Film developers

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:05:56 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

n Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:53:05 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to establish for myself a set of 35mm films and developers that
I can work with - so that I can then concentrate on my taking technique and
compare results against a consistent baseline.

I am settling on Ilford PanF/FP4/HP5 as a set of films that will cover all
my needs. I'm hoping these aren't going to disappear, or radically increase
in price any time soon.

From reading on this NG and other sources it would seem that using Ilford's
own chemicals probably isn't sensible based on price and performance. But
what to choose ?

The Ilford chemistries are not cheap, but they do have liquid versions
of most chemistries. Mixing up a batch from liquids and using it one
shot sryle, isn't cheap, but it isn't raking chances with your
negatives either, and offers good and consistant results.

Home brew developers are often cheaper, but then you need all of the
equipment, and to play chemist every time you want to soup a roll, you
also need to be very careful mixing the ingredients, or you will lose
consistancy. When I operated my fume room, from 1978 to 1983 I wanted
consistant results on negatives, but I would fool around on prints, it
worked, until I closed the fume room, because I moved, and didn't have
room anymore.

I have to disagree here. Using the teaspoon and film can method to
make D-23 is easy and not prone to mixups. D-23 is so forgiving, that
it's worth the slight effort. Otherwise, I agree with the advice
given here.

Personally, based on your shooting style, pick A film, then pick A
developer, and stick with those, you will learn what that film is
capable of, and what that combination will let you get away with,
often it's quite a bit.

W

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Martin Jangowski
wrote:

Phil Hobgen wrote:

From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach
seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally
good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what
would be a good choice?

The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work
as advertized.

Some do. Diafine is one.

In theory, the first bath saturates the film with
active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients
(usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this
would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath
(because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment
to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath
(it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a
thickness of about 2/1000mm).

It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact
single bath developers with a second alkaline bath.

Not Diafine, or ny I would use. I made my own, so I knew what lead to
what.

If you would drop the
second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least
nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made
sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and
found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23
or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my
measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film
that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX.

Yep, you used the wrong kind of "divided developer" The very point
you made above applies to the formulae referenced in the preceding
paragraph. Both will develop without alkali. Neither can serve as
the A bath of true divided developer.

As I pointed out in my reply to John Douglas' reply to this post,
there must be no development in the A bath to gain the advantages of a
two bath developer. Diafine is pretty close to an ideal. It uses
Phenidone, which keeps it from developing in the A bath. It uses
Carbonate in the B bath, which gives it sufficient energy to fully
develop the shadows.

It has one more characteristic that folks who have complained about
divided developers not working have overlooked, Sulfite in the B bath.
What this does is raise the salt content of the B bath, reducing shock
to the gelatine and preventing uneveness in the results. Adding some
sulfite also has a slight effect on Graininess and allows for the
opening of development centers on the exposed Silver grains.

If the formulation you tried didn't give good results, failure to
attend to the factors cited above is likely the culprit, not divided
development.
..

So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more
hassle with no rewards.


I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits -
but all advice and opinions are welcome!

Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get
his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain
lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical
style I like very much.

He also made up some neat divided developers.



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC), Martin Jangowski
wrote:

Phil Hobgen wrote:

From what I read (in my relative ignorance), a two bath developer approach
seems very attractive. But why then aren't they more popular? Are equally
good or better results achievable in a single bath developer, if so what
would be a good choice?

The main problem with two bath developers is that they plain don't work
as advertized.

Some do. Diafine is one.

In theory, the first bath saturates the film with
active ingredients, while the second bath activates these ingredients
(usually with a more or less strong alkaline solution). If this
would be correct, there would be no developed silver in the first bath
(because nearly all development substances need a alkaline environment
to work) and it would be enough to saturate the film in the first bath
(it takes only a few seconds to saturate a gelatine layer with a
thickness of about 2/1000mm).

It is funny that nearly all recipes for two bath developers are in fact
single bath developers with a second alkaline bath.

Not Diafine, or ny I would use. I made my own, so I knew what lead to
what.

If you would drop the
second bath completely, your results would be identical (or at least
nearly identical) to single bath developers... so why bother? I made
sensitometric tests with the Stoeckler developer and divided-D23 and
found no major differences in density between standard D23 and divided-D23
or Stoeckler. The claimed "compensation" wasn't visible in my
measurements... no way to get a more or less visible shoulder with a film
that goes straight up with conventional developers like TMX.

Yep, you used the wrong kind of "divided developer" The very point
you made above applies to the formulae referenced in the preceding
paragraph. Both will develop without alkali. Neither can serve as
the A bath of true divided developer.

As I pointed out in my reply to John Douglas' reply to this post,
there must be no development in the A bath to gain the advantages of a
two bath developer. Diafine is pretty close to an ideal. It uses
Phenidone, which keeps it from developing in the A bath. It uses
Carbonate in the B bath, which gives it sufficient energy to fully
develop the shadows.

It has one more characteristic that folks who have complained about
divided developers not working have overlooked, Sulfite in the B bath.
What this does is raise the salt content of the B bath, reducing shock
to the gelatine and preventing uneveness in the results. Adding some
sulfite also has a slight effect on Graininess and allows for the
opening of development centers on the exposed Silver grains.

If the formulation you tried didn't give good results, failure to
attend to the factors cited above is likely the culprit, not divided
development.
..

So, after lots of experiments, I abandoned the idea... it just is more
hassle with no rewards.


I'm in the UK, so I'd be particularly interested to hear from fellow Brits -
but all advice and opinions are welcome!

Unfortunately, Barry Thornton isn't with us any more. If you can get
his books ("Elements" and "Edge of Darkness") buy them. They contain
lots of interesting information about this and are written in a anedotical
style I like very much.

He also made up some neat divided developers.



Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:15:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

: IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
: different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
: get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
: lot.

I hope that you will agree that for someone just starting out using multiple
films and developers can be confusing and frustrating. I've long suggested that
when starting with B&W ( especially if they're learning the zone system at the
time) to stick with one film and developer combination.

With time as you say it's good to try different film/developer combinations.

To an extent I concur. However I would say pick 2 films and 2
developers. Therefore my reference to Perceptol and Microphen to go
with Pan-F+ and Delta 400 respectively. There are a lot of images you
cannot make with Pan-F+ and likewise one really appreciates the
qualities of a fine-grained film when contrasting it to something like
D400 in Microphen. Note that most would probably not be shooting
landscape, macros and similar subjects with a 400 speed film.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:29 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
lot.

That's not up to your usual wit. I suggest a vacation, warm beer.

In Florida ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

"John" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:29 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

That's not up to your usual wit. I suggest a vacation, warm beer.

In Florida ?

Oh yeah, in Florida! (Tip of the hat to our Flouridians who may have
suffered. Hope all is well or getting better!)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:35:28 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:09 -0500, wrote:

Somebody else mentioned it, but I'll echo the words again.

Start off with one film and one developer.

IMO, suggesting that someone use one film is not too much
different than telling them to use only one leg. Eventually they'll
get really good at hopping but in the meantime they're going to miss a
lot.


For someone getting started, it's much better to start with a film and
a developer, then when they know what that film is capable of, and
what it will let them get away with. Then try a different film or
develoier, because that film or developer lets them expand their
horizons.

The original film and developer give them a baseline to compare
results to, the best way to expand is to add another film in the same
family, for example if your using FP4 then try HP5 or PanF same
developer. When you change chemistries, keep notes, I used to print a
contact sheet and then write the film type, developer, EI, and other
information on the back of the contact sheet. Funny, but I went
through that yesterday, and even though the information is from 1977 -
1983, it's still valid, I actually shot a lot of PanF, in those
days....... At least once, I pulled it to 25ASA, results were
fantastic, painful to shoot, but great results.

W

"Phil Hobgen" and many others wrote ...
snip

Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong
opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their
photography, and that they have taken time to form their own opinions, often
with reference to all sorts of input.

I guess that what I've realised, is that I really need to start with a
simple and as controlled a solution as I can. So I am thinking that I will
go with Pan F+/Perceptol and Delta 400/Microphen, as recommended by John
Douglass (who has a great picture of his son on his homepage).

Later on (maybe not in the too distant future) I am sure I will experiment
with other combinations, and eventually find my own 'favorites' that suit my
purposes. I'm sure I'll try two-bath/divided/split/ development. Perhaps
when I understand the difference :-) The reason they seemed attractive to
me, is that I'll be scanning negatives as I can't do wet printing for the
moment. I don't want to be doing lots of photoshop work (I spend all day
staring at a PC), so the thought of consistent negatives is tempting.
However 'mixing my own', is probably one more step than I should introduce
at this stage.

Cheers


-------------------------------------------

Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash

"Phil Hobgen" and many others wrote ...
snip

Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong
opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their
photography, and that they have taken time to form their own opinions, often
with reference to all sorts of input.

I guess that what I've realised, is that I really need to start with a
simple and as controlled a solution as I can. So I am thinking that I will
go with Pan F+/Perceptol and Delta 400/Microphen, as recommended by John
Douglass (who has a great picture of his son on his homepage).

Later on (maybe not in the too distant future) I am sure I will experiment
with other combinations, and eventually find my own 'favorites' that suit my
purposes. I'm sure I'll try two-bath/divided/split/ development. Perhaps
when I understand the difference :-) The reason they seemed attractive to
me, is that I'll be scanning negatives as I can't do wet printing for the
moment. I don't want to be doing lots of photoshop work (I spend all day
staring at a PC), so the thought of consistent negatives is tempting.
However 'mixing my own', is probably one more step than I should introduce
at this stage.

Cheers


-------------------------------------------

Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash

"Phil Hobgen" wrote

Thanks very much for the advice. The NG is certainly lively! But the strong
opinions indicate to me that most posters care very deeply about their
photography

Noo, noo, noo.

When knowledge is lacking strong emotion rushes in to fill the vacuum.

If a person really knows his subject, someone else with
a different opinion will elicit no more than a shrug.

"One must never ever doubt
What nobody is sure about."

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/