Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Developer Volume Test - Does it make any sense? |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Developer Volume Test - Does it make any sense?
I’ve been reading chapter 4 ’Film Development’ of Steve Anchell’s “The Darkroom Cookbook” 3rd edition and more specifically the sub-section on developer volume on pages 40-41 (see quick photos below).
Based on the things he mentions, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to carry out a test. I aim to keep as many of the variables as constant as possible. The development times will be taken from the kodak publication on TMax F4016. FILM Kodak TMax 100 roll film exposed at 100ASA* (*EXCEPT 1:15 DILUTION AT 50ASA) AGITATION Intermittent by hand “Continuously for the first 60 seconds then 10 seconds every minute thereafter.” PREWASH None DEV Kodak TMax RS developer at 24℃ on spirals in Patterson 4 (3x120 reel) size tank STOP Ilford Ifostop 1+19 30sec FIX Ilford Rapid Fix 1+4 5mins WASH 15mins I will be shooting 7 rolls all of exactly the same subject and directly after one another on a tripod and probably using my Yashica mat 124G. Most importantly, the processing of the film rolls will be done separately and at the following developer dilution volumes; 1+4 Dil. 250+1000=1250ml 200+800 =1000ml 150+600 = 750ml 100+400 = 500ml 1+7 Dil. 65+455 = 520ml 1+9 Dil. 50+450 = 500ml 1+15 Dil. 35+525 = 560ml The basic idea is to try and compare the quality of the negatives purely based on the quantity of undiluted volume of developer per 80sq inches of film surface area. Can anyone help me with any thoughts, ideas or suggestions that I may have forgotten? Does carrying out this test make any sense at all? Many thanks in advance and sorry for giving you all such a long read on Christmas day!
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 Last edited by MartyNL; 24th December 2016 at 11:33 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I'd he fascinated to see your results. I suspect the results vary with different developers too. I recently developed two rolls of Fuji Acros 100 (120) on a single spool in 500ml of developer diluted to 1:50. The results look indistinguishable from a previous film I did singly. I haven't printed from them yet but on inspection the look to have a full range of tones including detail in the shadow (zone 2ish) areas. I've never tried 2 on a reel in D76/ID11 which I normally use at 1:1.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Once I read Marty's attachments, it "rang bells in my head" as they say. I am fairly sure that this section of the Anchell book has been discussed elsewhere, namely APUG.
It seems to me that "more" as in more developer isn't necessarily better and secondly, it implies that Jobo and Durst both made their 35mm tanks too small as each only holds 250mls and in most cases of rotary processing which Mr Anchell mentions the 140mls which Jobo recommend is courting disaster. Incidentally He appears to sees no problem to a Jobo motor with quite large amounts of liquid that his assertion leads to. He may or may not be right about this. I have no knowledge as I have only done C41 with rotary processing and stuck to the Jobo recommendations. C41 of course could be quite different. I accept that there might be a minimum amount of stock solution needed below which you risk problems but does that minimum imply that more is better? Does Mr Anchell give any source for his assertion such as Kodak? I have just re-read Fred Picker's book "Zone VI Worskshop" and while it contains much that is useful and no doubt well founded, I have to say that he strongly suggests that there is almost a "magic bullet" effect in the use of Tri-X and Kodak HC110 without producing any real evidence other than his belief that this is so. Indeed reading the book you would be forgiven for thinking that in the photographic world of the time(mid 1970s) there was only Kodak I simply use Fred Picker as an example of belief without rigorous investigation I look forward to seeing your findings Marty Mike |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Since there was some sun today, I shot 8 rolls of film. Not of anything special and I plan to start processing this week. The film all has the batch numbers with problems with the backing paper so it's not good for much else. Hopefully I'll have something to show before the New Year.
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 Last edited by MartyNL; 26th December 2016 at 03:45 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I wrote about this on my blog after a problem developing a few films together in D76. Kodak acknowledges that D76 needs a minimum volume at 1+1 and you might not always achieve that, with under development a real risk. That's what happened to me. Rather than go over it again, it would be quicker to read the post:
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/201...-info.html?m=1 www.theonlinedarkroom.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Aside from exhaustion with too small a volume of D76/ID-11 the bromide/iodide build up inhibits the Metol. Autophen used Phenidone which can tolerate very much higher levels of Bromide/Iodide before it's inhibited (in replenished use). Tmax RS uses a Phenidone derivative so Bromide build up is not going to be a problem, having sufficient excess developing agents is the limiting factor as dilution increases. Ian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I am just getting back in to film dev In the past it was D76/ID 11 as on the leaflet but this time its a lot more experimental
So I will be very interested in your results Marty But let me throw out an (unsupported )idea A film needs a minimum amount of developer The developer is diluted to change the density Time is then the governor in the developer working on the film (do tell me if this is a hijack and I will start a new thread ) Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I've put the scans of the negatives into an album here purely as a reference to this post.
Please bear in mind that the Kodak Tmax film rolls are from the batches with the dodgy backing paper! As a conclusion to my film developer combo, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that by using a minimum of 250ml of undiluted developer per 80sq inches of film, a noticeable improvement to negative quality will be seen. To the contrary, it is remarkable how similar the negatives appear across the board. So much so in fact, that it begs the question, how much of a margin do the manufacturers actually build into their products?
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 Last edited by MartyNL; 31st December 2016 at 10:43 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
For Rodinal 10 ml is recommended but many use 3 ml ... and even lower
It also depends If you want to use as a compensating developer or not So many variables... Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Early copy of BJP volume 39 archive.org useful resource | GoodOldNorm | Photography in general | 4 | 3rd July 2015 01:46 PM |
Anyone want to make some big prints? | Matt5791 | Darkroom | 22 | 12th May 2012 07:35 PM |
Orbital in another sense? | Michael | Darkroom | 18 | 10th April 2012 04:29 PM |
Sense of Presence | cliveh | Art and aesthetics | 11 | 24th February 2011 08:28 AM |
WS-print developer-volume | Trevor Crone | Monochrome printing techniques | 37 | 29th November 2008 05:08 PM |