A source for reliable developer processing times and ratios?

[koraks]

Pere, you make a valid point, even though most users don't post enlargements of their scans so you can really see the grain as it would look in an optical enlargement. Also, grain tends to be emphasized in most scans, which I can attest to; my optical prints tend to be slightly less grainy than digital scans which I can't help but look at at 100% at some point (which is generally a pretty useless habit if I think about it).

To some extent, it's usually also possible to guesstimate what kind of shadow detail you can expect from a certain film/developer/time combination, although unknown methods and degrees of post processing makes things a bit unpredictable.

[JMO]

Hi all,

I usually shoot C-41 and E-6 and process my film using a Jobo.

I have just exposed a few sheets of FP4 5x4, rated at 100, I haven't shot b&w for a very long time.

Before I go ahead and process the film I wondered if there was an index of user's information regarding the real world times and ratios for various developers?

I have some ID-11 and T Max developer and one called Ilfosol 3 or something (I inherited them a couple of years ago and they're all unopened.

I realised today that I probably should have over exposed a bit for the shadows so would it be appropriate in this case to pull the development time to reduce contrast?

Thanks in advance.
Danny.

BE CAREFUL about trying to pull the development if your main concern is that you are underexposed for the shadows. Generally speaking, when you're making an image and you know or plan to pull the highlights down through reduced development time you should consider increasing exposure a bit (say one-third stop for N-1, and another third stop for N-2) to retain needed detail in the shadows. In your situation your reduced development could mean you lose important shadow detail. ...

[LabRat]

BE CAREFUL about trying to pull the development if your main concern is that you are underexposed for the shadows. Generally speaking, when you're making an image and you know or plan to pull the highlights down through reduced development time you should consider increasing exposure a bit (say one-third stop for N-1, and another third stop for N-2) to retain needed detail in the shadows. In your situation your reduced development could mean you lose important shadow detail. ...

This is true, but the elephant in the room is that if you cut development too much, the Dmax starts getting too thin and you get a very flat neg with murky highlight detail... (Modern film's Dmax is lower than the thick emulsion films when the ZS was created, so you have little Dmax to lose...) After about 15% time cut in normal development, the highlights get weak...

(N-) development today is not as needed as the days of old, so the method above is good as you can slightly overexpose most films by 1/2 to 1 stop, and try cutting the development by about 10% and exposing for the shadows (as many films can take quite a bit of highlight overexposure), and with the slight underdevelopment, the Dmax will not block up and continue to separate density areas in the highlights... A slightly dilute normal developer is required... You can tell it would open up the highlights if you held up the density area on a neg near a lightbulb, and the highlights should have a blackish color, but you can still see through the highlights...

But the next step is to do a film calibration test for the exposure + developing time... Easy, but a little time consuming, but you will enjoy better results when you finish... :-)

Steve K

[koraks]

Steve, wouldn't underdevelopment by, say, 20% make the highlights end up somewhere on the middle section of the straight line on the curve? Or is my thinking flawed? Because if that's the case, highlight detail should still be good. However, I can imagine that overexposure and significant underdevelopment combined could create a pronounced shoulder with all the highlights bunched together at the same density level. Food for thought I guess...

[loonatic45414]

I don't think you should look for any one single development time. You are missing the point of large format. Roll film, you have to develop all shots on a roll the same way, but even then, I'll develop differently a roll shot on a cloudy day vs a sunny day vs flash.

I'd start with calibration first, then once you've understood the range your film is capable of, apply unique exposure & development for your film, your lens, your chemicals, your technique in the darkroom. Two people could develop the same film for the same temperature & time and get different results.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

Pere, you make a valid point, even though most users don't post enlargements of their scans so you can really see the grain as it would look in an optical enlargement. Also, grain tends to be emphasized in most scans, which I can attest to; my optical prints tend to be slightly less grainy than digital scans which I can't help but look at at 100% at some point (which is generally a pretty useless habit if I think about it).

To some extent, it's usually also possible to guesstimate what kind of shadow detail you can expect from a certain film/developer/time combination, although unknown methods and degrees of post processing makes things a bit unpredictable.

Of course, one has to interpret what one sees in the sample image, and searching for the right sample. FilmDev.org has the link to the flikr post, so I find that most useful samples are those that are from 35mm film (more enlargement), from a decent scanner, from a poster that knows about scanning, and posted a big image.

For example this recipe http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10830 has this flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52705019@N08/27488147680

There we see some flat areas without much microcontrast that show the grain nature for the different grey levels. Then one has to guess how that will show in LF (or MF)...

IMHO LF overlooks grain, at the end grains have to be king size to be seen in LF. It is an aesthetical resource simply overlooked in LF.

I ask myself if there is the possibility to obtain wattermellon sized grains to have this resource combined with LF look. As I'm now learning DIY emulsions for DP I was considering long rippening to get really large grains, but I guess it won't be easy, and well... first is obtaining a good emulsion...

I got impressed with what Amazonas team did with grain in the Genesis exhibition, both with TXP MF grain and with post 2007 DSLR shots, with digitally introduced grain. IMHO grain is a new thing for LF, something that it could be worked...

[LabRat]

Steve, wouldn't underdevelopment by, say, 20% make the highlights end up somewhere on the middle section of the straight line on the curve? Or is my thinking flawed? Because if that's the case, highlight detail should still be good. However, I can imagine that overexposure and significant underdevelopment combined could create a pronounced shoulder with all the highlights bunched together at the same density level. Food for thought I guess...

Yes, but trying to match neg & printing materials becomes very difficult... You don't have a full range of contrast to work with... (Papers were designed for a full scale for that neg contrast curve)...If you ever tried to print a very underdeveloped neg, it is always very flat, and usually does not respond to different contrast papers well, and has a weird scale... And there is none of that sub-shoulder highlight bloom that gives life to those highlights (think SF portraits)... Tends to look flat and dead...

Steve K

[koraks]

Steve, with drastic underdevelopment, I've experienced this for sure; I've had my mishaps from time to time. I'm not sure about what you said about the sub-shoulder highloghts; I need to think about that some more and maybe experiment a bit. I have developed film well into the shoulder quite a lot lately in my salt and albumen experiments. Based on that experience, I know that one can take development too far

[DannyTreacy]

I scanned the film last night and was very surprised with the amount of information there and relieved that there was plenty of shadow details. My concerns were that I was using a dslr with camranger on a iPad to use as an alternative Polaroid and I was concerned that I did not compensate for bellows extension when changing to 5x4, I actually didn't need to worry as there was plenty of detail and the scanned film looks just like the digital test shots, probably due to the film's latitude abilities.

Anyway upshot is I'm very happy with my first process of b&w in my Jobo followed by wet scanning.

Thanks for all the feedback.