Development by Inspection

[james___]

No Sean. Moonrise wasn't developed improperly as much as it was

exposed improperly. From AA's own records. "It's amazing how close my

guesses on exposure are to my metered values." I'll stick with a

meter. It's amazing how acurate a meter is and how inacurate our eyes

are depending on our emotions and the time of day. DBI is only one of

many methods to an end. Try it. It may work for you. Michael and Paula

are using a very slow film. Super XX if I'm not mistaken. Nice and

slow to respond to any light falling on it. Their images speak for

themselves. But remember it is not the only method. Until AA and his

zealots came along, tested materials endlessly, and wrote down the

results for all of us to see, many photographers used whatever method

they were taught or processed by the seat of their pants. I have

seen Dan's work and ask him, what is the difference between your

pre DBI prints and the prints you make now? Not much I'll wager.

And you pre-IBD prints were gorgeous. So why did you change a

thing? After trying pretty much all the different types and styles of

development of both negs and prints, I went with the rotory drum

method as the one that gave me the best consistency with the least

exposure to chemicals. I really find the internal contrast to be far

superior to most other methods. I gave up on tray processing right off

the bat after gouging almost every neg I tried. And I'm pretty

dextrous. And I hate wet itchy hands. I love hangers. If done properly

they afford wonderful control. And large batches of film can be done

this way. Now I use pyro when needing N- developing or wanting a

special look to my neg. I suggest you try them all. Find out what

works for you. I'm a zonie though I don't endlessly test every batch

of film and paper. I like the precision. I find the film has very

little variation to it so I just test once and the negs always come

out right on the money.

[michael_a._smith1]

Well, this has become quite a lively discussion. Some of the answers

defending DBI are so good that I have only a little to add.

 

<p>

 

I just read all of the responses and I hope I remember to answer all

the points that were raised.

 

<p>

 

As Sean Yates mentioned, a green safelight is used because our eyes are

more sensitive to green than to other colors. After 5 minutes or more

in total darkness a 15-watt bulb behind a dark green safelight will be

bright indeed. There is no "straining" to look at the negative. Unless

you are color-blind to green. That would be a problem.

 

<p>

 

Foot switch: I developed negatives by inspection for years without a

foot switch, but they are nice. I cannot understand Brian's finding

them so difficult to find. They are available in almost any decent

hardware store. You can get them with an off/on button or a "momentary

on" button, which will be on only as long as your foot is on the

switch. That is better, because if leave the off/on type on "on" (how's

that for confusion) when you have the negative in the stop bath and

fixer (useful for determining how long to fix--twice the time the film

takes to clear) and then turn the roon light on, you might acidentaly

leave it on when taking the next batch of negatives out and you don't

want to do that--it will fog the film. (When the roon lights are on you

can barely see that the dark green safelight is on and just after you

turn them out it can take a few minutes for your eyes to adjust to the

dark and you may not notice that the dark green safelight is on.

 

<p>

 

Of course it does not matter how one develops film. It is the prints

that count. I do it because it is easier and, I believe, more accurate.

(Yes, I've done tests, but not for many years, now). Ansel Adams, for

all the hype surrounding his zone system and the precision of getting

the "correct" negative, dodged and burned more than any other

photographer that I can think of except for Gene Smith. For a large

format photographer who supposedly made correct negatives, he did far

more dodging and burning than Edward or Brett Weston ever did.

His negatives were much harder to print than were Weston's.

 

Re: Moonrise: If Adams had been developing by inspection he would have

seen that it was underexposed and needed more development--and he could

have done it right there! Now that would have been easier wouldn't it?

 

<p>

 

DBI can be so accurate that Edward often had Brett develop his film

when he was traveling on his Guggenheim Fellowship. From on the road

Edward would send it back to Brett.

 

<p>

 

Also, Adams did sometimes need to intensify his negatives in selenium,

didn't he? if he had developed by inspection he probably would not have

needed to.

 

<p>

 

Negative size: 4x5 negatives are just as easy to see as 8x10s. No

difference at all in any way. Easier in fact--you can hold them up with

one hand.

 

<p>

 

DBI is quicker, too, than using a JOBO processor or any other way than

in a tray. We'll come back from a trip with hundreds of negatives and

develop them 8 - 12 at a time. If we were only able to do a few, it

would take us forever.

 

<p>

 

Hope some of this has helped someone, if even a little.

 

<p>

 

Someone wrote something like we should hear from me (MAS) on this. If

anyone ever feels he or she would like my response to an ongoing

thread, send me a direct e-mail and suggest that I look at that

particular thread. Sometimes I am unable to get to this wonderful site

for months on end. (Like September and October when we will be away

photographing.) But we will get e-mails from time to time. And it will

make me take a look.

[mark_lindsey]

good answers defending dbi?

 

<p>

 

sorry, I haven't seen any, all I have seen are comments that not only

blast through the myths of dbi but also uncover the silly viewpoints

dbi'ers have of those of us who oppose it.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

I am sure that weston and adams both had unruly negatives, the big

difference was that adams strived to perfect his prints, and it

shows.Adams printed to achieve prints that met his high standards,not

the standards of someone who counts how many dodges and burns he

might make.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

Moonrise--have you ever read the amazing amount of knowledge,

intuitiveness and speed it took him to produce this image, to

simplify all of this by saying that if he had dbi his problems would

be solved is an insult to all concerned. the man was in control of

the negative from the beginning, the one concern he had was the

amount of light falling on the foreground crosses, he states that if

he had known the crosses were of such low value, he would have given

them another half stop of exposure and then would have controlled the

values of the moon with development---so just giving more development

would have maybe given him more highlights in the crosses, but it

would have given him a burnt out moon--so much for that

theory...later he selenium intensified the area to make printing a

bit easier. Adams shot over 40,000 negs, is this the only one you can

use to make your point (which was not made)

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

"develop 8-12 at a time"...

 

<p>

 

so what, I do that all the time with 4x5 in trays and used to do it

with 8x10, and no, I don't have damage problems.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

like I said before, do it if you like it, but don't b.s. those of us

who know its not as accurate, etc., etc.,and still again, can't you

defend your methods without attacking the methods of others?

[mark_lindsey]

Mr. Smith, I just returned from your website and I read your article

on printing, I wonder why you don't take as much precautions with

your negatives as you do with your prints?

 

<p>

 

 

which is easier to do over if unusable?

 

<p>

 

 

You use a metronome for prints, why on earth would you not print by

inspection , surely it would be easier to do for prints rather than

negatives?

 

<p>

 

it seems to me that this so called simplification of neg. dev. has

only shifted more complications to your printing sessions.

[n_dhananjay3]

I think Michael's use of a metronome is for timing print exposure,

not print development. I suspect folks are looking at this as a DBI

vs time/temp argument, which I don't think is really accurate. I

think we are talking about combining the two - you still need some

idea about time to decide when to inspect. If nothing else,

inspection allows you to take one last look at the negative before

the point of no return i.e., dropping it into the fix.

 

<p>

 

The point is it costs you nothing. If you used only time/temp, you

would just move from the dev to stop and fix. With DBI, you could

drop the film into a water bath stop, inspect to ensure everything is

OK and then move onto the fix. If some more development is called

for, you move back to the dev. (Sidebar: I suspect all those 'blasted

XTOL failures could have been salvaged if the folks DBI'd - again,

not an argument for using outdated chemicals etc etc etc - just a

precaution and acknowledgement that we live in a world teeming with

hobgoblins, gremlins and trolls). As you get more comfortable with

the technique, you can always check at about the 2/3 point in time to

make sure the process seems to be on track. And for those who appear

to insist that this is somehow less precise, how can it be? You're

using it on top of time/temp. And if it is base+fog you're worried

about - I've tested this under a densitometer and found no

statistically significant increase in base+fog, except when using

continuous inspection (Caveats: this did not test all film-developer

combos, and while pyro tans and reduces the sensitivity of the

emulsion further and therefore is often preferred by DBI'ers, I

checked a tanning dev as well as D23). I'm not for a minute

suggesting that DBI is the only way to go, but to imply that it is

somehow less precise is mis-stating the case. Also, from a tongue in

cheek philosophy of science perspective, if no evidence has been

presented for the advantages of DBI, no evidence has been presented

for its disadvantages either... :-)

 

<p>

 

Like I said, give it a try, folks. You may decide it adds nothing to

the way you are doing stuff now. Then again, you may decide

otherwise.... Cheers, DJ

[n_dhananjay3]

Forgot to add. Re an advantage of DBI (for me, at any rate), I find

that regardless of all the testing that I do, I will always

eventually run into a subject where my prior testing does not give me

a direct answer. Whether this is because I want to change curve shape

by varying agitation and/or dilution etc etc etc is moot. DBI affords

me some control in novel situations (OK, so maybe its an illusion but

what isn't?), and dare I suggest that one should strive to encounter

novel situations.... OK, I'm really off my soap box now. Cheers, DJ

[dan_smith]

I have said it before and will reiterate: if it works for you then

use it. Inspection development works for me & I use it. All

the "control" in the world won't help much if a shutter sticks a bit

during the esposure. If the meter gets bumped in the field & is a bit

off. If any of a myriad of things happen to throw off your carefully

metered scene which can and does happen.

Nothing is wrong with controlling the process and working for

accurate and repeatable results. But though we see the photo process

as 'scientific' it is often little more than an act of faith as our

gear, film and process are far from controlled.

If, and it is a big IF, all were tightly controlled then there might

be a case for time/temp only. There is not, just as there is not for

inspection development... nothing for each other than personal

preference based on what works for each of us.

My very first foray into inspection after learning from Paula Chamlee

included a negative 5 stops overexposed as a result of answering a

question from a passerby as I shot while forgetting to stop down the

lens. I saw this when I first turned on the safelight & pulled the

neg immediately. It was 'usable' though not too good. I could get a

print out of it rather than sticking to a time that would have

assured a sun filter or trash can candidate. I don't suggest

rationalizing inspection to make up for mistakes, but it can be used

to spot them and compensate at times.

Dreaded Xtol failure, mentioned above, happened to me with one batch

of 8x10 negs and I was able to see it under the green safelight...

about 20 minutes into the development & still NO action on the film.

I reached up on the shelf in the dark & grabbed a bottle of Rodinal &

dumped it into the tray, mixed by hand quickly & put the negs back &

suddenly I start getting density as witnessed under the green

safelight when I looked in about 5 minutes. So in this case

inspection development helped avoid a major problem.

LF photography has a 'slop factor' most of us realize even if we

don't like admitting it. Shutter speeds, metering accuracy, film

variations for whatever reason and so on at each step of the process.

Total accuracy is a myth at best. We can come close and if this is

your approach and you agonize over it and test & re-test and it works

for you then use it. Just don't worry too much about those who don't

see the need.

Excellent images are made by those who use both methods and even a

combination.

 

<p>

 

Mark Lindsay wrote: "all I have seen are comments that not only blast

through the myths of dbi but also uncover the silly viewpoints

dbi'ers have of those of us who oppose it.

 

<p>

 

 

I am sure that weston and adams both had unruly negatives, the big

difference was that adams strived to perfect his prints, and it

shows.Adams printed to achieve prints that met his high standards,not

the standards of someone who counts how many dodges and burns he

might make.

 

<p>

 

Mark Lindsay wrote: "Moonrise--have you ever read the amazing amount

of knowledge, intuitiveness and speed it took him to produce this

image, to simplify all of this by saying that if he had dbi his

problems would be solved is an insult to all concerned. the man was

in control of the negative from the beginning..."

 

<p>

 

Yes Mark, most of us have read this. Many also know how to meter

based on experience and develop accordingly. Some photograph without

a meter, relying on experience. It works well. This example isn't one

of technical control but only shows there may be a different approach

to answering the same question. Again, if it works for you then use

it. Just don't expect everyone else to do so.

 

<p>

 

Edward Weston was not the same photographer as Ansel Adams was. Nor

was Eugene Smith or Michael A. Smith. All produced and produce

excellent work using whatever techniques and prejudices they have.

All can make it appear difficult to anyone who doggedly subscribes to

another view as to "The Right Way". There is always another way and

when Edward & Ansel discussed "to zone or not to zone", each came up

with what worked for them but only Ansel became an evangelist for his

view as being "the right way". Both produced nice work with the edge

in sheer numbers going possibly to Ansel and the edge in sheer

numbers of excellent images going to Weston. Similar gear and

different working methods and good images from both. One was not

right and the other wrong just as an oil painter is not right or

wrong if he doesn't hold his brushes like he was taught by an art

teacher or squeezes the tubes in the middle or end. If it works, use

it.

Personal prejudices, misinformation and stubbornness can get in the

way of us all. It is the final images that count and how you get

there makes for some lively debate, such as this one. But it is

really as simple as Michael A. Smith says. Or as complicated as Ansel

made it. Or as simple as Weston's darkroom with a lightbulb, contact

printing frame & trays while printing at night with the windows open

to get the breeze & night sounds from the ocean. Or as damnably hard

as Eugene Smith could make it.

 

<p>

 

Look at the prints and you will see the system works in spite of our

prejudices and ideas. This is not science, it is art. To reduce it to

science is comforting to those who need it and stifling to those who

don't think that way. Photography is not a formula, but a path some

follow. Scientific principles apply but the indefinable is always

with us. If we are comfortable shuffling negatives in the dark while

viewing them by a weak green safelight, what is the harm? If that

still causes some to piss & moan you can come visit & I will show you

my nice JOBO as well and you can feel better knowing I have the

scientific method in hand even as I stumble in the dark with wet

hands, fumbling around looking for the green light reflected off the

negatives. For me, the time spent with the negs is a comfortable part

of the process, not just another mechanical step. And NO, it is not

as precise as time temp in a perfect world. But we don't live in a

perfect world.

 

<p>

 

 

 

[mark_lindsey]

I will only respond to the new points made, as it is getting tiring

to repeat my claims and opinions and only get canned answers and

denials without factual basis in return.

 

<p>

 

 

In my opinion Adams wins by far on number of images and quality of

images. A matter of opinion is difficult to use as a "fact" to defend

your case.

 

<p>

 

 

Zone system complicated? I don't think so, works fine for me.

 

<p>

 

 

I have never read anything by Adams that says that he claimed his way

was the "only" way or the "right" way, please direct me to these

statements or would this only be another attack used as a defense?

 

<p>

 

Yes Dan, this is art, but the creation of the negative and the print

involve craftsmanship, and without complete control of my craft what

is my end result? A product of my personal vision or just a happy

accident?

 

<p>

 

I have no doubt that you can print wonderfull prints from dbi negs,

but why complicate the process? If you want to simplfy your way of

working why stop at contact printing like weston? At one time Adams

was using an enlarger that used sunlight as its light source, go for

it!

 

<p>

 

 

Why are we, as photographers, so afraid to use even simple technology

to help achieve our vision or goals? Does anyone here think that

artists of other mediums are this overwrought about this type of

subject?

 

<p>

 

 

This one thing I will exhaustively state again is that I never stated

that anyone shouldn't use this method, just don't tell me that it is

more accurate, or less work. And please please don't tell me that

just because you got rid of the use of a thermometer of a timer that

this brings you any closer to the "art" of what you are doing. It's a

bit over the edge dramatically and romantically.

[mark_lindsey]

OK one more quick note.....

 

<p>

 

Its Lindsey not Lindsay, I am the photographer not the musician!

 

<p>

 

 

Why would you test any new developer with important negatives?

 

<p>

 

 

NO Dan I don't want to see the Jobo, I have no use for them because I

feel that they complicate the process as well, and I see no real

benefit coming from their use.

 

<p>

 

 

I don't really see the benefit of overdeveloping a neg. that was 5

stops underexposed in the first place.

 

<p>

 

 

No this isn't a perfect world, so this is a good reason to strive for

less?

 

<p>

 

Ok, I'm done

[wilhelm]

According to Mary Alinder, Ansel did actually perform DBI on

Moonrise. After he did the D-23/waterbath thing, he determined the

end point by inspection under a green safelight. So much for THAT

theory!

[michael_feldman1]

In Adams' book "Examples, The Making of Forty Photographs" he spends

about 2 1/2 pages of text explaining how Moonrise was made. Adams

used 10 sequences of a water bath development with D-23 (30 seconds D-

23 and 2 minutes water for each sequence). He doesn't say anything

about inspection in this book, but that doesn't mean that he did not

do it.

 

<p>

 

Adams had to guess at the exposure because he couldn't find his meter

and the scene was rapidly disappearing. He actually used his

knowledge of luminance of moon to make the exposure. By the time he

set up for another exposure the light was gone. After development he

determined that the foreground was underexposed by a half-stop, and

used intensifier (on the foreground only) to make printing a little

easier.

[wilhelm]

Considering AA's superb darkroom knowledge and technique, and that he

knew he had an extraordinary negative which required really special

developing, it would be surprising if he HADN'T used inspection to

help determine the extremely nebulous end point.

[mark_lindsey]

Wilhelm,

 

<p>

 

moonrise with dbi makes no sense whatsoever, Adams KNEW the luminance

of the highlights, it was the shadows that he was worried about.

Determining the length of development affects the highlights, and the

area he was concerned about needed more exposure. In all of his

references to Moonrise, I have never seen mention of using dbi or

wishing he did, I do not consider Alinder to, in any way, to be an

expert on photographic technique in any way, and I take that

statement with a huge grain of salt based on the evidence that I have

seen. (not to mention that it makes no sense).

 

<p>

 

so much for THAT theory!

 

<p>

 

 

also, because Adams had superb darkroom and techical knowledge was

the exact reason he didn't need to do dbi.

 

<p>

 

like I said before, trying to use one out of 40,000 + images to say

Adams needed dbi is pretty weak and desperate. even worse, the theory

doesn't hold water.