developing times for different techniques,and films with D76

[jim_benson]

<p>Different sources give different developing times for the films, developer, and methods that I am using, so I thought I’d check in here for advice.</p>

<p>I am currently using D76 mixed 1:1, 4 x 5 sheet film, and tray developing with constant shuffling.</p>

<p>I’m using some TMax 400 because I needed film in a hurry, and that’s what the store had, but usually I use TXP 320.</p>

<p>I plan on switching to using tank development with hanging sheet holders with constant agitation for the 1^st minute and 5 seconds agitation each 30 seconds thereafter. The switch is primarily due to scratches showing up on negatives ( I didn’t have that when I worked with this film 3 years ago)</p>

<p>Anyway, what would people recommend for times for these methods with that developer, and those films?</p>

<p>Also, when you change developing time due to a temperature change, does that affect contrast, or is everything the same in every respect.</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>Jim Benson</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>You should have developing instructions with any film that you buy. I tend to stick to those or get yourself a darkroom guidebook with all of that information. One thing about B&W film developing. Consistency is everything. I like to stick to the same temp/time as much as possible. If you change temp then the time changes and I feel like that changes grain structure at least a little and affects contrast as well. Shorter times and warmer temps increase it. I like 68 degrees but this time of year that is more trouble to achieve and involves putting the developer in the fridge for a few minutes.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Download the Kodak data sheet for TMAX 400, it tells you everything you need to know.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Don't expect a manufacturer's time to be correct. It's only a starting point. Shoot 2-4 exposures of the same thing at the same exposure. Develop them 20-30 seconds apart. Then print them. See which one prints with the least burning and dodging needed...<br>

Keep doing this until you tune your exposure and development to exactly what works for you in your printing process...</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf<br>

I find little to no difference between inversion tank processing and manual rotary processing. I use the same time for both. I also notice no difference between roll film and sheet film. <br />I process at 68°F. A tempering bath and or a little ice makes temperature adjustments easy.<br>

Kodak's suggested starting point is 6 3/4 minutes @ 68°F.<br>

5% of that developing time is 20 seconds. 10% of that developing time is 40 seconds.<br>

I dialed in my developing time by starting at manufactures suggested starting time and evaluating those results then added 10% to the developing time and evaluated the results. The degree of change between the two showed me the time change I needed.</p>

[scotty_elmslie]

<p>I do not have a problem with scratches in tray development. First, I only develop two sheets at a time. After all, I went to a lot of trouble to capture the image. A little more time developing it is just part of the deal. Second, I do not shuffle constantly. Three inversions for each sheet at one-minute intervals provides enough agitation, allows the developer to work in peace and exposes the surfaces to fewer scratching opportunities. <br>

Probably no effect scratching, but I use Rodinal 1+49 or HC110 1+63, At those dilutions with sheet film they are more economical, sharper and you will not notice any impact on grain.</p>

<p>My times are taken from http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php and sometimes shorten them about 10% when I am scanning the negative.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>I have a drum scanner. I develop longer for it, about to 1.6. (Not quite the 1.8 or so for platinum.) I believe this less density for scanning is a fallacy. Hasn't borne out at all in my shop...</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p><em>I have a drum scanner. I develop longer for it, about to 1.6. (Not quite the 1.8 or so for platinum.) I believe this less density for scanning is a fallacy. Hasn't borne out at all in my shop...</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean the Callier Effect doesn't exist. Callier Effect is know and proven, it's there in darkroom enlargers and scanners of all types, including your Aztek Premier.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>That said, I'm surprised you can't see it, especially in the highlights. </p>

[scotty_elmslie]

<p><em>I believe this less density for scanning is a fallacy.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I find that my scanners (LS9000 and V750) are pretty forgiving about some development deviation (within about +/- 20%) since you can compensate for this directly at the time of scanning. A good film scanner can see though a fairly large amount of density variation. Of course, what it cannot do is make up for an underexposed negative or highlights that are developed too strongly, so it is probably a good bet to stay close to development times that would work in a normal optical enlarger, After all, scanners are intended to deal properly with normally developed negatives.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Bruce - It isn't that I can't sere it, its that it doesn't concern me. The effect is very small, and frankly, much of the time I like it... </p>

<p>Scotty - scanners weren't made to deal "normally developed negatives", they were developed to make color separations for print media. </p>

<p>I would agree that scanners have a wide range. I just like a lot more separation in the midtones.</p>