1:1 vs full strength

[joshchapman]

This may have been asked before, and I did try to find it but

without any luck.

 

Anyway, my question is what different effects would using developer

1:1 vs full strenght have on a neg? Specifically I'm trying to find

a good way to push Tri-X, and I'm wondering if there's a consensus

out there as to whether it's better to push with dilute or full

strenght solution.

[frank.schifano]

It depends on the developer. What do you plan to use? If you are going to push Tri-X, then either XTOL or Microphen would be good choices.

[joshchapman]

All I have available at the moment is D76, which I know isn't exactly opportune.

[michaelging]

Usally you dilute the developer to lower the contrast. If I was going to push film in D76 ,I

would do it straight. My method isTri-x asa 650 ,D76 straight for 9 minutes. Tri-x at 800,

12 minutes, and 1600 I use 14 minutes but even better is FG7 ,1 to 15 ,with one ounce

(film can ) of sodium sulfite. If I am pulling tri-x, I shoot it at asa 200 and develope in D76

,1 to 1 for 8 minutes. Normal for D76 ,and 400 asa, is 8 min. straight and 10min at 1 to 1

, all times at 68degrees. I like the overall look of D76 ,I to I . It's grain is a little larger than

straight, but has better edge sharpness ,and tonal range. If you look at my portfolio all my

B&W is tri-x in D76.

[kaiyen]

I realize you _just_ said that you only have D76, but if you ever do get some Microphen, you might try EI 1600, straight for 16 minutes, 1 inversion every 3 minutes after initial 30 seconds. I love it so far.

 

allan

[peter_kim2]

Diluting a developer like D-76 or Xtol as opposed to using it striaght reduces contrast and enhances sharpness at the expense of slightly more grain.

 

As to the topic of pushing, but you may find results when pushing at 1:1 better than with undiluted developer as pushing film (deliberatly underexposing and overdeveloping) naturally increases contrast. But the sharpness gained is, in my opinion, a good trade off for a little bit of grain when pushing anyway.

[bruce watson]

What Peter said. Basically, when you dilute the developer, you dilute the sulfite. If you develop the same exposure to the same contrast and the only difference is dilution, you should see a little more sharpness, and a little more graininess. The extra graininess comes from having a lower concentration of sulfite (ie, less solvent action), and because you increased the time in the soup. The extra sharpness is just the diluted sulfite.

 

As to consensus, AFAIK, there isn't one. I tend to develop normally in XTOL 1:3, when I have to push (which is rare) I drop back to 1:1. The reason is that I want to keep my time in the soup as close to 5 minutes as I can. IOW, I think that the increase in graininess due to increased time in the soup is more than I get from the increased dilution of the sulfite.

 

Other people do it just the opposite. Still other people just use the same dilution for everything. So, clearly, YMMV.

[ed_hurst]

See the following thread, in particularly David Carper's most informative contribution. It basically answers the question of whether or not diluted or full-strength Microphen is better for pushing if your aim is to get maximum film speed (i.e. shadow detail). The answer given is that undilute is better! This was not quite the question you asked, but hopefully it helps.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003WI4

[jimvanson]

I'm curious about the two posts that state diluting the developer reduces the contrast.<P>Is this because the dilute developer could act as a compensating developer thus there is less of a shoulder/toe?<P>I always thought that (up to a point) if one needs more contrast to increase the time of development.<P>I'm shaking my head trying to think this through...

[al_divenuti]

Jim,

 

Diluting the developer *will* generally reduce the contrast achieved during a specific development time. Sometimes this might be, in part, due to the compensation mechanism you mentioned (though you've got it backwards about the shoulder...decreasing contrast usually is more consistent with a longer, gentler shoulder) and sometimes its a reduction of PH (depending on the buffer) and its resulting reduction in developer activity.

[al_divenuti]

Now regarding the dilute or full stength for pushing...

 

Is everybody so sure about this?

 

Not that you'd do it as a general rule but if you push with a highly-solvent developer like Microdol-X you are going to have less film speed than, say, Microdol-X 1:3 because of the greater solvent action of the undilute Microdol-X.

 

Also, on the subject of graininess...

 

Much of what we perceive as image grain in a negative are actually clumps of grains. From what I have read (which is largely distillations of the work of folks like Crawley & Henry by other authors rather than the work of Crawley, Henry, et. al. themeselves) that a high PH tends to promote grain clumping.

 

Now let's say the developer isn't very well buffered and dilution of the developer results in a lower PH. Are we all certain that the longer time spent in the soup outweighs the lower PH where grain development & clumping is concerned?

 

XTOL and Microphen (the subject of Carper's post) are well-buffered, low PH, solvent developers - but they are generally not considered to induce heavy physical development (at least compared to say, Microdol) nor are they similar to high accutance, higher PH, chemical developers like FX-14 (Acutol), FX-2, or FX-39.

 

Bottom line: I'm not convinced that undiluted developers are always superior to diluted developers when pushing is required - except if the real "push" is being performed by one's supervisor to get one's film developed as quickly as possible.

[peter_kim2]

Hey Jim and Al wow this is a really great thread. What I posted was by no means information found out totally on my own. Just personal observations supported by more learned members than I on photo.net

 

To address Jim, Yeah I agree increaseing development time generally increases contrast. But I think that reducing the solvent action of the devloper by diluting reduces contrast more than extending devlopment time increases it. But now that you mention it I also wonder if this is as much an action of the extended development time as it is the natural tendancy for increased contrast when underexposing and overdeveloping in general.

 

Al I find your bottom line very interesting as it seems to run opposite to what I always 'naturally' accepted as dogma. That being that diluting the developer is better for pushing...Now I AM confused! :)

[joshchapman]

Thanks for all the answers, guys. I guess the solution is just to try it all and compare.

[al_divenuti]

Peter,

 

I'm not stating that the straight vs diluted "rule" is wrong...I'm just questioning whether it is a rule at all and using a couple of examples to question that claim.

 

If D. Carper suggests that Microphen is better straight vs diluted for pushing then I can take that at face value but I'm not ready to broaden that claim to a generalization purpotedly true for all developers. All developers are different and even trying to assign broad classifications to them (e.g. "buffered low PH solvent developer", "poorly-buffered medium-high PH accutance developer") on the basis of behavior doesn't generally meet with much success.

[lex_jenkins]

All I can add is that *I* prefer the results I get with Microphen as straight stock solution for hard pushes (two or more stops). I will occasionally use it 1:1 tho'. I dislike it at 1:3 - it's false economy. It definitely produces a compensating effect as stock solution and at 1:1, tho' this is dependent on careful agitation and not too much of it.

 

Regarding D-76/ID-11, it's never been considered a particularly good push developer at any dilution - enough so that in the good/bad old days some photojournalists preferred Dektol for pushing Tri-X. And according to at least one recognized authority (whose name I'll try to remember), it's not a compensating developer at any dilution with any technique, including variations in agitation. I don't plan to test these assertions any further because I've already gotten terrible results using ID-11 merely to develop Delta 3200 @ 3200. No point in ruining more film. D-76/ID-11 is an excellent, proven developer for film exposed at or below its nominal speed. Best left that way.

[silent1]

Wow, what an assortment of answers you've received, none of which appear to answer your core question, so let me take a crack at it.

 

IMO, it's better to dilute for pushing. Why? Because when you dilute the developer (as long as you use enough -- for D-76, you need a minimum of 100 ml of stock solution per film, either 135-36 or 120, to avoid premature exhaustion), you can control contrast with reduced agitation and push up the shadow details without getting excessive contrast, at least within limits.

 

I haven't done this myself with D-76, but reports suggest that either 1:1 or 1:3 (and 1:3 is almost certain to require using an oversize tank, i.e. 1 reel in a 2-reel tank), combined with extended development and reduced agitation, will work the way I'm used to HC-110 Dilution G working in the same conditions, but without the "ceiling" HC-110 exhibits with most films at two stops push; diluted D-76 is reportedly capable of three stops push on most films, and in general a diluted developer used with reduced agitation produces less increased contrast and more shadow detail that a traditional push done by simply extending development with the same dilution and agitation cycle used for normal development. You will need to extend development more than you would with normal agitation, but by agitating every three minutes or even every five minutes, you'll get negatives that look much more nearly "normal" even while you add up to a full stop of speed in the shadows.

 

Yes, that's right, I just said you might get a genuine EI 800 with nearly normal contrast out of Tri-X, using D-76 (diluted, with reduced agitation). I know it works for T-Max 400 with HC-110 Dilution G, which is roughly like using D-76 at 1:3; there's no reason it shouldn't work with Tri-X since Tri-X generally pushes better than TMY to begin with.

 

Best way to find out? Test a few rolls; Tri-X is relatively cheap in bulk rolls (and if you process it yourself, there's no strong reason not to use bulk loaded film, as long as you keep the felts in the cassettes clean or replace the cassettes often enough). Try it in full strength, 1:1, 1:3, with normal agitation and reduced agitation on three or five minute cycles, using rolls shot with the same range of exposures, subject matter, and lighting for each test, and then print, scan, or inspect with a loupe to decide which negatives you like better for your use.