Need more film/developer data

[bruce watson]

I've just been reading Anschell and Troop's "The Film Developing

Cookbook" which is highly recommened in this forum. It answered some

of my questions, but not all. I was surprised by the complete lack of

data - no graphs, no comparisons.

 

Can anyone recomend any published sources of actual data? What I'm

looking for is something that will show me graphically what happens

with a given film (say, Tri-X) in a number of different developers

(high acutance to fine grain). I want to see how developer choice

effects gradation, now it effects "sharpness" and how it effects

percieved "graininess."

 

You get some of this, very limited and now out of date, in Appendix 2

of Ansel Adams "The Negative." I want more like that.

 

Anyone have a recommendation for where to find the data?

[al_kaplan1]

There are so many variables involved that it's next to impossible to give diffinitive examples of how a given film is going to react with a given developer. Even with the same temperature, same water supply, same person doing the agitation, etc., the manufacturers make changes in the emulsions. Sometimes they herald this as the "Great New Improved", sometimes you have to ferret out the information by the fact that the suggested developing times have changed by a minute or so.

 

The only way you can really find out what you're looking for is to shoot film and try the developers yourself. Even if somebody else does the work and publishes the book it might not give you the same results, and the information will likely be out of date.

[doug_bennett]

<a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/">This site</a>, known as the Massive Dev Chart, is a wealth of information. How the data was arrived at is unknown to me, but I've used it as a starting point, with good results.

[bruce watson]

Al,

<p>

I don't think the research is useless at all. Kodak, et. al., used to do this very research. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they published much of it - just a small subset as it directly pertains to Kodak's own products.

<p>

If people didn't want to know, then Anschell and Troop's book wouldn't be selling, now would it?

<p>

<i>Even if somebody else does the work and publishes the book it might not give you the same results...</i> This is quite true, but I don't expect to be able to reproduce laboratory results exactly. What I do expect is to be able to winnow out the combinations that obviously won't work for me.

<p>

I don't want to have to test every film, developer, temperature, and agitation method myself. That would take up years of my life (it's a good Ph.D. thesis if anyone wants to do it and publish it), and more money than I've got.

<p>

The scientific method is to build upon the work that others have done before you. What I'm asking for is pointers to the work that others have done before me.

<p>

For example, Anschell and Troop tell me that FX-2 gives higher acutance than HC-110. They don't tell me <i><b>why</b></i> they think that. They don't show any data to back up that claim. They don't show any illustrations of what that claim means to the image. They don't tell me how this effects the tonality of the midtones. They don't tell me how it effects the toe or shoulder. I want to see the data so I can try to understand <i><b>why</b></i>.

[stephen hazelton]

It sounds like the book you're looking for would contain graphs, charts, and sample photos with enlargements for every combination of film, developer, and agitation method. It'd be like a set of encyclopedias, would it not? Consider too, that your given film, Tri-X, has just been reformulated- so any book published 6 months ago would be out-of-date now.

 

If you've never developed any B&W film, go buy some, buy a half dozen different developers, make a bunch of identical shots, cut the film into 6" strips, and start developing. If you've already done a good bit of developing, you probably have a pretty good idea of what you're looking for already, and it would help to narrow the topic down considerably- like "I'd like more acutance" rather than "I want to see the acutance of every developer on this film".

[al_kaplan1]

Back in the "old days" Kodak et al used to publish charts showing "H&D curves" and list "gamma" for various developers and development times. Later they decided that the mere mortals on the planet could survive with the simpler concept of "contrast index". The sad fact is that no matter how much of this prep work someone else does in your behalf you're still starting from square one. Your water, thermometer, agitation, and then your enlarger, enlarging lens, set of VC filters, choice of paper and paper developer.

 

Better to buy bunch of film, try to fine tune it with a known developer, and then use your knowledge to make photographs. Less than perfect negatives? An opportunity to show off your printing skills. And next time you can do something a bit differently. In the meantime you might have createda great photo!

[frank.schifano]

Hmmm. Actually, I agree with you and I'd love to see that sort of information published somewhere. These data that you and I seek would be a good starting point for weeding out the obviously undesireable combinations. If these data were obtained with proper and consistent controls on variables, then the numbers would not lie. There would be no need to publish photographs in this kind of document, only the numbers.

 

But you know this will never happen. The cost to generate, collect, and analyze the data would be enormous and the return on investment slim to none.

[bruce watson]

Looks like I foxed the group on this one - no one could answer my question. Not everyday that happens, especially in *this* forum.

 

Turns out that there is a source. Grant Haist published a large two volume set called "Modern Photographic Processing" back in 1978 I think. This promises to be just the ticket. At least, I hope it is. The books are, of course, out of print now. Luckily, my local university library has a copy. Another weekend in the stacks - just like old times!

[john_hicks___]

Otis Sprow did several articles of that type in the mid-'80s for either _Darkroom Techniques_ or _Darkroom Photography_. Probably the only way you'd find them today would be in a library that keeps bound volumes of old magazines.

 

The articles were exactly what you're asking for; "TX in a bazillion developers" and similar, done in such a way that if you compared samples you could easily see that for example TX in Microdol had finer grain than PX in Rodinal or whatever.

 

Unfortunately, though, it's obsolete today. The Tri-X of back then isn't the Tri-X of today _and today's Tri-X may behave significantly differently_.

 

I think you have some testing to do.

[bruce watson]

Having spent a day at the library, I can say that the most valuable books for my quest were Grant Haist's book <i>Modern Photographic Processing</i> and Richard Henry's <i>Controls in Black and White Photography</i>.

<p>

Haist's books (it's a two volume set) in particular is a wealth of information, and he includes all the data, graphs, and example photographs that I was looking for. So if you are looking for the data, give this book a try.

[russell_brooks]

Iford has a curve or two on their

<a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html">webpage.</a><br>Check HP5+ versus Delta 400. I always thought HP5+ had a shoulder but actually it's Delta 400 that has more of an S form! Also scroll to the bottom and download their Push Processing PDF file. They do a decent job of explaining what it's all about. And the times are roughly what I get as well.