If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Developing paper - always for a fixed time or not?
OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic here. Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or not? If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation a bit confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once say 60s @20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later they specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout table). If development was meant to be processed until the end of the process, this could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone overview). But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way, development is meant to be performed to some *exact* stage. Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a sentence or two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development except different timing? If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath. Thanks so far -- deejay |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tomas Daniska wrote: OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic here. Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or not? If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation a bit confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once say 60s @20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later they specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout table). If development was meant to be processed until the end of the process, this could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone overview). But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way, development is meant to be performed to some *exact* stage. Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a sentence or two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development except different timing? Paper is developed to completion, no more no less. It's important not to use too short a time (46 sec. seems a bit short; I would develop RC paper a minimum 1 minute and probably 90 secs. If you develop longer you will simply increase the apparent contrast but not real contrast (i.e., the paper curve as a whole moves but overall density is not increased.) My times w ould be minimum 90 seconds for RC and 2 minutes for fiber in dektol 1:2; usually I develop 2&1/2 minutes with fiber. This is merely to ensure full development in _fresh_ developer. Any variations have more to do with (1) developer dilution (since dektol can be diluted up to 1:8 and still produce acceptable results) and developer exhaustion. Greater dilution requires a longer time until completion. But even at a standard dilution the more prints you process the longer you will need to develop in a given tray of print developer (i.e, the developer simply loses strength and activity. The Factor Method as described in Adams' book The Print can help you determine the additional length of development time needed as print developer gets used up in order to develop to completion. If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath. Thanks so far -- deejay |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Sam G" wrote: Since it is difficult to control all the variables--temp and developer freshness--I'd recommend starting with looking for the first emergence of any image. Then leave in the developer 5-6 times that # of seconds. As an example, when I use MG IV RC for work prints, I usually see the first emergency of an image at 10 sec, so my dev time is 60 sec. As the developer tends to chill a bit or get a bit worked, the emergence time may drift a bit. When I switch to FB for final prints of the same MG IV, I often find the emergence time is more like 30-40 sec. Consequently, the time in the developer is usually about 3+ minutes. The "drift" your seeing I suspect is the difference between RC and FB papers. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Almost always, because paper is developed to finality. Film is not.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tomas Daniska wrote: OK, asked this in some thread but probably was way too off-topic here. Basically - do you develop your papers always for a fixed time or not? If fixed - what time do you use? I find Ilford's paper documentation a bit confusing on this - in the same datasheet (for MG IV RC) they once say 60s @20C (in the general process overview) and a few paragraphs later they specify 46s @20C (in the detailed time vs. temperature breakout table). If development was meant to be processed until the end of the process, this could be OK (maybe they added some safety in the first barebone overview). But to my understanding, only stop and fix are done this way, development is meant to be performed to some *exact* stage. Can anyone shine a little light on this for me please? Maybe a sentence or two on whether temperature variations have any impact on development except different timing? If this may have some impact on the recommendations - I have a tray processor with tempered and temp-stabilized water bath. Thanks so far -- deejay While it is usually stated that prints are developed to "completion" rather than to a specified contrast in fact to some extent development can be used to compensate for exposure. The contrast is not variable over much of a range if full blacks are to be obtained but some papers allow perhaps a half grade from development time change. Also, some papers, particularly warm tone papers, change image tone a little with variation in development time. Warmer for shorter times, cooler with longer times. At some point extending development will begin to increase fog more rapidly than the image. The time needed to develop full black wtih normal exposure depends somewhat on the emulsion and developer. Warm tone papers generally are developed for longer than neutral or cold toned ones. Active developers, like Dektol, develop more rapidly than less active ones like Selectol Soft. Most modern RC papers contain a layer of developer under the emulsion. This is to permit their use in rapid access "activation" processors but it also affects the development time in standard developers. These papers show an image quickly, perhaps 15 seconds, and develop fully in 60 to 90 seconds. There is little variation possible in development. Papers without incorporated developer show the first image more slowly, typically at around 30 seconds and usually take from 2 to 3 minutes to develop fully. The instructions for the paper will usually give a recommended time. Too short a time will give blotchy blacks or light blacks despite increased exposure, overly long development, more than about 5 minutes, may generate fog or poor blacks despite the long development. My target time for fiber and non-developer-incorporated RC papers is around 2 minutes, for developer incorporated papers around 75 seconds. I've found that judging print appearance during development to be difficult so I generally developed for a fixed time and decide if the print got the right exposure or is the right value of contrast in white light after the print is fixed. Many papers change appearance when dry so that is another complication. "Development to completion" is simply development until the blacks are at or near the maximum density the material is capable of. Film OTOH, is usually developed to a specified value of contrast. The exposure may be adjusted to keep the maximum density at a certain value, but it will most often be well below the maximum value the film is capable of. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote: In article , PGG wrote: I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another 10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote: e needed to develop full black wtih norm If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry down. In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about using development times to achieve a change in image contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious: the working strength of developers is not a constant and not predictable. Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Tom Phillips
wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: In article , PGG wrote: I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another 10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote: e needed to develop full black wtih norm If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry down. In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about using development times to achieve a change in image contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious: the working strength of developers is not a constant and not predictable. Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure. I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the time to remove. :-) -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: In article , PGG wrote: I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another 10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote: e needed to develop full black wtih norm If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry down. In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about using development times to achieve a change in image contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious: the working strength of developers is not a constant and not predictable. Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure. I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the time to remove. :-) Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds post completion won't matter much, especially as you develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower working it is. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: In article , PGG wrote: I typically develop until I see no more change in image and wait another 10 seconds or so. Is this a mistake? On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:58:49 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote: e needed to develop full black wtih norm If your looking at the no change from the stand point of this is what I want, I think it is a mistake. Why you ask? Well,... because of dry down. In my opinion dry down (as with Richard's comment about using development times to achieve a change in image contrast/paper grade), should really be controlled through exposure, while development time (excluding adjustments for emergence time) to achieve that print contrast should be as consistent as possible. The reason seems obvious: the working strength of developers is not a constant and not predictable. Most papers, however, do have fairly consistent dry down factors expressed as a percentage of the exposure. I agree, I was trying to make the point that the time to remove is the time to remove. :-) Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds post completion won't matter much, especially as you develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower working it is. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: Well I'd agree he should just pick a time w/adjusted exposure and then use a factor method. OTOH 10 seconds post completion won't matter much, especially as you develop longer to comensate for emergence time. The weaker or more dilute the print developer, the slower working it is. I always anticipate the last 10 seconds as my timer counts down audibly at 10. So I begin "attempting" :-) to pull the paper out during the last ten. Sometimes I have been known to pull part of the sheet out and massage the stubborn parts of the image for up to a minute to get perfect contrast in a portion of the image,...takes a lot of care and I prefer "good exposures" to that technique by far. Hey maybe "I" should claim to be the world's greatest printer, LOL. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
developing paper in tubes ?? | John Bartley | In The Darkroom | 20 | January 12th 05 10:40 PM |
developing paper in tubes ?? | John Bartley | In The Darkroom | 0 | January 7th 05 12:08 AM |
Odd time stamp behavior -- NTFS v FAT? | Top Spin | Digital Photography | 32 | October 1st 04 08:55 AM |
contact print exposure time | John Bartley | Large Format Photography Equipment | 16 | July 12th 04 10:47 PM |
Develper for Delta-100 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 8 | March 1st 04 04:36 PM |