One More Thread on Development Times

[tom_wadsworth]

I have been trying to understand some of the variations in published

development times and specifically worked out a good time for Delta

100 and FX39 after overdeveloping a couple of rolls. I understand

that there is variation between peoples' preferences but one example

that I found seems pretty bizare. On the label of the FX39

developer, the Paterson published time for delta 100 is 10 minutes.

Digital truth is 7. I have been using 7 and getting good results -

I used 9 and blew it. So how can such an obvious "overdevelopment"

time be published? Am I missing something?

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[scott_esposito]

Film manufacturers post "safe" ISOs and development times. These are not optimal -- they are the figures that will give an acceptable image the majority of the time.

 

A fair share of B&W photographers don't know what a blown highlight is and don't care about rich shadow values in their B&W photographs. They don't want to get into learning about the chemistry and how exposure affects tones and this and that. They are only concerned that an image is on the film. The manufacturer's recommended times are for them.

 

But, these specifications are not optimal for getting a good, full tonal range.

[ramiro_aceves]

Hello

 

As film development involves too many variables, I have learnt after some experimenting that I never trust on published development times anymore. So every time I try a new film I guess its development time or use a published starting point and after two or three iterations I am on the right one.

Thermometer differences, different agitation methods, enlargers, papers, scenes etc... invalidate every published time.

 

 

Good luck.

Ramiro.

[robert_davis2]

Ya you're missing a couple of things

 

1) All times are just starting points. Your setup may vary. Your chemicals or equipment may be different whatever.

 

2) All times really should include some idea of the contrast the time is for. The better Agfa numbers are actually three different times. Ranging from low contrast to ultra high contrast.

 

There is really no such thing has over development. It's just a different result. If it's not the result you want then use less time.

[lex_jenkins]

Please don't take offense, Tom, this isn't directed specifically at you, but this is an example of why I've become reluctant to answer questions such as "How long should I develop..." etc.

 

Only the photographer can determine appropriate development. There are too many variables involved to take anyone else's advice as an absolute.

 

What are your metering habits? Is your meter correctly calibrated?

 

What are your exposure habits? Even if you're not a zonie are you able to recognize, at least casually, how to relate film exposure to the scene you're photographing?

 

Is your thermometer accurate? If your thermometer reads 68°F when the chemistry is actually 72°F you're likely to have some serious overdevelopment problems.

 

Are you using a condenser or diffuser enlarger?

 

How much contrast do you prefer? It is, after all, a matter of personal taste.

 

And, sure, if you read enough sources for recommended times you're likely to find one or more that are either inappropriate for you or simply erroneous.

[dean_williams]

There's another variable here; The difference in condenser and diffusion enlargers. One requires more contrast for a given scene than the other and longer development increases appearent contrast. Some dev times may have been researched for diffusion enlargers, and when used for condensers seems to be overdevelopment. FP4+ is the only film I regularly use that I can even come close to the manufacturers recommended times without blowing highlights to kingdom come. This is undoubtedly due to my personal habits in the darkroom and not an outright fault of the film maker. The times given by chem and film makers are guidlines. You gotta start somewhere! If I were king, everyone would rate TX at 250 and dev in D76 1:1 for 7 min cause it works for me. Good thing for y'all I'm still one of the peasants!

[tom_wadsworth]

This is all very interesting and I appreciate everyone's patience with me posting again on this subject. I do agree that just working with developing times to get what you need is the best approach and I am finding that I am developing my own times now for FX39 (which is a new developer for me). This is a good forum group and certainly helps.

Thanks,

Tom

[chris_waller]

Aim for a development time which enables you to print a full range of tones on a grade 2-2.5 paper. Non-specular whites (e.g. white paint) should just have the merest hint of tone when compared to base white and there should be a maximum black somewhere. There's also an element of personal preference. Some people like high contrast but I like very subtle tones, particularly in landscape, so my negs look rather thin and flat compared to most. And I've recently moved from a Durst BW670 condenser enlarger to a Meopta Magnifax diffuser enlarger and am having to redetermine all my development times. I have needed to increase some of these by 13 percent and some by 22 percent.