densitometer and can use it when and if I want. I find

it is like the torque wrench I own. Only used when I really think I

need to. Most of the time I can see the results on film just as I can

tighten a bolt til it is snug so both seldom get used. Then, just as

a check against specs.

Inspection development isn't for everyone. Nothing is, except death.

If you like time & temp & densitometers, be my guest. As long as your

results in the final print work... why care? If you try inspection

and don't like it then don't use it. The reasons both for and against

are as valid as why one likes Meg Ryan and another likes Madonna,

simply personal preference. We are after great prints and if your

system gets you there then use it. I find inspection development

works for me and like it. Friends who have learned both like &

dislike it. Some obsess over the minutae in everything and they don't

like the idea of making decisions based on nothing more than

experience & the feeling one gets looking at the negatives from light

reflected on the base side from a green safelight. Others like the

process & idea of seeing the negs come up as they watch. One even

went so far as to get infrared goggles so he can watch the whole

time. It works for them all.

I won't even go into the sad life of those interminable, damnable

constant testers who live to write down everything all the time.

Inspection is not for them and maybe someday one of them will

actually produce a photograph.

Just as some would die if they had to go into the field & photograph

without a light meter, some don't want to develop by inspection. That

is fine by me. As long as it works and your final images are of high

quality, why worry about what others do. I like inspection

development while others don't. My prints pass muster and so do those

of a great many who rely on time/temp and testing or constant

monitoring. After all, some who come into my darkroom would have a

heart attack at my developing film to Willie Nelson, Lefty Frizzell,

Blues Traveler, Charlie Parker, the Beatles, John Philip Sousa and

Bach. It works for me and the prints look good from the negatives and

one more worry about accuracy is out of my life and that makes it

more enjoyable. As long as I get enough exposure on the negative &

have shadow detail I can work with I am happy. And, in direct testing

I find the Azo paper for contact printing for a great number of my

negs works better than anything else out there & is a perfect

complement to the developing. I also use Forte Polygrade V. Not a

contact printing paper but the tone works for some images.

 

<p>

 

At any rate, if it works for you then use it. Just like religion,

development involves faith and has just as many paths to the final

goal. Apparently it also has its preachers, proponents, charlatans,

false prophets, messiahs and true believers.

Sean: I can name another: Pere Atget. The greatest of them all....

A practical point: I too started with developing Ilford Otho+ by

inspection under deep red light (15W bulb). It is a nice way to go.

By the time most film/developer combos are getting cooked, your eyes

have adjusted and you can see really well. Bit different with pan

film: You use the deep green filter and you don't turn it on till

you're around 2/3 of the guessed-at time (see Michael Smith's article

in VC, etc.). I pop it right in front of my EK "bullet" safelight at

that point, though. Keep in mind that the eye is more sensitive to

green light than to red.... I want to broach a connected and implicit

issue here: Notice the above polarization of time and temp guys and

inspection guys. The time and temp guys' argument is, "Precision is

good." The inspection guys reply, "Yeah, but inspection is PRETTY

CLOSE and it's more flexible and more fun" etc. As an inspection guy,

I want to take this up a notch: We don't hang negatives in our

galleries and living rooms. We hang photographic prints. Every good

print process (from Azo to platinum) tolerates some range of negative

types very well indeed. The increment of precision made possible by

the MOST sophisticated use of time and temp and densitometer never

made a good image into a great one. Moreover, neither Edward Weston's

Spartan set-up nor Atget's preposterously rickety and archaic

equipment and procedures prevented either from creating great art.

It's about seeing. As a matter of mere handicraft, it's about

printing. -jeff buckels (albuq nm)

Thanks for all your responses. I had a feeling that there would be

strong feelings about this. As suggested, I think I will give it a

try and see for myself.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

Paul

I'll pass on the arguments about the merits of DBI and just give you

a couple tips. First, I have seen it used only with 8x10 negatives. I

would think it would be more difficult as you go to smaller

negatives. The whole idea is to find a highlight in the negative. You

judge the development time by how that highlight looks. Consequently,

I think it's easier to use the method with a large negative. Second,

you need to hook your green safelight up to a foot switch because

both hands will be occupied by holding the negative to inspect it so

you'll want to be able to turn the light on and off with your foot. I

haven't been able to find a foot switch that could be rigged up to

the safe light. I'm sure they're out there, I just haven't been able

to find one in a limited amount of searching time. The company that

makes the one that Michael and Paula use is no longer in existence.

Finally, since the whole idea is to judge development time from the

look of a highlight, you should make some kind of note when exposing

each negative as to where an important highlight is located on the

negative, so that you'll know where to look when inspecting the film.

You don't have enough time under the green light to be searching all

over the negative trying to find a highlight.

Just as a matter of interest. How many of you DBI enthusiasts use a

desensitising bath?

Hi Pete, I've DBI'd with a desensitizing bath (Pinakryptol yellow),

although I do not use it routinely. Even with the desensitizer, I

don't keep the safelight on because I prefer saving my dark vision. I

also have to add that when I first started DBI, I didn't have a green

safelight, so I actually used the green light from my Timex (this was

sans desensitizer). I was curious and read the base + fog density on

the densitometer - it was normal. Extended exposure to the light

(read as about one third - half of the developing time) did increase

b+f by about 0.1. Not to suggest you should do things that way but

the method does seem to be fairly robust. Cheers, DJ.

DBI sounds great. There is a superb alternative: check out the outstanding paper on this site on Two Bath Divided Development (Stoeckler) that seems that gotten little or no attention. The unblingeye site also has some great materials on divided development.

first off let me say that I indeed have no problem with anyone using

this method, however, when I see statements like,

 

<p>

 

"Development by inspection is the only wat to go",

 

<p>

 

or

 

<p>

 

 

Works for him--but, alas, he

does not inspect. How can anyone not want to inspect,

 

<p>

 

or

 

<p>

 

"Why? To appease your puritan work ethic? If D.B.I. works, and it

does, and it's easier, why make "a

bunch of tests"? You have to re- test your system continuoosly to

make sure it stays in calibration,

no?"

 

<p>

 

 

I just have to respond!!

 

<p>

 

there are plenty of people, famous or not, who don't dbi--throwing

names around is a waste of time.

 

<p>

 

its a myth that all zone system practioners do nothing but test---I've

used tmax for 10 plus years and have tested it twice, when I first

started using it, and when I recently changed my choice of dev.. when

I see any type of change or drift occuring I simply adjust my dev.

times. retest for such a small change? absurd.

 

<p>

 

Wilhelm,

 

<p>

 

dbi may eliminate temp variation,but it also eliminates total control-

--I use a thermometer and get temp control and total control.

 

<p>

 

I also can do simultaneous development of different exposures of film.

 

<p>

 

this method may make people "feel" as if they have more control, but

in reality it is a myth.

 

<p>

 

I would be willing to bet that A Adams negs were generally much easier

to print than Westons, allowing him more time to go out and shoot!

40,000+ negs does make a statement.

 

<p>

 

Sean, the issue with moonrise was an underexposure problem, not an

underdevelopment problem, and if Adams had the same view as weston on

control in the darkroom, he would have never even gotten the shot.but

I guess you would use one out of 40,000+ negs to justify your point of

view--seem alittle desperate?

 

<p>

 

I am somewhat stumped by those that claim it is so much easier to

inspect than use a timer/temp method--Dan says that he doesn't have to

use the timer anymore, but still uses the thermometer, then while he

goes through all the motions that he describes to dbi, I am simply

sitting there watching my timer waiting to pull my negs---and I do

more work in the darkroom????????? this fad will probably fall to the

wayside just as that jobo and the 30 sec. fix---eh Dan?

 

<p>

 

I wonder about how really loyal you all are to this method when I see

statements that say that anyone who doesn't use this method are

constant testers who always write everything down and never actually

produce a photograph.---when you can justify a method without

attacking another you may convince me.

 

<p>

 

Jeff,

 

<p>

 

no I don't hang negatives on the wall either, nor do I like to relive

a mistake everytime I print, so I try to come up with the best

negative I can without resorting to "good enough".

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

Like I said earlier, if you like to do it, more power to you, but

please don't tell me its easier or better, or as/more accurate,

because then you are fooling only yourselves.

Mr. Lindsey, you seem to have confused my explanation of the benefits

of DBI (which is what the original poster requested) with an

endorsement of it. I think that it is a valid technique for those

who want to use it, as is the Zone System. Personally, I use

neither. These days, I just set the camera on "P" and drop off the

XP-2+ at my local one-hour lab, and print on Multicontrast RC paper

with good old Ansco 130. I get stunning prints. No big deal.