The Doran Vitol Inversion Process

[h._p.]

I came across an article in the February 1940 issue of Popular Photography about

this. The article, titled 'Developing in Air' was reasonably specific but didn't

detail the chemistry. I'm wondering if anyone has more information.

 

Basically, the idea was to soak the film in developer (I'm guessing that it was

a high activity one) and agitate vigorously for four minutes. The film was then

given a short wash and allowed to stand, out of solution, for twenty-five

minutes. Finally, it was fixed in the normal manner.

 

The theory was that the highlights would develop to extinction first, exhausting

the developer left in the film, while the shadows would continue to develop,

still using just the developer trapped in the emulsion, thus reducing the

contrast overall. An impressive pair of comparison pictures accompanied the article.

 

My first reaction was that it was an April Fool's jape but the date of the issue

suggests otherwise. Then I began to wonder if it had simply died out because of

the difficulty of removing solutions evenly from the film's surface - I assume

that any fluid left on the surface would cause uneven development, as it would

act as a reservoir and defeat the process of development to extinction.

 

If anyone has any knowledge of this, I'd be interested to hear it.

[Monophoto]

I've never heard of this exact process, but it appears to be another variant of compensating development.

 

Ansel Adams wrote extensively about waterbath development as a means of controlling contrast. In that approach, film soaks in developer, and then is transferred to a plain water bath where development continues until the developer saturating the emulsion reaches exhaustion. Since development will be more agressive in the highlights, the developer in those areas will exhaust first, while developer in shadows will continue.

 

Another version of this is the now-popular stand development or minimal-agitation development techniques. These use extremely dilute developers, and after a brief period of agitation, the film is allowed to stagnate. Once again, the idea is that the developer in the highlights will exhaust first, and because there is no agitation, will not be replaced with fresh developer.

 

These are all techniques to manage extreme contrast, and they really work.

[h._p.]

Thanks, Louie. I'm aware of the usual extinction development processes but am curious about this particular variant.

 

My main questions are: what was the composition of the developer and how did they overcome the formation of solution droplets on the film surface, leading to uneven processing? Perhaps they didn't, which is why this is not widely known.

[profhlynnjones]

Hi HP,

 

I'm aware of what you are talking about where the film just sat out in the air basically until it "dried out". There were awful problems with that, because of streaking, staining, oxidation, etc.

 

I was aware of Ansel's approach to water bath. One of my Brooks mentors, Dick Boyce (1950's) had some suggestions about this addition to altering the process. I got additional information from a famous Chicago architectural photographer, and more information by one of the best photographers I have ever known, a Navy Photographers Mate from the 30's and 40's, Ronald N. "Woody" Woodward.

 

All ot this finally motivated me to actually do research on these possibilites (1960's). Air doesn't work well for the reasons stated above. Water bath does work because it keeps the film from drying out, you just have to gently lower the film into the water so that it doesn't wash the soaked in developer in the emulsion.

 

You can use virtually any developer for its basic characteristics. The length of time in the developer segments (usually 1 minute), and the water bath time which can be anything from 1 minute to 5 or more minutes.

 

The basis for the custom designed program is that high density areas will finish developing in a matter of seconds, the middle tones in several 10's of seconds to a minute or so, while the low densities may continue to develop for several minutes. this isn't just contrast reducing, but lots of other things can happen like increases in shadow contrast. Among other things, accidental under exposure can be saved with quality if you don't mind being in total darkness for an hour!

 

As an example, some of my students who normally used TMX or Delta 100, would forget to change the meter and shoot at 400, while the legitimate film speed would be about64 to 80. I would have them increase the development time by 10% to 15%, develop in 1 minute segments, and with water baths of 3 to 4 minutes duration. We would get a legitimate 400 speed and normal contrast, but it is a pain where you sit down.

 

you can have shadow processing that is 8 to 10 times the highlight processing. As a good photographer and technician, you could have a stunning array of film qualities.

 

Lynn

[h._p.]

Yes, Lynn, I was thinking that the flaw in the idea would be uneven drying but I was wondering if this Dr Doran had found a way around it, as Popular Photography gave the story nearly three pages, while successfully failing to provide any details.

 

The only thing that I could think of was some form of alcohol substitution, such as we used for fast drying in press photography during the 'sixties but that would dry the developer left in the emulsion, unless you could find a way to protect the gelatine while drying the surface.

 

It seems such a weird and wonderful idea that I would like to know if anyone made it work.