Opinion needed concerning min. amount of dev. for 4 x 5 sheets

[Dmorrison]

To jcoldslabs...
I'm right across the river from you. Vantuckey.
Thanks for the info.
I've been doing some research for a while now, and it seems that if it can be managed, the tank method is suppose to yield better consistency and or results.
I don't mind going to a little extra trouble, if it means better results.
Daniel

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[jcoldslabs]

Good luck. Any method that gives you the results you are after is the right method for you.

Jonathan

[Leigh]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Perhaps you should heed your own sig.

The fact that you want to do something, or that you like a particular idea, doesn't mean it's feasible.

Developers have minimum volume specs, normally presented on the datasheet. For example, Rodinal requires 10ml per 8x10 film, regardless of whether the dilution is 1:25 or 1:100 or whatever.

- Leigh

[jb7]

Published data sheets are a starting point- Jonathan is using 4ml of HC-110 concentrate per 8x10 area, and the datasheet specifies 6ml, yet it works for him- meaning his negs are developing to his required gamma, and probably to completion every time. So maybe a fact is different from a recommendation, or a data point.

I wonder what would be the difference, Jonathan, if you were to develop two identically exposed sheets, one at your normal time, and one at double? And if there's a difference between high key and low key negatives?

Over development has messed up more of my negatives than any other single variable, maybe I should start disbelieving the recommendations...

[Leigh]

Over development has messed up more of my negatives than any other single variable, maybe I should start disbelieving the recommendations...

Maybe you should refine your processing, to match that recommended by the developer manufacturer.

Development is a process. The results will vary based on many factors.

- Leigh

[IanG]

There's a minimum level of developing agent(s) needed to process a film and that means that the greater the dilution the larger the volume of developer needed to process the film effectively. Ilford did a lot of work into this in the 1950's for their PQ fine grain Photo-finishing developer Autophen, unlike D76/ID-11 where you need to discard developer as part of replenishment (to keep the bromide buil up low) Autophen used bleed top up replenishment and is very much more stable.

I have the figures somewhere I'll try and dig them out.

Ian

[ic-racer]

You can expose a sheet of film to a distant light (like across a room) and process that. Check density at corners, edges and a few places in the center to confirm uniformity. Exhaustion affects the middle of the sheet causing less density and mottling.

[BradS]

Developer is much less expensive than trying to go back and re-shoot many images.

This is an important point. I believe it is true for all of the materials we use in photography...and so, I am always a little baffled when people want to go with the cheapest film, developer, fixer, paper, etc....

[Kirk Gittings]

I totally agree. The OP's approach places at risk 50% of the effort required to get a good negative. The question should be more like "I am willing to do anything to help insure the proper development of my hard earned negatives. What can I do to maximize the possibility of successful development?"

Planning on using the bare minimum required will come back to bite you. A slight change in water, thermometer a bit off, somthing will come up and you will experience poor performance or failure.

Better to plan on more than the minimum so you have the safety factor to work with.

Developer is much less expensive than trying to go back and re-shoot many images.

[Tony Evans]

Example. Using Taco method, 4 sheets in 800 ml of 1:100 Rodinal Stand = 2 ml Rodinal/ sheet.