Developing time and Dilutions

[Robpunk]

Afternoon folks, could any of you help explain what the advantages/disadvantage's of weaker dilutions - longer developing times against stronger solutions - shorter developing times. How does these affect contrast and sharpness?

[Lostlabours]

In theory dilution doesn't affect contrast as long as you increse the development time to compensate but in practice localised developer exhaustion comes into play. This can increase sharpness.

Grain is often less fine as a developer is more dilute as there's less solvency effects form the sulphite.this holds for developer with high levels of Sulphite.

An optimum dilution with ID-11/D76, Microphen, and Xtol is 1+2. Replenishment is better but this dilution gives good gradation (tonal range), excellent sharpness, and reasonably fine grain)

Ian

[skellum]

Hi Rob.
This is potentially quite a long story. Can I ask, are you new to processing film?
Using a very dilute developer for longer can be a useful economy if your budget is tight. I kow of someone who develops in VERY dilute Rodinal overnight. Pennies per film, but it can produce negatives a little low in contrast. That may actually be a good thing in harsh contrasty lighting.
On the other hand, in soft, low contrast lighting it could produce lifeless negatives.
A more concentrated developer for a shorter time might cost a tiny bit more, but it gives me negatives which suits MY taste. You're going to get about a million opinions- all tempered by personal taste.
I've settled on one developer, PMK Pyro.
When using HP5 I get negatives I like at 12 minutes.
When using PanF I get negs I like at 7.5 mins. That's as short a time as I'd ever use- otherwise the time it takes to pour in and dump the dev starts to become a significant variable in total time. Equally, short times mean there's less opportunity for the temperature to drift off.
Apart from getting negs I like, it allows me to go from loading the tank to hanging the film in about 40 mins. Job done!
So, what film do you like, what dev are you using, and what are you looking to achieve (soft and well graded, or punchy and dramatic)??

[Alan Clark]

Regarding ID11, the normal dilution, which people have used for many years, is 1+1. But in their literature Ilford state that their sharpest powder developer is ID11 at a dilution of 1+3 (i.e. three parts water). this more dilute solution is also known to give more grain. But when the more dilute solution is described as giving "more sharpness but more grain" this sounds like the increases are in equal measure. But when I tried it I didn't find this to be the case. My experience was that you get a noticable increase in sharpness and a barely-noticable increase in grain. On comparative 10x8 inch prints from 35mm HP5 negatives I could easily see the extra sharpness at a normal viewing distance but I really had to scrutinise the print to see the extra grain. Another advantage of the 1+3 dilution is its control over contrast. Very useful if you took your pictures on a sunny day.
The downside is the long developing time. Getting on for 20 minutes for HP5, depending on your enlarger.
I used HP5 in ID11 (or D76) at 1+3 for a long time and got excellent results, and negatives that were very easy to print.
Then out of curiosity I tried the 1+2 dilution. This gave identical grain and sharpness to the 1+3 dilution. So, as Ian says, it seems to be the optimum dilution. Because of the shorter development times the 1+2 is now my standard dilution and has been for some time.
But don't take my word for any of this. Expose a film. Cut it into three, and try different dilutions, and see what happens.
There is also tonality to consider. In a sense this is the most important factor. if your print is on a wall and you are too far away to see if it is grainy, or not sharp, the tonality will still be plain to see. This is one reason why there is no "correct" method. After experimenting, you find out what you like best, and what is most important for your own taste.

Alan

[Mike O'Pray]

Given that the negs, once processed, are permanent, cannot be altered and from which many prints may be made then it seems to me that the extra time that may be needed to process the negs which produce the most easily made prints is time well spent.

Mike

[Richard Gould]

I settled a long time ago on Rodinal, I tried it at the 1/25 dilution, but I always prefered the 1/50 dilution, and for what is now my Main film, Fomapan 400. I find that 17 to 18 minutes at 20 gives me negatives I like, but that is a lot longer than the suggested time, which is around 11 minutes, but it works for me, others may like a shorter time, it is personal preferance, you really need to use the suggested times as a starting point and experiment to find your own time with the fikms you use
Richard

[Alan Clark]

Richard, out of interest what difference did you see in the prints between the 1+25 and the 1+50 solutions?

Alan

[Miha]

Alan, Ian, what can you say re tonality when comparing prints from ID11 at 1+3 vs stock or 1+1? I have used a plethora of developers over the years and when comparing prints (mostly HP5+) it's clear to me that those developed in (super)fine grain developers like Perceptol and Ultrafin Plus really stand out. I'm not saying I don't like PanF+ in Rodinal, but generally prefer the smooth tonality of fine-grain developers (the only exception to this might be the Ilfotec DDX, which although not a fine grain developer still gives tonality that I like - again with HP5+).

[Alan Clark]

Miha, this isn't an easy question to answer, which is why I raised the question of tonality in my first post, but ducked out of answering it! I have the feeling that D76 used as a stock solution gives a more impressively distinct tonality than the 1+2 or 1+3 dilution. I have only used it undiluted a couple of times, and despite this being to push HP5 from 400 to 1600, the prints had a very distinctive look to them. But the grain, though fine, was slightly mushy, and I prefer the crisp grain and extra sharpness you get with the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions. That said, I think the tonality of HP5 in D76 1+2 is very nice indeed. TriX is also very striking in D76 1+2 and is my current favourite combination.
But now you have posed the question I may try it in neat stock solution.
Some of the most exquisite print tonality I have seen was in the family portraits made by Irving Penn - the Worlds in a Small Room series. These photographs were taken in a portable tent studio with a window facing North. He used natural light, a Rollieflex, and TriX developed in D76. Ian will know more about this but I would think that given the era in which these were done the D76 would have been replenished stock solution.

Alan

[Alan Clark]

Miha, I forgot to add that I have never used Perceptol neat or at 1+1, so I can't comment there. I have used it at 1+2 and 1+3 and liked it a lot at these dilutions.
One of my favourite photographers, James Ravilious, used it at 1+2 with HP5 and TriX. He liked shooting into the light, so the dilution no doubt help control contrast, among other things.
As always, I suppose it is a balancing act aand there is always going to be a trade-off somewhere.

Alan